Anybody wonder why the press failed to cover all those anti-war rallies a year ago? Why it expressed so little skepticism about the Iraq invasion? Ask no more; David Ignatius of the WaPo explains all.
In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own.
That's it. No important political figure raised strong objections, so they didn't think it was their place to do so.
What bleeping "journalistic rules?" Holy dear mother of Gutenberg, you lazy bastards, there were several members of the upper military classes (General Zinni, for one; remember him?) saying the idea was terrible! There were a million people marching in the streets! But no, their misgivings apparently weren't worth the shoe leather they expended.
Folks, if we're counting on the press corps for honest sensible investigative reporting on anything other than scandal, we're on our own.
Link lifted from Brad DeLong, who got it from The Daily Howler.
Posted by Linkmeister at April 27, 2004 09:29 PMAnd they don't even bother with scandal. Hell, Bush's stealing from Peter to pay Paul ($700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq) should be enough to start the media slavering at the thought of impeachment.
But do they? Not from where I sit.
Posted by: Scott at April 28, 2004 03:53 AMand it's scary.
Posted by: shelley at April 28, 2004 04:41 AMSo, if what I'm hearing/reading is correct, the 4th Estate can create a story out of nothing and/or allow a story to be so created, but can't allow themselves to start a debate on current events?
Is this a new rule?
Posted by: Mighty Hunter at April 28, 2004 09:35 AMAnd who writes those rules, anyway?
Posted by: Linkmeister at April 28, 2004 12:27 PM