'USA Today' Defends Lack of Coverage for Downing Street Memo

[Jon8503]

By E&P Staff
Published: June 08, 2005 1:05 PM ET

NEW YORK In a report on President Bush's joint press conference late yesterday afternoon with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, USA Today for the first time mentioned the so-called Downing Street Memo, first reported in London's Sunday Times on May 1, and explained why the Gannett flagship had not previously covered the memo story.

The Downing Street Memo is reported to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting among Blair and some of his top intelligence and national-security aides. One of the aides reportedly told Blair at the meeting that the Bush administration has already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for justification. "Intelligence and facts were being fixed" to make war appear inevitable, the memo reportedly stated. Its veracity has not been contested by No. 10 Downing Street.

Wrote reporter Mark Memmott in the USA Today article's final paragraph: "USA Today chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. 'We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source,' Cox says. 'There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing.'"

The memo has attracted a great deal of media attention in Britain, but it has gotten much less play in the United States.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000952574

[Larkspur]

1. If the Memo had been a remark made by Dean about Repukes

you know that USA Today would have taken Dean's remark out of context and put it on page one with a horrible picture of Dean next to their "story."

The hyprocrisy is astounding.

[Jon8503]

6. Did'nt they report all the news from the Swift Boat Liars?

[DBoon]

2. "Concerns about timing"?

Wouldn't want to hurt Bush's re-election, wouldn't they?

[BillZBubb]

3. Incredible bullshit from right wing "paper".

They could have reported it like they do many things as minutes to a meeting that surfaced. They didn't have to even say it was legit. Just cover the fact it surfaced. You know, like any lie about Clinton. Or the Swift Boat Liars. USA Today sure covered the Swifties.

Oh that "Liberal" media.

[Brotherjohn]

5. Yeah, they sure didn't care about any of that with SVB! (n/t)

[Brotherjohn]

4. Well, the fact that both Bush and Blair implicitly acknowledged...

... its authenticity (if not its accuracy) yesterday renders each of those three points completely moot.

So are they now going to cover the fact that 89 Representatives have issued a formal letter to the White House asking for explanations?

Are they going to do a little investigating themselves to find out if the charges of the minutes are in fact accurate?

I doubt it.

[TexasLawyer]

7. Oh brother...

I've seen lame, but this is LAME!!!

[Selteri]

8. I'm curious to see if Newsweek does anything.

I suspect they'll avoid it until there is no choice.

[Rex]

9. They didn't cover it because it would hurt their boss GWB

Duh. :eyes: