the Sugar Conspiracy

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Too little, too late

The Washington Post gets reflective:

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

This is so ridiculous. The Post is trying to admit they were wrong without admitting they were wrong. Hell, later in the article, they even refuse to apologize to their readers. They offer excuse after excuse and hedge around the fact that they screwed up, but still want to assure their readers that they're a viable source of news. That we can trust them to do their actual job of investigating and reporting the news. I'd like to think that this would be a lesson for the future, but I'm afraid that the next time a President tries to take us to war based on lies and deception, they'll be the first in line to get embedded with the troops. Aarrgh! Just one more reason to read alternative media.

posted by chris at 11:03 AM
------------------

Blog - Info - Archive - Contact - Links
2005 © Designed by Chris. Take what you want.