The Rottweilers are snarling at Campaign Carl. Once again their bark is far worse than their bite.

The newshounds have a monomaniacal obsession with Carl Cameron. They are determined to "prove" that he is a rabid, partisan reporter, and their latest salvo finds them up to all their old tricks:

He [Shepard Smith] questions Kerry campaign reporter Carl Cameron as to how and why this "snub" [Hillary at the convention] happened. Carl Cameron begins his reply "The Democrats would have us believe this is all about nothing...." Comment: His "they/us" attitude is totally unacceptable in the world of real journalism. He has unwittingly identified himself as the opposition and not an objective observer/reporter.

First off, Cameron doesn't "begin his reply" as stated above. That sentence actually comes in the middle of a lengthy run-down of the ins and outs of Hillary's convention role. (Accuracy is not a concern of the hounds.) And does he "identify himself as the opposition" in the use of the little word "we"? Once again, the dogs get it wrong. Let's go to the videotape and continue with what Cameron said just seconds later:

"The focus here is supposed to be on Kerry and Edwards, and they concluded, rightfully, that any discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a distraction. How do we know they're right? What we're talking about right now."

It doesn't take Noah Webster to figure out that the "we/us" Cameron references is the media. For some inexplicable reason, the canine bloggers omit this part of his comments.

But the dogged guardians of media accuracy (!) aren't ready to give up just yet. Since there was nothing unfair or slanted in the report, they then play the wife card:

...his wife worked on GW Bush's 2000 campaign while he glowingly covered Bush on the trail, it is evident that Carl Cameron is a Republican partisan and should be removed from coverage of the 2004 elections.

Note how the accusation has been subtly notched-up (in Outfoxed she was accused of campaigning for Bush, now she is said to have been an employee of the campaign--gee, you'd think something like this would be easy to prove by checking Campaign Finance Reports). Note also how Cameron's 2000 coverage is called "glowing", with not a single example provided. (Perhaps they could have used his scoop about Bush's drunk driving...oh wait, bad example.)

On the Bizarro planet where the newshounds live, wives only do what their husbands want. If Cameron's wife is supporting George Bush, it's not because she is an independent person with a career of her own, it's because husbands tell their wives what to do. So goes hound logic: if Pauline Cameron was campaigning for George Bush, that means she was following orders from Carl, and Carl is therefore a "Republican partisan".

We wonder what that makes James Carville.