corrupt little defense

* wapo ed: "Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to (thememo). Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." LINK

this answer is bullshit. while it might be valid to argue that theres nothing particularly new in the memo, its not valid to argue that therefore it isnt news. thats simply disingenuous. the story was demonstrably 'news' because the TImes A1'd the story a few days before the election, yet the media here virtually didnt even mention it, even in passing, even in discussing the brit election. so the wapo team is flat-out lying.

heres a question - how many stories in the last year have hit the front page of the SundayTimes about iraq but got near-zero attention in the US? not very fucking many. and this one involved the egadministration directly. and if it didnt qualify as amnews originally, then it certainly qualified once conyers got 90 sigs on his letter to investigate the claims. surely that is news, even if you think its bonkers. even your own fucking ombudsman knows that. as does the nyt's. and theyve both stated it publicly. and both of them actually seem a bit alarmed by it to be frank. remember, we arent arguing about the degree of the coverage, we're talking about the *existence* of their coverage. for a month. and here they are indignantly snorting: "Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."
indeed, 'irregardless' of the actual content of the memos, simply the fact that people high up in the british government are leaking documents in order to throw an election is arguably worth a passing mention in the ampress somewhere.

indeed, the fucking wapo eventually frontpaged a (soft) pincus article anyway, which was entirely focussed on the uk (eevn tho it was late), and they *literally* moved it (or maybe another story) off the front page in the middle of a print run. and, btw, what the fuck is walter pincus doing running around on a story that is completely hollow? who gave him that gig? and if thats not enough, then why waste a wapo editorial telling us that its a nonstory? people obviously care about the issue, *despite* the absence of media, and the editorial doesnt mention the 500k signatures, nor does it mention the hearings tomorrow. how do you not mention that? seriously.

im tempted to tear apart the rest of the editorial, but the entire basis is invalid so i wont bother.

but i cant help myself.

they then argue that we need to work out how to move forward yada. which is obviously true, but its not a fucking binary issue. its presumably not impossible for these people to simultaneously hold two thoughts: a) how do we stop the war? and b)perhaps the people who lied us into this war are war criminals and are likely to start more wars. thats news.

nader, a presidential candidate and purported kingmaker, is talking about impeaching his king. surely thats fucking news. so are others. and they are pointing to this memo as either evidence or the final straw. but theres a media blackout cos theres 'nothing new' in the document. surely thats fucking news.

the odd thing is that ive been meaning to comment this last week that ive noticed that wapo is doing some really 'negative'/realistic reporting on iraq. i dont really follow wapo, but ive read some pretty tuff stories there recently, and a lot of it is on A1. u might remember last week or the week before i was struck by the change in the coverage of the war - i think i said something like 'today is the day the reporting on the war changed', and since then ive seen wapo being way 'negative' - so its quite odd for the ed team to come out with their corrupt little defense of their record.