But don't you think their main job should be to report
the news? I think this editorial from the Wall Street
Journal is saying that the desire on the part of the
media to cover "another Vietnam" and "another
Watergate" adversely affected their reporting.
Just as the administration is powerful, the media
(newspapers, TV networks) is powerful. The media is
capable of abusing that power, and a little honest
scrutiny/criticism of them is a healthy thing.
--- Gregory <greggolopry@...
> Let me make this perfectly clear
> The reason the press cannot pretend all is right in
> the halls of
> power is that Vietnam and Watergate were such
> powerful and
> destructive stories that it made the role of a more
> determined and
> proactive press vital to our national well being.
> In the aftermath
> of those two bombshells of events our nation
> changed. Our politics
> changed. Our society changed.
> I would argue that Bush and Nixon, Iraq and Vietnam
> are linked in
> that based on how we went to war in Iraq it will be
> decades before we
> can ever really trust a President to send our most
> valued treasure in
> harms way. So the aftermath of Bush will produce
> results akin to the
> aftermath of RN leaving the White House. In that
> sense it is a
> I know it comfortable to beat up on the press. But
> I find it funny
> you use as your source for this post a PRESS report
> While the Bush White House would have us believe we
> should eat up
> their `fake news' in the guise of real news I think
> I will stick with
> the NYT and the Washington Post.
> The slimy elements in the White House has
> aggressively used the
> prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major
> corporations have
> long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything
> from headache
> remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20
> federal agencies,
> including the Defense Department and the Census
> Bureau, have made and
> distributed hundreds of television news segments in
> the past four
> years. Many were subsequently broadcast on local
> stations across the
> country without any acknowledgement of the
> government's role in their
> production. Can you image the foaming
> right-wingers if a liberal
> Democratic president had done that!
> Last year Washington was roiled by revelations that
> a handful of
> columnists wrote in support of administration
> policies without
> disclosing they had accepted payments from the
> government. But the
> administration's efforts to generate positive news
> coverage have been
> considerably more pervasive than previously known.
> At the same time,
> records and interviews suggest widespread complicity
> or negligence by
> television stations, given industry ethics standards
> that discourage
> the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any
> outside group
> without revealing the source.
> Yeah, give me the bad ole liberal press any day!!!
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard
> <richwkelly@...> wrote:
> > There's been some good natured gloating over at
> the Wall
> > Street Journal about special prosector Patrick
> > decision not to seek an indictment of Karl Rove,
> and, of
> > course the fall of al-Zarqawi.
> > Friday's issue had a good editorial by Michael
> Barone called
> > "Vietnam, Watergate, and Rove."
> > He says...
> > The leftward blogosphere had Mr Rove pegged for
> the role of Bob
> > Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Theories were spun
> about plea
> > bargains that would implicate Vice President Dick
> > Talk of impeachment was in the air. But it turns
> out that
> > history doesn't repeat itself. George W. Bush,
> whether you
> > like it or not, is not a second Richard Nixon.
> > Later in the article...
> > America's newsrooms are populated largely by
> liberals who regard
> > the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great
> achievements of their
> > profession. The peak of their ambition is to
> achieve the fame and
> > wealth of great reporters like David Halbertstam
> and Bob Woodward...
> > Historians may regard it as a curious thing that
> the left and the
> > press have been so determined to fit current
> events into templates
> > based on events that occured 30 or 40 years ago...
> > And this comment:
> > Journalists in the 1940's, 1950's and early 1960's
> tended to
> > they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in
> their leaders and
> > their government. Journalists since Vietnam and
> Watergate have
> > tended to believe that they have a duty to
> undermine such faith,
> > especially when the wrong party is in office.
> > The visible slavering over the prospect of a Rove
> indictment is
> > another item in the list of reasons why the
> credibility of
> > the "mainstream media" has been plunging. (Vietnam
> and Watergate)
> > ushered in an era when the political opposition
> and much of the
> > press have sought not just to defeat
> administrations but to
> > delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl Rove by the
> left and the
> > press has been just the latest episode in the
> > criminalization of political differences. Is there
> any hope that it
> > might turn out to be the last?
> > (I'd urge you to read the whole editorial. Richard
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around