Mikaela warns:
I feel a rant of unsubstantiated claims about media coming on. Read no further if you want ACTUAL justification for gut-level disgust about the state of things.
I'm a quick peruser of four news sources, as I'm sure my entries make clear. First and foremost, I scan Democracy Now to digest what to look for in the big papers. Then I click first on NY Times -- cause it's the New York Times! (Although, I've been consistently disappointed and downright disgusted with its vapid reporting lately. These days, I check Washington Post first.) Then I check out Washington Post. Then, if I'm still dissatisfied, I go to the LA Times. I'll admit it; I'm doing this during work before settling into my work day. I need news fast! I read more than one paper to minimize myopia and to gain a broader survey of what's on the radar for respected media outlets. That's the idea, anyway.
You wonder why m-pyre's postings have been a bit thin lately (okay, damn near comatose)? Yes, we're all busy, and yes, our lives are changing tectonically as some of us finish degrees (hurray!) and some of us search for new direction and one of us (okay, me!) try desperately to keep my nose to the thesis grindstone. But on my part, it's also a dearth in news coverage of the stories I'm hungry to know about. Sure, the newspapers are still filled with all kinds of stories. But the ones that I want to know about? Silence.
Dan Froomkin from the Washington Post has been the only one consistently remembering to ask, "Where's Rove? Why isn't Bush talking? Why isn't anyone dissatisfied with the silence enough to force them to talk or at least offer up more satisfying (i.e. more truthful) answers?"
His stuff's buried, though. I never can find him if I'm looking for him, and I usually only read him when there's a link displayed under the Opinion heading on the main page. Otherwise? Hard to find. Maybe I'm just an idiot.
But shouldn't it be easier? Shouldn't there be more stories?
What happened to the information that the Bush administration has been waging a propaganda war in Arab countries much like the propaganda he paid for here in our very own country? (NY Times very much comes through on this story documenting the extent of the propoganda but misses the opportunity to explore why this is deeply unethical, or even report that criticism.) Where's the outrage? Or the analysis?
What happened to the Downing Street memos?
Why is the heading "Fitzgerald Watch" when the story is all about Rove and Novak?
Can someone with more objectivity and wisdom, maybe more time to think about this carefully and critically, please explain all this to me?
That said, here's the link to Froomkin's amazing run-down of all things Bush related.
And here's his White House Briefing, which is fast becoming my main source of the news I care about:
- Bush on plans to attack Iran and Syria: "The long run in this war is going to require a change of governments in parts of the world," Bush told the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, a nonpartisan educational group, on Monday. He didn't name names but noted that Iran and Syria have become obstacles to freedom in 'a tough neighborhood.' "
- Bush on Katrina and racism: "Somebody I heard -- you know, a couple of people said -- you know, said, 'Bush didn't respond because of race, because he's a racist.' That is absolutely wrong. And I reject that. Frankly, that's the kind of thing that -- you can call me anything you want -- but do not call me a racist. Secondly, this storm hit all up and down. It hit New Orleans. It hit down in Mississippi too. And people should not forget the damage done in Mississippi."
- Bush on where he gets his news: "I don't see a lot of the news. Every morning I look at the newspaper. I can't say I've read every single article in the newspaper. But I definitely know what's in the news. Occasionally, I watch television. ... But I'm very aware of what's in the news. I'm aware because I see clips. I see summaries. I have people on my staff that walk in every morning and say, 'This is what's -- this is how I see it. This is what's brewing today,' on both the domestic and international side. Frankly, it is probably part of my own fault for needling people, but it's a myth to think I don't know what's going on. And it's a myth to think that I'm not aware that there is opinions that don't agree with mine. Because I'm fully aware of that. . . .
I read the newspaper. I mean, I can tell you what the headlines are. I must confess, if I think the story is, like, not a fair appraisal, I'll move on. But I know what the story's about."
- Bush on whether or not he's in a bubble: "Look, I, I, uh, I feel like I'm getting really good advice from very capable people, and that people from all walks of life inform me and inform those who advise me. And I feel very comfortable that, that I'm very aware of what's going on. ... I'm interested in the news, I'm not all that interested in the opinions."
|