to spend a few minutes with lexis/nexis searching for Landay & Strobel in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

It was during the Moyers documentary (and also mentioned here) that I learned not only about Strobel and Landay's Iraq coverage, but that some Knight-Ridder papers actually chose not to publish their work... because it was too controversial.

Curious, I began to wonder if I had just "missed" the coverage, or if the Inquirer had been one of those papers. So I did a search. Nothing. And I was still surprised (even after my earlier comment about the east coast news bubble) that I could not find any stories with EITHER Landay or Strobel as authors in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which, at the time was a Knight-Ridder paper. Then I broadened my search from PA region (specifically, Inquirer) to major papers, and hit a bonanza. Pittsburgh-Gazette, Toronto Sun, and lots of other papers

What I'm wondering now, is whether one of the reasons that McClatchy decided to sell both of Philadelphia's daily papers was because of the editorial decisions made during the run-up to the war, and not just because they supposedly prefer smaller papers. Of course, there may be a correlation between paper size and willingness to print more controversial material.

It's pretty interesting that McClatchy-owned papers are doing pretty well right now, even though so many cities' daily papers are not. You only hear this discussed in a business context. Perhaps, there's really more to the story?

Could it be that a better editorial decision process really does yield a better business result? What a shock that would be! Editorial courage makes money! [/sarcasm]

I would love to see someone compare the financial success (or lack thereof) of U.S. papers, with their willingness, during the run-up to the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, either to search for the truth, or else just carry the water for the administration.

* * *

[Note: Both papers were bought by a prominent local Republican businessman, and cutbacks and layoffs have been severe.

I was asked at an event recently if I wanted to subscribe. I gave him my litany of reasons for being dissatisfied (still not having seen Moyers' documentary), and the salesman just got quiet, but in a defensive manner.

It's really too bad, too. There are still some good people left at the papers, though a lot have left, for whatever reason.]

if the acquisition was in "good faith."

But McClatchy kept most of the papers, getting rid of selected ones. I remember hearing that they preferred small regional papers over larger metro papers, because it made better business sense. Maybe so. I should have paid more attention at the time, but I had already given up reading both Philadelphia papers by that time. I was already getting my news online and at PBS.

But now I have different questions. If you find other clues, I hope you'll post them here when appropriate.

since I remember Hamsher's blackface incident in real time.

I was, frankly, astonished-- that she could post something that politically tone-deaf. I understood the intent to attack Lieberman, but it had no effect on Lieberman-- except maybe to help him-- and actually hurt a lot of other people. Every person of color who blogged about that incident at the time was also hurt, though maybe not surprised, by it.

One can only imagine what Bill Clinton's reaction must have been, since he was in the photo with his arm around Lieberman. He didn't ask for that. In fact, one memorable moment from his memoir was when he called a group of advisors (something like) "the dumbest bunch of white guys" he'd ever met... because they were trying implement something to do with diversity and had not bothered to expand their ranks. [He told them to go away and come back later.] It seemed even more pointed, because both Clintons had campaigned for Lieberman very early on after college, and naturally did feel some loyalty toward him. Still, Bill Clinton did nothing to deserve being in that photo.

And Ned Lamont did not deserve to have his campaign associated with that grahic, either. How much did it hurt him? We may never know.

The entire incident was, in a word, mortifying. It was clear even then, that it would leave a mark that would never go away, and-- the worst-- would be just one more reason for all of the POC bloggers to distrust white, middle-class bloggers even more. Yep, there's an entire community of people of color who blog. You wouldn't want to know what they think of most of us.

Jane's apology? It was on a par with all of the other non-apology apologies we all like to criticize.

Before commenting on it without knowing much about the incident, it might be a good idea to click on the link to ebogjohnson that sysprog provided: When is it okay to use blackface? (If you're white: never.) But look at the link; he has a wonderful decision flow chart.

Now, Gerstein? The man is a defensive lunatic. Exactly the kind of consultant you would expect Lieberman to have on staff. I can't remember the reporter's name, but the Hartford Courant had some good reporting on the campaign, some of it about Gerstein, including the outrageous computer-hacking charge.

* * *

Still, I was pleased to see Clinton blogging at FDL re: the pay gap. That was both timely and appropriate, and to be fair, FDL has gotten better about encouraging civility in the comments when guests visit.

But, personally, I'll take GG's comment threads over FDL's any day, because they have far more substance, even with the trolls. [There used to be more dissenters at FDL, but they eventually all left, either because they got tired of being attacked (a bit like the responses here to softdog and Felix), or because they were banned from comments. I was in moderation for awhile myself.] I still read FDL's posts, which are (usually) full of substance, but only skim the threads these days, with an occassional comment.