Matt Stearns/McClatchy smears Ron Paul, joins list of NAFTA Superhighway deniers

Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers "Out of bounds! Paul pushes NAFTA highway myth" (link):

In an anti-NAFTA radio ad that's airing in Iowa, Paul denounces "powerful elites" who "want to completely erase our borders with Canada and Mexico. These special interests threaten us with a total loss of sovereignty. The NAFTA superhighway, a part of this scheme, has threatened to force thousands off their land. Some believe the highway's path will go right through Iowa. As your president, I will stop all efforts to take away America's freedom. I have always opposed and will continue to fight against NAFTA and the North American Union."

He says that lowers Paul's credibility because:

There is no NAFTA superhighway being built or in the planning stages, and no sovereignty-busting North American Union, according to federal, state and local officials. They call it an Internet urban myth spread by nativist commentators who combine legitimate efforts to improve the nation's transportation infrastructure with their rabble-rousing conspiracies.

Gosh knows we can always believe what officials tell us; whether Stearns actually buys this or is just trying to sell it, it's clear that he has no interest in doing any sort of due diligence and reporting all sides of the issue.

There have been a spate of North American Union/NAFTA Superhighway "debunking" articles printed lately, including from the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and Newsweek (see the last link). And, all of them attempt to portray those who bring up these issues as tinfoil hatters rather than acting as skeptical investigators. And, in all cases they're received pushback from commenters. Note also a similar smear attempt by CNN during the last GOP debate.

Why do none of those reports even remotely approach anything similar to real investigative journalism? Why do they all have the same kneejerk tone, and rely on the word of government officials? And, why do they continue to print articles like this even after receiving a large amount of pushback?

NAU · Sun, 12/09/2007 - 11:15 · · Importance: 1