I hate it when somebody else writes what I should have written. Like Paul Krugman of the New York Times. But his column in today's paper is right on.
So I have copied it below.
One caveat - while I agree with Krugman on what he says, I would note that he doesn't deal with what;s fundamental - the economic underpinnings of the news business. Which is kinda ironic; he's an economist, after all.
Here's the column:
To Tell the Truth
May 28, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are
currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the
Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly
documented claims of a dire threat received prominent,
uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either
ignored or played down.
But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many
journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader
context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in
which the press wasn't willing to report negative
information about George Bush.
People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by
watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change
in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after
9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and
righteousness.
But now those people hear about a president who won't tell
a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how
that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from
mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else
accountable. What happened?
The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never
existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for
various reasons, presented as reality.
The truth is that the character flaws that currently have
even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all
along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been
apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic.
His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a
long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility
complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being
original.
So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that
reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced
patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a
collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests
of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander
in chief.
Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate
and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators,
often bend over backward to say nice things about
conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now
caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate
themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither
haters nor irrational - and whose critiques look pretty
mild in the light of recent revelations.
And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to
believe that the president of the United States was being
dishonest about such grave matters.
Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After
9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative
about the president, you had to be prepared for an
avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing
pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your
reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access
to the sort of insider information that is the basis of
many journalistic careers.
The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press
like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?
A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the
national media believing that the press has not been
critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent
who believe that it has been too critical. More important,
journalists seem to be acting on that belief.
Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual
suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison
abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops - but
the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called
yet another terror alert - but the press raised questions
about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran
of ABC News actually said what many thought during other
conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing
possibility that you are manipulating the American public
in order to get a message out.")
It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of
The Washington Post - who has tried, at great risk to his
career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency
- "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the
first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration
beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into
docility.
But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush -
who has always depended on that docility - may be in even
more trouble than the latest polls suggest.