Krugman obliquely addresses the Times's Miller problem

[BurtWorm]

October 14, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Questions of Character
By PAUL KRUGMAN

...

Right now, with the Bush administration in meltdown on multiple issues, we're hearing a lot about President Bush's personal failings. But what happened to the commanding figure of yore, the heroic leader in the war on terror? The answer, of course, is that the commanding figure never existed: Mr. Bush is the same man he always was. All the character flaws that are now fodder for late-night humor were fully visible, for those willing to see them, during the 2000 campaign.

And President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media.

Why does this happen? A large part of the answer is that the news
And that makes it all too easy for coverage to be shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know. Now that Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's, we're hearing about his coldness and bad temper, about how aides are afraid to tell him bad news. Does anyone think that journalists have only just discovered these personal characteristics?

...

Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism. Those who wrote puff pieces about Mr. Bush and those around him have been rewarded with career-boosting access. Those who raised questions about his character found themselves under personal attack from the administration's proxies. (Yes, I'm speaking in part from experience.) Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the structure of rewards shifted.


Paid subscription required, goddamnit:
http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[acmavm]

1. Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the

structure of rewards shifted.<snip>

So what does that make these guys? I don't see their sudden finding of integrity a plus now that they feel safe to tell the truth. They're part of the reason we're where we are today. (NOT KRUGMAN AND A VERY VERY FEW OTHERS.)

Hope they enjoy their careers. They sold their souls to the devil for 'em.

[cassiepriam]

4. they are still prostitutes

pure and simple. They will shift again to serve themselves.

[itzamirakul]

7. Correct. Once Rove and "Scooter" are conveniently found to be

innocent of any real "intention" of wrong-doing in outing Plame, then Perle or Wolfie or some of their "hired guns" will find a way to commit another terrorist act akin to 911 so that the poster boy can swagger again and pose as our "Savior."

See, the so-called "bull-horn moment" didn't work during Katrina because that was a God-caused disaster, not a staged disaster such as was the photo op yesterday. (BTW, I live in NYC and I didn't find the "bull-horn moment" to be either heroic nor inspiring. I found it to be very phony, just as I find Giuliani to be very phony. But if you have friends in the media...well...just look at Paris Hilton.

Edit: heroic not haeroic, durn it!

[enough]

2. kick

[Neil Lisst]

3. Thanks. Love Krugman, hadn't read him today.

That wasn't even thinly veiled.

I've said she's done at the NYTimes.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[cassiepriam]

5. Not so oblique, he all but calls her a wh*re

[pberq]

6. Kick!!! - Recommended

[BurtWorm]

8. kick

[Toots]

9. Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the structure of rewards

shifted" Please let this be true. I would love so very much to be able to trust what is shown as news. That has not been the case for over a decade. It seemed about half way through the Clinton administration the Media was emasculated. I remember the Right's big push on Whitewater. the MSM looked at it and reported what little they could and then stopped. The right went ballistic and within a month or so it was constantly in the news no matter there was never any wrong doing to discuss just snide comments and innuendo and those went non stop even today. I just don't see Corporate Media changing sides in this. The truth must stay bottled up or Profits may fall.