Thursday, August 12, 2004


From the Post:

"We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed.

(via Lunaville)


Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

No, they weren't lonely ones. The were not represented in your paper, or anywhere else in the media, but right before the war polls showed that a majority opposed this war. While a case could be made that a majority supported a war, they supported giving the inspectors more time and then going in with the UN if necessary.

Apparently, they listen to the freepi:

Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists."

What a goddamn joke:

Downie said that even in retrospect, the story looks like "a close call." He said the inability of dissenters "to speak up with their names" was a factor in some of his news judgments.

Bush administration officials are always, without any good justification, allowed to speak "anonymously" to push the latest administration line. It is precisely dissenters who are the ones who should be given that protection. Jeebus, has the world turned upside down?

Oh, and this was a good one to spike:

In October 2002, Ricks, a former national security editor for the Wall Street Journal who has been covering such issues for 15 years, turned in a piece that he titled "Doubts." It said that senior Pentagon officials were resigned to an invasion but were reluctant and worried that the risks were being underestimated. Most of those quoted by name in the Ricks article were retired military officials or outside experts. The story was killed by Matthew Vita, then the national security editor and now a deputy assistant managing editor.

We had a neverending parade of "retire military officials" telling us what a good idea this was.

This is rich:

"Do I feel we owe our readers an apology? I don't think so."

No, you owe these people, and their families, an apology.

You've got to be kidding:
In the days before the war, Priest and DeYoung turned in a piece that said CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration" about evidence tying Iraq to attempted uranium purchases for nuclear weapons. The story was held until March 22, three days after the war began. Editors blamed a flood of copy about the impending invasion.

That was less important than stories with words like "shock and awe" in them?

The final insult:

"People who were opposed to the war from the beginning and have been critical of the media's coverage in the period before the war have this belief that somehow the media should have crusaded against the war," Downie said. "They have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been a war."

No, we just didn't want you to crusade for it. Bastards.