FAIR documents media lies on reasons for silence on Downing Street Memos

[papau]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2556

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Justifying the Silence on Downing Street Memos

June 17, 2005

One of the features of the newfound media interest in the Downing Street Memo is a profound defensiveness, as reporters scramble to explain why it received so little attention in the U.S. press. But the most familiar line--the memo wasn't news because it contained no "new" information--only raises troubling questions about what journalists were doing when they should have been reporting on the gulf between official White House pronouncements and actual White House intentions.

There are two important points in the Downing Street Memo, and media apologists have marshaled slightly different--though equally unconvincing--arguments as to why each did not deserve coverage. The first point is that the White House was intent on going to war long before it announced the decision to invade Iraq; "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action," the memo states, citing British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The Washington Post editorialized (6/15/05): "The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." The New York Times reported (6/14/05) that "the documents are not quite so shocking. Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary." NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell similarly remarked on June 14 (Media Matters, 6/15/05) that you had to be "brain dead not to know" what the White House was doing.

But if everyone knew it was a lie when Bush and the White House repeatedly denied that they had decided to go to war (as with Bush's March 6, 2003 statement, "I have not made up our mind about military action"), why were reporters not exposing this bad faith at every turn? On March 16, 2003, for example, Andrea Mitchell referred to negotiations at the United Nations as part of "the diplomatic campaign to avoid war." If war was a foregone conclusion, why were such talks reported as if they mattered?<snip>

[Kagemusha]

1. Because it was their patriotic duty in their own minds.

Do a Sherlock. Eliminate other possibilities and you will find the uncomfortable truth. (I'm saying that in general, not to papau specifically)

[papau]

5. patriotic duty ? - or duty to the GOP voices in their organization?

The GOP as the party of sleaze, traitors, lies, and gay and hetero sex with children added to the whoring and murder cover-ups, is just not a theme the media will push, although they had no problem when it was not true about the Dems under Clinton but the GOP feed them lies.

Granted they awarded themselves at their industry meetings for their bravery during the Clinton years in doing their "patriotic duty" - and they no doubt use "patriotic duty" today - indeed perhaps that is why US "entertainment focused news" is losing viewers and readers these days (30% drop via folks that now use internet as primary source)

[bejammin075]

2. So if everybody knows Bush lied...

then why aren't the reporters reporting that Bush lied?

It's a contradiction. If we all know he lied, then why isn't it being reported that way? Just last week at the BUsh-Blair conference, why didn't they report that he was lying about the DSM?

[Skittles]

3. these Bush whores didn't report it because it exposes their complicity

how does it look that bush lied his way into a WAR while the coporate press CHEERED HIM ON ????

[ixion]

4. IMO, anyone who knew it was a lie and supported the war

is complicit in Crimes Against Humanity.

Some might claim that's being to harsh, to which I would reply: "ask the tens of thousands who've died needlessly if that was too harsh."

So, therefore, if Ms. Mitchell knew, then she too is a war criminal.

[bemildred]

6. Stop calling them journalists goddamit!

They are not journalists, they are helmet-haired propaganda readers, not good enough to be real actors, but plenty good enough to pretend to be newsmen while spewing whatever bullshit is run over the teleprompter. They don't investigate anything, they don't decide anything, and they don't care a fig about keeping you well informed.