As you can imagine, there's been a lot of coverage over the DNC convention this week. I touched on it a bit a few days ago while I was criticizing Fox for being somewhat partisan in their coverage of the events. But they're not the only ones. The Blaze, Glenn Beck's news site, has posted a story entitled "5 of the biggest lies told on the first day of the DNC." Sounds like it should be a pretty harsh, take down type of piece, right?
Well, not so much. See, it turns out the folks at The Blaze took a bunch of material from Fact Check to write this piece, and Fact Check really couldn't find any statements from the first day of the DNC that qualified as outright "lies." Sure, there was some truth-stretching. There was some embellishment. But nothing that was said was without a basis in fact at some level.
Rather than modify the theme of their article and the headline itself, The Blaze simply posted the information, then shrugged off the fact that they themselves were lying about the information by asserting that it didn't matter if the Fact Checkers found lies or not because these were Dems, and they lie as easily as they breathe, apparently.
As usual, I recommend reading the viewer comments. While some condemn The Blaze for their ridiculous attempt to make mountains of lies out of molehills, some seem to be completely ignorant of what the article actually said. Still others point out the ironic fact that, on many occasions, The Blaze has criticized Fact Check and other oversight groups for being partisan, liberally biased, and not accurate in any way. They've actually spent a good amount of time bashing fact check sites and groups for ignoring what they consider huge lies, or downplaying certain quotes from politicians, while others are given a more harsh rating.
And here's the other point to make: when the RNC was going on, The Blaze ran an article where they analyzed claims about Paul Ryan and his budget plans, etc. While the article was clearly trying to defend Ryan by painting the offered quotes as lies and misrepresentations of his record, they couldn't ignore that, once again, the information they presented had a basis in fact. The Democrats were not making stuff up, and The Blaze ended up publishing an article that was another lukewarm attempt to discredit liberals.
So The Blaze can't show the Democrats lied, and can't show that Republican statements were unfairly analyzed, yet they continued to publish articles that claim exactly that. Maybe they should just give up...