Edward Klein, last seen hitting #2 on the New York Times bestseller list with a book about Hillary Clinton in which he alleged, among other things, that Chelsea was conceived when Bill raped his wife, has a new non-bestselling book about Katie Couric. He turns today to the Christian-right site One News Now to plug it. Problem is, what he says is somewhat confusing:
Author cites Couric's liberalism as major factor in low ratings
The New York Times best-selling author of an explosive new expose on CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says there's no question that her liberalism has hurt her ratings on the once dominant news program....
"Katie's ... has been out of touch with the mainstream of the American public because of her left-wing views -- and I think that does contribute to the fact that she has not been more successful," the author states.
Klein says executives at CBS News should have understood the problem after dealing with Dan Rather's left-wing bias for so many years. He contends that "lots of people had been complaining for years about his transparent liberalism and the fact that he boosted the Democratic Party and criticized and tried to tear down the Republican Party." In that light, Klein describes Couric as "simply one substitution of a transparent liberal for another."...
But wait -- how come her ratings are much lower than Dan Rather's? Isn't he the biggest liberal ever? Surely she can't be more liberal than he is -- he's Dan Rather!
Besides, aren't all the networks liberal? Isn't every single person in the mainstream media a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool, sandal-wearing, America-hating liberal? Certainly that's true at the three major networks -- every right-winger says so. So if liberalism is so bad for ratings, and all the people at all three networks are liberal, why is Katie Couric in third place?
Shouldn't they all be in third place?
I'm so confused....