harry hope

From The Nation, 8/14/03:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030901&s=alterman

by Eric Alterman

Bush is still riding high in this country in part because we lack
institutions like the BBC and the Guardian--that is, a press that is
not shy about inviting right-wing opprobrium as it carries out its
mission of holding the government accountable for its actions.

Here, the mainstream media almost always allow the Bush Administration
to lie without consequence.

It's not that lies go unnoticed; it's just that it's considered bad
manners to worry about so silly an issue--and never more so than when
those lies are deployed to justify a needless war.

Even frequent Bush apologist Howard "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz could
not help noticing that when Bush said, "Did Saddam Hussein have a
weapons program? And the answer is: absolutely. And we gave him a
chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in," his
answer bore "no relation to reality."

He asked his guest on CNN's Reliable Sources, "Why has that not been
more made of by the press?"

The Post's Dana Milbank, who has established a deserved reputation as
the toughest of all the regular White House correspondents, answers,
"I think what people basically decided was this is just the President
being the President. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and
something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of
pressure."

There you have it.

An American President is said to be "under a great deal of
pressure"--unlike, say, Bill Clinton--and so the Washington press
corps decide that "people" prefer that he not be held accountable even
for his own deceitful words.

No wonder that, as Rusbridger notes, the Guardian website is now
serving the news needs of 2 million US readers per month, while BBC
viewership here is also skyrocketing.

These people are saying, "We can't get this kind of thing in America,"
says Rusbridger.

He was here for a conference on war reporting the newspaper organized
together with New York magazine and the New School's World Policy
Institute.

I asked Rusbridger if he happened to witness the famous Bush press
conference where White House reporters happily acted as props for what
was clearly a Karl Rove propaganda exercise.

He said he found it "appalling," actually cringed watching it and
wondered "how any information ever gets out at all."

It's not as if the information we need to judge our government is kept
from us.

The reporters are, for the most part, doing their jobs.

But as the Guardian's New York correspondent, Gary Younge, pointed out
to the New School audience, "In the political context in America,
there weren't that many takers for certain kinds of information."

Indeed, you can learn what liars the members of the Bush
Administration are on the front page of the Washington Post.

But if you say so aloud, be prepared to be smeared as "paranoid" by
the paper's editors.

The Guardian's announcement that it's exploring the US market for a
possible launch couldn't come at a more propitious moment.

Here's hoping they come over and deliver to our media the kick in the
arse they have worked so hard to deserve.

__________________________________________________ ______

A U.S. Guardian? A good possibility.

Harry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........it's considered bad manners to worry about so silly an issue........."


This is very much a cultural thing.
Different places have different ideas about what are "bad manners".

Some Southern States of the USA have their own code of what a gentleman does and does not do.
In England there are certain ideas about what are good manners and what are bad manners.

For example :
A gentleman does not talk about his [legal] ***ual adventures with a lady.
No matter who asks.
And no gentleman would ever ask such a question.

George W has lied about something far more serious than a "romp in the hay".
His lies took his country to war --- You can't get lies more serious than that !
Young soldiers have died, and are dying, because of this man's lies.

Why isn't Congress moving to impeach him ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bill bonde, one of many fair and balanced conservatives,

Because Bush is doing the right thing.

jonathan

The end justifies the mean.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
"......... Because Bush is doing the right thing........."


Let's assume you are correct.

Please explain to me, why was it the "right thing" to invade Iraq ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

jonathan

The means to convince the public of the need to go
to war was an exagerated WMD case. Wouldn't the truth
have sufficed? People always get suspicious when someone tells
them lies. Somehow they feel manipulated.

The means to get rid of Saddam was a war. Were there no
other means, or were they not examined? Was the occupation
of Iraq a part of the "end"?

bill bonde, one of many fair and balanced conservatives,

Good grief, we've been flying over Iraq for more than ten years,
fighting Saddam's efforts to block inspections and watching him murder
millions of people. If Iraq can't convince you to invade it, nothing
can. Yet, of course, you probably supported Clinton's Balkans war.