« Banana Republic for Another Day | Main | McGreevey Out! »

August 12, 2004

Comments

"...Pincus, 71, a staff member for 32 of the last 38 years...."

Man, I've been reading Pincus, and respecting the hell out of him for more or less 25 years (finally got the publishing company I worked for to get me a WP subscription in the mid-Eighties), and I hadn't realized he'd either been around *that* long, or was that old. Gosh, who can replace him?

That's why Blix's doubts were not front-page news.

Blix's doubts were not front-page news? Odd.

"such stories were difficult to edit at a time when the national desk was deluged with copy"

"Complex stories are tough." Boo hoo.

I seriously have no idea what I meant by the above, so I'm now going to make something up:

Pincus had previously noted Blix's misgivings, but declined to give equal time to both of Blix's minds on the topic.

There, that wasn't so bad.

"Complex stories are tough." Boo hoo.

At a certain point, we, the consumers of news, need to start demanding our money's worth.

Who pays for news? I get it free.

"At a certain point, we, the consumers of news, need to start demanding our money's worth."

My continuing hope is that blogs like this one and various others (the list grows daily) will keep the pressure up for diligent and investigative reporting by the mainstream press.
At some point folks have to get embarrassed don't they.

[["The main thing people forget to do is read documents," said Pincus, wielding a yellow highlighter.]]

Man. That's it in a nutshell. Given the choice between human sources and documents, ALWAYS go with the documents. Current example: The 9/11 Commission talking heads said both Clinton and Bush 43 administrations were equally to blame for 9/11. But go read Chapter 8 of the report -- which, remember, the commission unanimously approved -- and you learn that the truth is actually a bit different.

[Post national security reporter Dana Priest] noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists."

Uhh ... this kind of intimidation looks like it would be worth a story by itself. Are the senders of the hate mail organized? If they make threats, are they serious?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad