Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis is a media rant. I'm not one of those people who are constantly berating the media (the so-called "mainstream media") for their failings. However, for quite a while I've been watching the spiraling downward of the Washington Post coverage of international affairs. But today they hit a new low.
The Saturday, August 22, edition of the Post contains not a single article -- count 'em, zero -- on anything relating to the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, or the ongoing crisis in Iran.
By way of contrast, the New York Times carried a page one piece on the aftermath of the election in Afghanistan, a lead piece in its international section on the Iranian crisis, focusing on President Ahmadinejad's problems in assembling a Cabinet for his second term, and a lengthy piece sorting out the pieces left over from the enormous bombings that devastated downtown Baghdad on Wednesday.
These three pieces are not fluff either, but hard news stories contained information that the Post simply ignored.
It gets worse. The Post did manage to scrounge up a story on the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya, but the entirety of the story focused on US and British outrage over the release, which Obama called "highly objectionable." The Times carried a far longer piece that actually reported the news, namely, that British observers and analysts are making concrete charges that London supported the freeing of the prisoner in order to facilitate oil deals with Libya. In contrast to the Post, which contented itself with regurgitating official outrage that a terrorist is once again loose, the Times piece, by John F. Burns, had this gem:
On Friday, Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said Mr. Megrahi's release had opened the way for Britain's leading oil companies to pursue multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Libya, which had demanded Mr. Megrahi's return in talks with British officials and business executives.
You might say, well, who cares? Don't most people get their news from the Internet these days? In fact, it does matter. Hundreds of thousands of people wake up to the print copy of the Washington Post in the morning, and they don't deserve incompetent editing and reporting. The Post international section has been shrinking, and since they moved their entire business section inside the A section earlier this year, the hole for non-business news seems to have shrunk. The right-wing Washington Times would dearly love to pick up the slack, but their often biased, slanted, and jingoistic reports, filed by hard-right ideologues such as reporter Eli Lake, aren't trustworthy enough to rely on. Even so, the Washington Times has broken some stories lately, especially on Iran, thanks to a commitment to Iran from editor Barbara Slavin and on-the-scene reporting from Iran and Turkey by Iason Athanasiadis. In any case, the Washington Times circulation is minuscule compared to the monopoly-like Post.
Oh, yes. Headlining the Post world coverage Saturday? "Turkeys in Chile Found to Have Swine Flu." Now there's a scoop! Next, maybe, "Chili in Turkey Found to Have Swine Meat"?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
has it ever struck you that newspapers may not cover those topics every day because The Nation and many other outlets cover them all the time?
also--you're taking space away from covering those topics by covering someone else who isn't covering them, aren't you?
also--if there's so much to report on those topics, why aren't you covering them today?
lastly--methinks you came up with that last line (admittedly clever) in your blog on reading that headline in The Washington Post (perhaps it came to you quite quickly) and this blog is merely an excuse to show off that line (which, although clever, does not drive the point you're trying to drive home better than if you actually wrote a story about the uncovered topics you complain need coverage)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2009 @ 3:12pm
We will finally wind up with just a couple of leaning liberal papers and two dozen of the others.
Posted by Frank42 at 08/22/2009 @ 4:11pm
DREYFUSS: Headlining the Post world coverage Saturday? "Turkeys in Chile Found to Have Swine Flu." Now there's a scoop! Next, maybe, "Chili in Turkey Found to Have Swine Meat"?
Making mistakes of transposing key words, as demonstrated rather humorously for sure, are a rarity.
How about this for hard news reporting: Dem Chickens in DC Found to Have No Giblets.....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 08/22/2009 @ 4:45pm
Former Brit PM & US poodle, Tony Blair participated in some of those talks, wherein he represented British oil companies.
The hapless Duke of York, otherwise unemployed son of the queen, also visited Libya several times recently.
What a charade, this outrage.
Posted by sloper at 08/22/2009 @ 4:49pm
Nice weekend gift there! Disclosure: I own a bit of Royal Dutch Shell stocks.....and better reap some, ahem, benefit from this.
I didn't ask for this (possible) quid pro quo, but will sure take it! Any Purists better divest, divest, divest......oops, NO purists own RDS stocks in the first place....them evil multinational raping the Niger Delta and ripping up the Canadian wilderness for oil sands.
Posted by Happy at 08/22/2009 @ 5:19pm
Libertyfortheoppressed will solemnly determine from his rain gauge transformed to blood-o-meter that the Lockerbie tragedy & its human toll will pale in comparison to the life saving & enhancing benefits gained from oil flowing via Libya to Britain.
Meanwhile back at Fish Wrap Central (Faux News) plenty of fake indignation will be broadcast.
Posted by Sorelish at 08/22/2009 @ 6:22pm
more obama suckage:
Washington approves oil-sands pipeline
Financial Times - Sheila McNulty - Aug 20, 2009
By Sheila mcnulty in Houston
The Obama administration yesterday approved a pipeline to carry oil-sands fuel from Canada into the US, saying its action was designed to send "a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period". ...
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2009 @ 9:11pm
ow about this for hard news reporting: Dem Chickens in DC Found to Have No Giblets.....LOL!
I think this hard news would be more accurate:
Rep elephants found to have no heart....they had dung instead.
Posted by Frank42 at 08/22/2009 @ 11:16pm
If the Washington Post Flopped, what is the excuse for this thread?
Posted by BigPasture at 08/23/2009 @ 01:04am
posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2009 @ 9:11pm
Have you noticed that Obama has developed a habit of justifying actions by what kind of "message" they send? The politicians expect us to not only recognize that they do things just for effect, but to approve of it. (Not that I think this was really done just to send a message -)
urmygyro - your post of 8/22/2009 at 3:12pm only makes sense if you think the Nation perceives itself as filling the same journalistic role as the Washington Post, which it doesn't. The dissolution of the large papers is worth a short comment, because to some extent our consensual reality is dissolving with them (for good or ill).
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 06:08am
Dear Sir, As a crack fox, I am outraged by the carelessness with which you address the turkeys issue. For sure, on the surface, the problems that turkeys are confronted with can seem irrelevant for a large newspaper to cover. Put the potential for their flu to spread over the many foxes communities in North America is huge. A widespread of flu amongst turkeys may provide the circumstances for the many enemies of foxes to resume chasing us. It therefore stands to reason that all prominent dailies should devote broad coverage to what happens South of our borders. Once one fox will have culled a sick turkey and caught the sickness itself, a wide array of attacks will be pouring upon my community.
That said, similar mistakes have been made in the past by some of your colleagues from The Nation without laying ground for a massive slayings of foxes. And amid all the ranting of today, it all may well pass unnoticed. In the coming year, sometime in February, the foxes of North America will gather in Wichita for a big rally. I will take advantage of the press coverage that the rally will attract to put forth my discontent with the way the press is dealing with our people and their concerns. I feel that a lot more things could be done to help us, not only by the government, but also by civil society, including the media: ease off the critics, folks; pull back from the easy jokes and the stereotypes. Now and again, I beg you all to be more cautious. It's true to say that, until the early eighties, we had had a comfortable place in American society. Until then, it all came down to having better meals and fewer farmers to chase after us. When it came to international politics, we were not exactly interested.
Posted by crackfox at 08/23/2009 @ 06:43am
In January 1983, I was even quoted by Mother Jones saying that "we foxes are only interested in local nationwide politics" and I have stuck to that stand thereafter. But last year, The Nation published a long paper that contained attacks against our way of life. It started a bout during which all liberal columnists would find it convenient to insert derogatory remarks on foxes in whatever they were writing. Over a month later, I decided I would stand it any longer. I am a crack fox and as such I see it as my duty no to let such misbehavior pass unnoticed. It remains to be seen whether or not my voice will ring louder than yours. In any case, I am determined to bring about these concerns and, in order to do so, I am thinking about bringing forward our coming rally. I look for you to come and join us on that very day. I hope you'll be there. In which case, we'll have the opportunity to discuss more thoroughly on the topics I've just talked about. Remember: when it comes to foxes - or turkeys - somebody is on the watch: me, the crack fox.
Posted by crackfox at 08/23/2009 @ 06:59am
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 06:08am |
So, FDR 'fireside chats'...PR stunt or great leadership?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 08:05am
Posted by crackfox at 08/23/2009 @ 06:43am |
"As a crack fox, I am outraged by the carelessness with which you address the turkeys issue."
Perhaps the turkey should attempt to contain itself, eh wot?
"A widespread of flu amongst turkeys may provide the circumstances for the many enemies of foxes to resume chasing us."
That you've chosen to hide out amongst turkeys (diseased ones, at that) is of no consequence to us.
"It therefore stands to reason that all prominent dailies should devote broad coverage to what happens South of our borders."
It's called TMZ, dear fox.
"Once one fox will have culled a sick turkey and caught the sickness itself, a wide array of attacks will be pouring upon my community."
Best set the terror alert at feuschia then.
"And amid all the ranting of today, it all may well pass unnoticed."
One should be so lucksome.
"In the coming year, sometime in February, the foxes of North America will gather in Wichita for a big rally."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZEjJPv7aCM
Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 08:17am
posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 08:05pm
I think that there is a difference between what I am talking about and the fireside chats. There is a difference between communicating your position & perspective (FDR) and saying that your position is taken for the purpose of its message.
Where this gets blurry is of course in the cases where confidence (as in the markets) affects people's behavior. However, I still think that saying your policy position is taken purely to build confidence would not, for a logical person, build confidence, except insofar as the logical person is convinced that the rest of the population is less logical than she herself or he himself is.
In the case of the oil sand pipeline, I would think that either it's a good idea or not, regardless of the signal it sends. I guess maybe "positive economic signal" could be interpreted as "we're trying to get some economic activity going here regardless", but why not just say that instead of phrasing it in terms of the "signal" or message?
This isn't the clearest example of what I'm talking about - I'll see if another one pops up sometime & since we're both pretty regular on here find an opportunity to clarify.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 08:39am
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 08:39am |
"However, I still think that saying your policy position is taken purely to build confidence would not, for a logical person, build confidence, except insofar as the logical person is convinced that the rest of the population is less logical than she herself or he himself is."
I am often convinced that the rest of the population is less logical than I am, but I think that's endemic to the human psyche (to which these blog threads may attest).
I follow your logic about Obama's lack of logic in exposing his logic as rhetoric, but it's no worse than, "Go shopping!", from Chimpy though.
Even if it really is only a 'working hard over here, Boss!' photo op (note: that's 'Cool Hand' Luke, not a plantation boss, no racial overtones expressed or implied).
I'd look more cautiously at "where the money goes" as Chomsky and others have suggested to see if this is more `change' than `hope' though.
Whose pipeline? Whose tar sands? Where do the pipes end? Who pockets the proceeds?
I think you'll find that Canada has crappy petro product that is difficult to separate and we have tech that's better at cracking it; no big conspiracy.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 09:09am
WHAT'D I TELL YA', MR. DREYFUSS:
"Iraqi Official Says Security Forces May Have Colluded in Bombings
Zebari Accuses Government of Overconfidence Prior to Deadly Attacks
By Zaid Sabah
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 23, 2009
BAGHDAD, Aug. 22 -- Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said Saturday that the coordinated attack that killed more than 100 people, including dozens of his employees, in Baghdad on Wednesday may have been carried out with the complicity of Iraqi security forces."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2009 @ 09:26am
posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 9:09am
I agree that it is no worse than "go shopping" - I guess I'm just more disappointed when an obviously bright guy like Obama uses this kind of disingenious rhetoric.
I've heard that the tar sands are the Canadian equivalent of oil shale. Maybe frosty zoom can fill us in on that. Anyway, I'm sure there are big benefits for the usual Energy corporations/campaign donors in developing it. Also pretty sure that investing alot of tech/energy resources into developing more fossil fuels at this late date is counterproductive if not suicidal.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 09:26am
Snowball,
On rethinking, "go shopping" was distasteful but more honest.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 09:31am
cdlepthien:
the tar sands are really, really messy:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/scenes-tar-wars
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2009 @ 09:40am
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 09:26am |
Not that I'm a huge fan of petrochemicals (other than some fertilizers, I guess), but we may need to extract all that we can from fossil fuels in order to make the transition to sustainable energy policy non-disastrous over the near term; ugly, but necessary.
As a PR move, what Obama has announced won't make a dent in the army of angry AGW deniers riled up about cap/tax-n-trade...why bring a knife to a gun fight?
I didn't even find 'go shopping' all that distasteful; it was, after all, the right prescription for curing the recession to generate demand.
But what I did find distasteful was the decided lack of any other meaningful response to the situation (like Katrina and the housing crisis after it).
Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:33am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2009 @ 09:40am |
This, I did not know...ouch!
<Converting tar sand into gasoline emits up to three times the greenhouse gases as drilling and refining conventional oil.>
Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 10:37am
posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 at 10:33am
As I recall, the "go shopping" comment was made after 9/11 in the context of not only the recession but the assault on the American "lifestyle". Positioning our unsustainable consumerism as the main American value to be defended and shopping as an act of defiance was distasteful to me, though yes, shopping stimulates the economy.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 11:15am
Welcome to reality, Richard. I've long enjoyed your columns...and LONG despised the idiotic excuse for a "newspaper" called the 'Washington Post.'
I gave you more credit than this piece implies. I'd long ago presumed you read SOMETHING other than what you wrote. That you're just now figuring out that the 'Post' is a POS is enlightening of itself...and NOT in a good way. Good day.
Posted by grndrush at 08/23/2009 @ 5:46pm
urmygyro - your post of 8/22/2009 at 3:12pm only makes sense if you think the Nation perceives itself as filling the same journalistic role as the Washington Post, which it doesn't. The dissolution of the large papers is worth a short comment, because to some extent our consensual reality is dissolving with them (for good or ill).
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/23/2009 @ 06:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
First, I made numerous comments in that post.
Second, The Nation's perception of itself is not relevant. It's what they actually do, and how they actually fit in the big picture of "news" delivery. The Nation certainly delivers "news" and criticizing another organization's delivery of "news" is merely passing the buck. Pick it up The Nation, and make the buck stop here.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2009 @ 12:23am
Lolol... clearly the author has not witnessed the decline and fall of the Philadelpia Inquirer! We get one local story in the front section - usually about a rapist or petty political corruption - and ALL the rest are wire-service junk!
You think the WaPo is bad under its neocon owners? You should sample OUR bird-cage liner! Does WaPo pay money to John Yoo for verbal diarrhea? No?? I rest my case.
Posted by sjduskin at 08/24/2009 @ 12:31am
"The Saturday, August 22, edition of the Post contains not a single article -- count 'em, zero -- on anything relating to the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, or the ongoing crisis in Iran."
That sounds about right. I've noticed that ever since Obama took office, we never hear anything about Iraq anymore. No more huge anti-war protests going on at Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco, either. One thing is for sure, whomever gets sworn in come January 20th, 2013, U.S. soldiers will remain in Iraq in substantial numbers. Ditto with respect to 1/20/17, for that matter.
Barack Obama's Presidency fills some psychological need for Baby Boomers to see Sidney Poitier in the White House, I guess...pay no attention to the fact his policies are basically the same as those of the Bush/Cheney administration! (And Kerry's would have been the same, too).
As a Nader voter in 2004 & 2008, I could scarcely feel more vindicated. I'm sure Obama will get re-elected in 2012 (albeit without my vote), what with the corporate media (other than FAUX News, I guess) backing him to the hilt. And then maybe we can have Jeb Bush for President. And if Hillary weren't too old by then, we'd probably get her after that (thank God for small favours).
Meanwhile, Howard Dean didn't even get a freakin' Cabinet post. What a complete joke the Obama administration is rapidly turning out to be. Progressives who support it must be delusional.
Posted by KevinRiley at 08/24/2009 @ 02:35am
"The Nation's perception of itself is not relevant. It's what they actually do, and how they actually fit in the big picture of "news" delivery. The Nation certainly delivers "news" and criticizing another organization's delivery of "news" is merely passing the buck. Pick it up The Nation, and make the buck stop here."
I don't know how much impact a magazine (albeit pretty much the only one of the left that is actually worth reading) can have, when just under 0.1 percent of the U.S. population subscribes to it (maybe a little more, since in fairness, a lot of married people who subscribe to it are probably getting it for two). I also don't think its too much to ask for one of the most venerable newspapers in the USA, located in our nation's capitol, no less, to offer decent coverage of U.S. foreign policy. Especially since that was their specialty like yesterday, and they basically spent the entire Clinton & Bush/Cheney administrations lauding the neo-"conservative" policies that got us into the various messes we're in now.
In any event, I welcome criticism of The Washington Post at this site, and hope to see more media criticism in the future. The U.S. mass media is the most powerful force for human social engineering ever created. That it needs criticism is something of an understatement.
Posted by KevinRiley at 08/24/2009 @ 02:45am
"how about this for hard news reporting: Dem Chickens in DC Found to Have No Giblets.....LOL!
I think this hard news would be more accurate:
Rep elephants found to have no heart....they had dung instead."
This is exactly what's wrong with American politics these days: "The stupid, worthless shitheads of the DNC are somewhat better than those even worse guys at the RNC, so I'm going to fanatically support them."
Or vice versa.
As long as you play the game of the BiPartisan Party, and stick to whichever of its trivial factions is more fashionable in your social milieu, nothing will change. Elect someone like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or Patrick Buchanan, if you want to see change. Basically, if the person you're voting for isn't being decried as a nutjob by the dominant press, then you're wasting your vote. Obama was like the Pied Piper of Hamlin last year, conning all the liberals & progressives into supporting his campaign to make the world safe for neo-"conservatism" and corporate welfare. If you voted for Obama, and don't feel betrayed, you must have a screw loose.
Posted by KevinRiley at 08/24/2009 @ 02:54am
"Elect someone like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or Patrick Buchanan, if you want to see change. Basically, if the person you're voting for isn't being decried as a nutjob by the dominant press, then you're wasting your vote.....
If you voted for Obama, and don't feel betrayed, you must have a screw loose."---------Posted by KevinRiley at 08/24/2009 @ 02:54am
So you'd vote for Pat Buchanan over Barack Obama?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 08:40am
For this thread on the Legacy Media flopping, here's a collection of today's headline commentaries from the best-known Dead Media Walking:
(from) Real Clear Politics Monday
Reaganism Is a Failed Economic Belief - Paul Krugman, New York Times
'Is He Weak?' - Jim Hoagland, Washington Post
Obama Saved the Economy - E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
Hugo Chavez Has Put Obama on the Defensive - Washington Post
Growing Deficit Frames Health Care Debate - USA Today
Obama Team is Lacking Most of Top Players - New York Times
=============================
I say it's time Krugman and Dionne get some kinda medals from Magic!
Posted by Happy at 08/24/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by Happy at 08/24/2009 @ 09:46am
Hey, HAPP...what's that word that comes after "Magic" again?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 09:57am
Happy;
The woman applying for a job in a Florida Lemon grove seemed to be far too qualified for the job.
The foreman frowned and said, "I have to ask you this; have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?"
"Well, as a matter of fact, I have!"she replied. "I've been divorced three times, and I voted for Obama."
Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 11:26am
Hey, HAPP...what's that word that comes after "Magic" again?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 09:57am
BUS ?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:27am
So you'd vote for Pat Buchanan over Barack Obama?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 08:40am |
Absolutely, especialy since we now see what Obama is up to...
and as he tanks our currency,economy, and industry.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:27am
Guess again....though I'm sure HAPP and Rush "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" would sure like us to THINK it was "bus".
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:29am
Yes, MAASCH, YOU would ...was referring to KevinRiley, who seems a bit more left-of-center. Though to his credit, Buchanan wouldn't have suckered us into a pointless war in Iraq, would he?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 11:32am
The purge of the WP of anyone who is not a reliable neocon, zionist or both is just about complete. Len Downie, Froomkin, Iganatius, Priest and anyone else who could be reasonably called a JOURNALIST instead of PROPAGANDIST is gone or effectively silenced. Sure, they kept a token black (Robinson) and a token liberal (Meyerson) on board for appearances, but these guys are often buried in the sub-menus.
What galls me, too, is the relatively recent habit of the Post to print provocative and arrogant headlines (at least on their website) for the pieces they do print, often having little to do with the piece itself. The National Enquirer from Hell, or maybe from Israel.
The Post has been bled to death for years by the likes of Hiatt and Brauchli, but it's time to turn off the defibrillator and issue the death certificate.
Posted by DejaVu at 08/24/2009 @ 11:49am
Buchanan wouldn't have suckered us into a pointless war in Iraq, would he?
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 11:32am |
No he wouldn't,and in hind sight he would have been right. but he would have closed down the open bordeless America and hammered the companies hiring illegals...
you have to admit, he would have been more entertaining than anyone else in the last 20 years...
Speaking of pointless wars and Iraq...where are Code Pinko and all the nuts and loons who protested endlessly when Bush was running the wars...but now that Obie is in charge of the same wars...all hear are crickets?
kinda like BUSHFOOLS and his polls ad nauseum until Obama and democrats begin their endless tanking until midterm elections...
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:56am
Here is a story the dems have always missed...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 12:14pm
"....but he would have closed down the open bordeless America and hammered the companies hiring illegals..."----Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 11:56am
Really? What kept Dubya from doing that????
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 12:57pm
Really? What kept Dubya from doing that????
Posted by Mask at 08/24/2009 @ 12:57pm
Bush's advisors knew it would be both political and economic suicide. No matter how much the right hates illegals, they are a crucial component to keeping food prices down. Americans just won't pick lettuce in Yuma, for 4.75 an hour, not even our teenagers.
Strong legislation against immigrants would also alienate the hispanic community and lose votes.
But probably the biggest reason Bush did nothing about immigration is that they don't want to solve the issue. It rallies their base, it gets people out to vote, same as with abortion, and gay marriage. It is one of the annunal scare tactics the GOP brings out to rile up their base. But they really don't want to do anything about it, because once it goes away, they will have even less fear propaganda to use come next election.
Posted by Extraneous at 08/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by Extraneous at 08/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
I tend to agree.
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/24/2009 @ 2:45pm
But probably the biggest reason Bush did nothing about immigration is that they don't want to solve the issue. It rallies their base, it gets people out to vote, same as with abortion, and gay marriage. It is one of the annunal scare tactics the GOP brings out to rile up their base. But they really don't want to do anything about it, because once it goes away, they will have even less fear propaganda to use come next election.
Posted by Extraneous at 08/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
How quickly they forget.
Bush did push an amnesty program but could not get support from Republicans in Congress.
I am on record as supporting that amnesty and stated that I felt the Republicans in Congress were wrong.
So, don't blame it on Bush.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:57pm
I don't have the facts of ownership at my fingertips right now, but I would bet the pink slip to my truck that this is a direct result of media consolidation. The trend is to infotain the masses because shocking, if barely true stories make money. Well presented hard facts seldom fit that formula. Which is also why I avoid reading almost everything in the mainstream media, aside from select sources and local media reporting on local stories.
Posted by Milhaus at 08/24/2009 @ 6:12pm
check out Noam Chomsky's various and many books and lectures on what's up with the media! okkk? Manufacturing Consent he calls it. The Post or any other media not reporting hard (in all ways, like increase fatalities in Afghan and your use of "hard news") have an agenda and it obviously is to keep us ignorant of the hard news. In short they are part of the militry indusrial corporate complex and it's in their economic interest - their profit interest- to not print the hard and hard news. My opinion at least- and that i swhy The Nation and other non- profits are critical to keep us informed. wjew---- G R
Posted by gpreichel at 08/24/2009 @ 7:02pm
P S For me the question is what's up with the NYT, suddenly printing and publishing the hard news!A welcome change- let's hope they will keep it up! G R
Posted by gpreichel at 08/24/2009 @ 7:06pm
You're just noticing the downfall of journalism at the Washington Post NOW?
During the Bush Administration, whatever Cheney or any Bush Administration official says is taken as gospel.
Like Stephen Colbert so aptly told the "news" media during the Bush Administration:
"The President Makes Decisions, The Press Secretary Announces those Decisions and you type them in. Put them through spellchecker and go home."
Posted by twieliczka at 08/24/2009 @ 7:57pm
Bush did push an amnesty program but could not get support from Republicans in Congress.
I am on record as supporting that amnesty and stated that I felt the Republicans in Congress were wrong.
So, don't blame it on Bush.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:57pm
When Bush tried with McCain's help.....it was tough to oppose. I understood his good intentions and pragmatism (in not having any deportation component and the clear path to citizenship) but I am glad that push failed.
Another thing.....I also suspected, as was with the MediCare prescription drug program's failure to help the GOP/conservatives at election times, I also didn't think Bush or the GOP/conservatives would have benefited by much, if any, with the overall electorate.
Overall, with the numerous & fresh examples of BHO, catering very specifically to narrow parts of the country, is a pretty sure loser among the whole.
Posted by Happy at 08/24/2009 @ 11:39pm
The Washington Post has become a stooge for the Iranian government. Ain't that right Dreyfuss?
Posted by Anti-imperialist at 08/25/2009 @ 05:34am
Posted by Extraneous at 08/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
That IS the answer. But there is a countering force as well in the Republican Party. Not the few pro-immigrant conservatives like Larry (harder to find than a pro-choicer at a Focus on the Family conference)....but Business, who doesn't want to see cheap labor disappear.
So while telling the Nativist Right (Maasch, HAPP, etc.) that they will "seal up the border" when they re-take Congress and the White House...they cast a wink and a nod at Big Agri and Big Manufacturing and whisper "Don't fret it. Just red meat to the dogs!"
Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 08:05am