It may not be interesting,

but it pegs the “hilarious irony” meter very nicely!

Do we really need to know what “fake, but accurate” Dan Rather thinks anymore?!

Yeah, about the only thing less interesting would be if someone blogged about it.

Maybe next these “journolists” will be posting you tube videos of kitties.
That would certainly be more interesting and intelligent than they are.

I thought Dan Rather had died.

“A CNN political coverage manager tweeting about Dan Rather writing at CNN.com about journalistic standards.”

“Rather” and “Standards” suggest an oxymoron. It would seem more appropriate to link “Rather” with “total absence of journalistic standards.”

Things equally as intriguing as a Dan Rather OP-ED:

1.) FRESH PAINT: Join us to watch it dry.
2.) The wind is changing directions… any minute… wait… any minute now…
3.) “Look, a new parsley desert recipe from Michelle Obama.”
4.) “Okay, kid. Once more, tell me why Ron Paul should be president.”
5.) “Yes, let’s hear your grandkid recite his multiplication tables!”
6.) “Goody! C-SPAN has the Pelosi tribute on right now!”
7.) “I have a new, 20,000 piece jigsaw puzzle of Harry Reid’s face.”

Come on! You’re downvoting me for that? The post is mocking the following:

A CNN political coverage manager tweeting about Dan Rather writing at CNN.com about journalistic standards.

Does it become more or less interesting if it is changed to:

An Associate Clinical Professor blogged about a CNN political coverage manager tweeting about Dan Rather writing at CNN.com about journalistic standards.

Lighten up.

If a person has “standards” (plural) they don’t have any.

No sense of irony at all, these people. Yet, they are our intellectual betters, these farteratti.

Please, Dan. I’d Rather not.

Who?

That tweet was fake but accurate.