USA Today finally ends Downing St. Memo blackout

[Lefty48197]

After faithfully executing their duties as media voices for the right wing, USA Today has finally caved to journalistic pressures and dared to mention the Downing St. Memo. (add your own dramatic horror movie organ music here)
I don't know if Bush had stopped paying USA Today to remain silent, or if the editor was home sick one day, and some wildcat reporter sneaked a story into print that didn't toe the Republican party line. Either way, the cat is out of the bag, and the whole nation is laughing at USA Today for being so obviously TERRIFIED of printing stories critical of Team Bush.

Here's a link to their FIRST story on the subject, published over a month after the story came to light:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050608/a_memo08.art.htm

"The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2...

Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo “claims President Bush … was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.” The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20.

None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages. Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday. Today marks USA TODAY's first mention." (June 8th)

If the Bush engineered 100% blockout of journalistic oversight of his administration, weren't such a terrible moment in American history, USA Today's foreign news editor Jim Cox's statement would be laughable:

"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.”

I think Cox should resign in disgrace over his comments. "Reliable source"? Did he expect Bush or Blair to give him a copy of the memo? Aren't they the only ones HE would consider "reliable"? Is Cox being paid by the Bush administration to only print favorable articles, as so many other so-called "journalists" are? In major leagues baseball, 3 strikes means you're out. In newspaper journalism, whiffing on a major story for 38 consecutive days is grounds for looking for a new career, because you have failed so miserably at your chosen profession. Good luck to you Jim Cox in whatever you choose to do in the future, but please get out of the journalism business. You don't know what the hell you're doing.

Here's the link to write to the USA Today's editors and tell them how much you think they suck:

http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18

Here's an excellent article by Hofstra Professor Cynthia Bogard critical of "journalists" for not covering the story:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0613-27.htm

[blm]

1. Many of the KnightRidder papers DID put it on the front page so it

can't be said that noone put it on the front page.

In fact, the Charlotte Observer boasted the other day that they put it on their front page May 6.

[biscotti]

2. What a lame excuse

You would think they would be more creative. There were numerous legitimate sources to copies of the Memo and Minutes. They totally shirked their duty.

[longship]

3. LTTE to USA Today

Here's my LTTE.

You state that your negligence in reporting the so-called "Downing Street Minutes" is for lack of a reliable source and the suspicious timing of the first release of the document.

The Downing Street Minutes support the facts revealed by Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter, Richard Clark, Joseph Wilson and other former prominent insiders, that the Bush administration had decided to go to war with Iraq very early and that Iraq did not possess the capabilities to be a global threat contrary to all this administration's official pronouncements. The Minutes also support the suspicions of many that the intelligence was being jiggered to build a justification effectively out of whole cloth.

If the information in the Minutes is accurate, the Bush administration may have deliberately lied to citizens, Congress, and the world to justify a pre-emptive war with a country which was not a danger to the USA let alone its neighbors.

A professional news organization not recognizing this document's importance borders on incompetence so egregious that the responsible person should end his or her career forth with.

[Lefty48197]

4. Well put.

You're not giving them hell, you're just telling the truth, and they think it's hell.