I enjoy Blue Virginia's rants about "both sides" coverage at the Washington Post and other media.
They bemoan presenting both sides of an issue, since they disagree with the other side.
Then comes the Rolling Stone fiasco.
What's the angle from Blue Virginia?
Both sides mess up.
The Washington Post missed on Iraq in 2003, so they can't talk about Rolling Stone today.
Who cares what the Post did a decade ago?
They got this right - and found Rolling Stone wrong.