Americans deserve honesty from Bush, Salem OR Statesman

[BigLed]

"He should give a speech about the nonexistent Saddam/Sept. 11 link.

September 21, 2003

Oh, and by the way, there is “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

President Bush’s acknowledgement last week was a stark contrast to months of administration suggestions to the contrary — suggestions that helped rev up public support for the war."

<snip>

"The president has many writers who can help him. We imagine a speech that would go something like this:

“My fellow Americans,

“I as much as told you Saddam was one of the culprits in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That’s not true.

“I told you he had weapons of mass destruction and was likely to use them. That turns out to be false as well."

<more snipping>

"“You deserve better. From now on I promise to level with you. I pledge to be a president whose words you can trust.”

What about it, Mr. President?"
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=68035

From a Gannett organ no less. The worm is turning. And the worm is the great sandworm of Dune, SHAI-HULUD.

[FauxNewsBlues]

1. Gotta give my props out to Dean here.

Ever since Dean proved that you don't turn into salt by actually criticizing the president, criticism is starting to flood in from politicians and the media.

The emperor is naked and he has feet of clay. Those in the media who have been riding Shrub's coat tails are going to start falling in popularity with him, unless they start growing some intestinal fortitude.

[Newsjock]

2. Gannett

As far as I know -- despite some of the tripe that shows up in USA Today -- there's nobody in Gannett giving editorial direction orders to its local papers.

Some Gannett papers have been stridently against the war since before it started.

When a Gannett (or other big corporate) paper veers to the right, it's usually because the local management is so paralyzed by fear of their bosses that they think the only way to go is to look like a print version of Fox News -- just like the old adage that "no manager ever got fired for choosing IBM."

And in the corporate newspaper environment, that fear is so pervasive that you can taste it. I suspect that's also the case in local TV news -- and it's that self-actualized fear that gets translated into on-air or in-print fear for the masses.

[BigLed]

3. Thanks

for the info on Gannett. This editorial is not too surprising for the Statesman-Journal although I never did see a news article in it regarding Bush's statements re: no evidence. They sometimes seem schizo in their coverage. They do the best coverage of the goings on at the legislature most of the time. We take it at home. I usually scan it in about a half hour to see what they cover. It's rarely in depth about much except Oregon legislative stuff.

Years ago I got a telephone solicitation from them. When I said no, thanks, they asked why. I replied that I could read it in 15 minutes. The response was, "What's wrong with that?" It got me to thinking and I guess if you are looking to a newspaper for a quick synopsis it (the Statesman) does a decent job of that. At the time I looked to newspapers for in depth coverage and analysis of the bites shown on television news. No longer, especially here in Oregon. The Oregonian seems to get more right wing all the time, especially measured by what they don't cover.

We take the Journal now because my wife reads it cover to cover for local coverage.