MSM, Employed By The Bushivistas

I don't know about anyone else but I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing the rightist whine about Liberal media bias. It's as if their screeching that lie out enough times will make it so. In my opinion, we cannot trut what the MSM (mainstream media) tells us and/or we must recognise that they fail to tell us about the Bush Administration's corruption. To me it's more than apparent the Bushivisatas control the media.

I have a Liberal friend who once worked as an editor and defends the Washington Post and the New York Times for not being forthcoming about the corruption in the Bush Administration. I told her I had cancelled my subscription to those papers and she claimed, "Have you ever sat in an editor's or producer's chair and had to decide what stories make the news, time each one to conincide with alotted space or time constraints? I have and it's not an easy job. Could be that they're waiting for some concrete facts to emerge rather than rush into print (or on air), only to later have to issue a retraction. Give it some time for them to develop a proper story. And BTW, blogs don't have to adhere to the same set of standards." [She said this about blogs because I told her if you want to hear the truth the blogs will provide it.]

Anyhoo, this morning Alternet, the greatst blog in the blogosphere, btw, has two really great articles about the Washington Post and the NYT failing to do their jobs. In case you missed them, here they are for your reading enjoyment...

Why the Times published the spy story now
Posted by Evan Derkacz at 8:32 AM on December 21, 2005.

Because, after 14 months, they'd finally gotten it together? Nope.

The disappointment continues, one after another after another at the New York Times. You have this incredible institution filled with bottomless talent, connections, history, and dedication, yet due to what looks suspiciously similar to institutional cowardice the paper insists on letting its reputation just hang in the breeze.

Not only did the paper of record cave in and neglect to record Bush's illegal spying (before the election no less) but its explanations are looking increasingly unconvincing.

Here's Times editor Bill Keller's explanation:

"the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications... Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed..."

Gabriel Sherman disagrees, noting that the Times' own James Risen was due to release his book on the subject next month:

"Mr. Risen returned from his book leave in June of 2005. He soon began agitating to revive the wiretapping piece and get it into the paper, according to bureau sources."

"According to multiple Times sources, the decision to move forward with the story was accelerated by the forthcoming publication of Mr. Risen’s book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration."

Worried about getting scooped (again; see Judith Miller's incarceration and subsequent song singing), the paper decided to let Risen write the story for the paper. How generous.

Risen, Sherman reports, has been badgering the eds to abandon their ninny status on a number of issues over the years including, coincidentally enough, Judith Miller's wish-fulfillment reporting on WMD. If there's an award for fixing the system from the inside out, I nominate James Risen.

Call it the Microwaver? (OffTheRecord)


The 'I-word' is 'out there'
Posted by Evan Derkacz at 6:47 AM on December 22, 2005.

Impeachment files.

You can't unring a bell, or shove the 'iword' back into the box. No thanks to the Washington Post's boneheaded pollster, Impeachment talk is gaining momentum in the blogs, in polite discourse, and even in the media.

Jane Hamsher, with the assist from Media Matters, notes that the Post's pollster Richard Morin has a short memory. The Post's Deborah Howel wrote last month that: "The question many demanded that The Post ask [in its polls] is biased and would produce a misleading result, Morin said."

In an online "chat" Morin responded to readers' impeachment questions with remarkable restraint, considering their lack of editorial experience: "This question makes me mad... Getting madder... Madder still..." Later concluding: "[W]e do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion..."

Sure, lying to start a war and illegal wiretaps aren't serious, we realize that, but blowjobs... now you're talkin! Rewind to a Post poll from Jan. '98:

"If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"

"If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"

And yes, Morin was the editor then.

In the Post's less serious and totally separate cousin, the online Post, Dan Froomkin, who is most definitely not a print reporter wrote, via John Aravosis:

"The revelation that President Bush secretly authorized a domestic spying program has incited a handful of Congressional Democrats to discuss his possible impeachment. And while continued Republican control of Congress makes such a move extremely unlikely, the word is reemerging into mainstream political discourse."

John Conyers' resolutions for investigations and censures of Cheney and Bush are [HERE].
MSNBC's Howard Fineman via Prometheus 6: "The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more."

You may be skeered of who'll take the reins should Bush be impeached, but upholding the standards are, arguably, more important. Discuss. (Firedoglake, Americablog, Truthout, Prometheus 6)