Read other letters about this article
It would be very interesting to do an analysis of press coverage in the wake of recent national crises, to see how many elites of the "liberal media" then counseled skepticism, vigilance and inquiry.
I would guess that most if not all did not... from Pearl Harbor to the Cuban Missle Crisis... from the Gulf of Tonkin to the fall of Saigon.. from the invasion of Grenada to the invasion of Kuwait. The one exception, I suspect, would be Somalia — because the media so despised Bill Clinton.
Why? Because the so-called "liberal media" has never existed. The only reason Viet Nam was exposed as a lie was because of brave and/or renegade journalists like Peter Arnett and Larry Burrows. As for Watergate, the other great governmental scandal of the 1960s-1970s, Bob Woodward is a shadow of his former self. The rest, including Woodward now, are just inside-the-Beltway scum who pride themselves on how well they kowtow to those in power. To paraphrase a malapropism, if Edward R. Murrow were alive today, he'd be spinning in his grave.
I'm still waiting for the members of the press to call the Bush Administration on its lies. So far, we've only been able to rely on ordinary citizens who are willing to stand up to authority (and subsequently, endure ridicule) by questioning first Bush, and then (today) Rumsfeld. Both questioners accused Bush and Rumsfeld of lying, Both questioners put all journalists to shame.
The media no doubt will say that they will only cover the lies if the Bushies are called on it by other people... Democrats, policy makers, politicians. I want to know why the media never called the Bushies on the lies in the first place. In the absence of courage from our elected officials, the press is our last line of defense. If they had stood up to Bush, 2,300 American soliders might still be alive today.
Journalists: How can you look at yourselves in the mirror these days? Just curious.