Monday, September 12, 2005

WaPo Follies

Armando writes:

he point is simple --- this was horrendously bad journalism. The fact that Blanco DID declare a state of emergency was central to the story. The fact she DID declare a state of emergency completely undermined the story. The fact is that the Washington Post's journalism on this story is every bit as bad or worse than the journalism much berated by you Howie in Rathergate.

Though the stakes were not as high politically as is in Rathergate -- the journalism was worse. At the least, CBS had documents they were looking at, though they were not properly verified, IMO. At the least, CBS gave the White House a chance to respond.

Here, the Washington Post had nothing but the word of a BushCo official - the false word. And they ran with the story anyway. And they did not give Blanco a chance to respond. If Dan Rather had to go, who has to go at the Washington Post?

One last thing - you want to do a followup story on this WaPo? I got one for you -- how is it that a high BushCo official did NOT know that Blanco had declared a state of emergency. Is that not scandalous in and of itself? Do you think THAT merits a story? Or is it too embarrassing for you now?

The joys of carte blanche anonymous sourcing. We're protected from knowing about the dishonesty and ignorance of our public officials. oh joy!