September 27, 2007

Rocky Mountain High Fabulist?

Remember that addled Colorado State University student editor who responded to a Florida student getting tasered by police at a John Kerry event with a four-word editorial ending in "F--k Bush"?

Somehow his story is starting to sound strangely familiar:

Early on, McSwane did a piece about cocaine dealing in Fort Collins, based on anonymous sources, Lowrey said. Lowrey said he decided to kill the article when McSwane declined to reveal the sources to him.

Also troubling to other students was McSwane's story of growing up in a foster home.

"So he has this heartbreaking story," Lowrey said. But students learned that the foster mother in the home was Hansen, McSwane's natural mother.

"I raised him, and yes, I'm a foster mother," Hansen said. "He was never, ever a foster child."

McSwane's editor, Brandon Lowrey, attempted to fact-check McSwane's cocaine story, and refused to run it when McSwane didn't provide evidence to support the claims.

Hello? I must be going...
What a shocking concept.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 27, 2007 12:38 PM


I rather prefer this:

I can has Cheezburger

Posted by: memomachine at September 27, 2007 03:24 PM

Facts are for weaklings who can't handle lies.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 27, 2007 05:11 PM

It's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

Posted by: C-C-G at September 27, 2007 06:43 PM

McSwane will make a fine professional journalist.

Posted by: Dusty at September 27, 2007 09:02 PM

The modern academy believes there are no such things as "facts," only opinions based on power relationships. Thus, African-Americans overwhelmingly believed in the innocence of O.J. while whites knew he was guilty and should fry. This new paradigm being so, why not manufacture such "truth" as one wants? If a reader doesn't believe it, he's entitled to his opinion. Seamless, when you think about it.

Posted by: Banjo at September 28, 2007 06:44 AM

He sounds like a perfect journalist for the MSM.

Posted by: Mekan at September 28, 2007 07:45 AM

Except for one little problem, Banjo... the concept of relative truth, which is what you were explaining, is not itself considered to be a relative truth.

Therefore, statements such as "there is no absolute truth" fall flat on their face, because that is an absolute statement.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 28, 2007 09:07 AM

So let's make it all up. You pick your "facts" and I'll pick mine. My jury will acquit, yours will convict. What difference does it make?

Posted by: Banjo at September 28, 2007 01:12 PM

So let's make it up. You pick your "facts" and I'll pick mine. My jury will acquit, yours convict. If the truth is fungible, who cares?

Posted by: Banjo at September 28, 2007 01:15 PM

Banjo, try telling your bank that in your version of truth, 2+2=5 and see how far ya get.

That's why it matters.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 28, 2007 07:17 PM

Interesting how those railing against liberties lost are having no problems getting their voices heard...

The intellectual disconnect rampant in our world today is stunning.

Posted by: bains at September 29, 2007 12:31 AM

Indeed, Bains, indeed.

I once ran across someone on another blog who claimed that those that disagreed with President Bush somehow mysteriously disappeared. I asked why he wasn't afraid of the same fate.

He never replied, so maybe he did have a point. -lol-

Posted by: C-C-G at September 29, 2007 09:26 AM