Earlier tonight, I posted Dan Froomkin's piece on I.F. Stone that said, in part, that today's journalists "are encouraged to write in a way that subjugates not only their personality but their judgment." What would be an example? Check out this story set to run in tomorrow's New York Times, with the hard-hitting headline: "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert":
[..]But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.
The truth is this: What George W. Bush said to the nation yesterday was a lie, and an easily provable one.
Five years, two unwinnable wars, hundreds of thousands of deaths and life altering injuries and the NY Times STILL gives Bush the benefit of the doubt. You can ask NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt** why by contacting him at email@example.com or (212) 556-7652. Tempting as it might be to direct some rage over the complicit media at Mr. Hoyt, please remember that you have far more credibility and are much more persuasive if you avoid the nasty-gram tactic.
**Changed to reflect current Public Editor