pluege:

So if the entire media completely failed, how did I know these things BEFORE the invasion

You're defining success by whether an individual (you), paying careful attention, and discounting the frequent repetition of lies and their kin (unjustified inferences, spin of all varieties, etc.) could construct a reasonable picture of what was actually going on.

But this is not why the press is the one profession to receive special Constitutional protection. It is not because of its ability to inform individual smart cookies, while simultaneously misleading a substantial majority of the population. It is because of its capacity to inform the public as a whole. And when the public as a whole believes a whole raft of lies, and the belief in those lies leads it to support, or merely assent to a disasterous, immoral and illegal war, then it is fair to say that the media has failed in its constitutionally protected duty. And when every single faction of the media goes along with the charade, then it is fair to say that every faction of the media has failed.

Indeed, the fact that individual facts were reported, such as you remind us, only serves to damn the media more. For who else is supposed to be more on top of things reported by the media than media professionals themselves? Who else has a greater responsibility to guard the unpleasant truths that power would rather have us forget?

The fact that Knight-Ridder and Gannett (not to mention the foreign press and domestic alternative press) unmasked so many lies that the big boys nonetheless kept repeating is an even deeper indictment of the big boys.

And the fact that the Washington Post ignored its own best reporting.... All I can say is, somebody's gotta bring Dante back from the dead, so he can create a new circle in Hell for them.

Catch my drift?

Scientician:

ABC Dugg themselves Deeper

What an idiotic and substance free, easily rebutted response ABC makes.

Totally, totally true. But you have to realize that they're not very experienced in this. It's not somethig they do every day.... or even every year. Acknowledge a mistake with a single story--sure, the media knows how to handle that, even when they fail to do it. But acknowledging a mistake that's been repeated over and over and over again? That's a whole different matter. It's too big an embarrassment to be properly recognized, much less dealt with.

As Glenn implies, even the NYT coming clean about its WMD fiasco was grudging, partial, and tortured, and that was so far over the line it will go down in the history books.

The Path-to-911 sham really was representative of what is wrong with the Network, and not some fluke aberration or 1 time failure of standards.

Everyone MUST remember that PT911 was ABC entertainment, not ABC news. So it reflects directly on ABC's corporate management. Even a good, solid, well-done documentary should have come through the news division, not entertainment. They could have brought in some entertainment advisors if they felt they really had to. But the primary lines of authority should have been crystal clear. PT911 had bad faith written all over it. Clinton should have sued tham all the way to Timbuktu and back.

But, also, remember, this is the network that got rid of Politically Incorrect--basically because, for once in his career, Bill Maher actually said something that really was poltiically incorrect, and not just a little bit edgey. It then dismantled Nightline and replaced it with a Disney cartoon version.

In short, if you want political insight from ABC, watch Desperate Housewives.

feralman:

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." That cliche doesn't make sense in the context in which he misused it, but neither does "the proof is in the pudding."

What's a metaphor, if not mixing things up a bit?

And, of course, you've got to mix things up to make a proper pudding, no?

But, seriously, folks.

Glenn used it properly. "The proof is in pudding," means that all the theorizing is beside the point, look at the results. Niether the recipe, nor the fact that you've made it before will guarantee that this pudding came out right. (The original long form, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," has the same sense, with less ambiguity.)

Where Glenn uses the phrase, he's saying, "Look, this wasn't a retraction, no one regarded it as such at the time no matter how you try to spin it now." And that's a precisely accurate usage.

As for ABC's response itself, one might also say, "More custard, less bluster."