NY Times, Washington Post Accept Conservative Spin On Rules For Firing Whi

[JABBS]

In 2003, the White House made an unqualified pledge to fire any administration official involved in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Now, as specualtion spreads that deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was involved in leaking Plame's identity (if not her actual name), the White House has begun putting qualifications on that pledge. Surprisingly, newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post have accepted this qualified pledge, as if no change had occurred.

It's a nice bit of bait-and-switch by the administration, perhaps to give itself some wiggle room should independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald find that Rove was conclusively a source of the leak.

As reported by Media Matters for America, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said on Sept. 29, 2003: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

President Bush, a day later, said that he would "take appropriate action" against "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

But now, the Times and the Post are apparently repeating conservative spinning of those statements:

The Times reported on July 14: "Mr. Bush's comment came nearly two years after he suggested that he would fire anyone in his administration who had knowingly leaked the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson."

Meanwhile, the Post reported the same day: "The White House had declared that Rove was not involved in Plame's unmasking, and, when the controversy broke in the summer of 2003, Bush said he would fire anyone who illegally outed a CIA official."

Why the spin?

According to a July 14 San Francisco Chronicle analysis: "Privately, Republicans concede the controversy hurts and wonder why Bush does not simply say Rove did not break the law and clarify that when he said he'd fire anyone in his administration for revealing classified information, he specifically meant someone who broke the law."

***

This article first appeared on Journalists Against Bush's B.S. (JABBS)

[blm]

1. Spread the word: NYT and WP = BushInc apologist newspapers

Promote Knight Ridder as the only legitimate newspapers covering the White House and its wars using facts that will stand up for history's sake.

[Melodybe]

2. NYT has a Carlyle man on their Board of Directors and the WP has a long

history of Bush love:

Read this:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/020504Hasty/020504hasty.html

[JABBS]

3. the post

The Post has actually done some very good reporting, especially on waste and fraud in Homeland Security.

The problem, as anyone in journalism knows, is that the quality varies from reporter to reporter. Even at heralded papers like the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post.

Some reporters are newer to beats. Some reporters are lazier, and thus more prone to spin. Some reporters do their jobs very well. In the aforementioned stories, the reporters did not.

[blm]

4. The predominant editorial decisions tend to favor Bush spin.

Granted, some reporters get their good work through, but, alot depends on how the editor chooses to feature that work.

As far as I am concerned, news organizations outed themselves when the Downing Street Minutes appeared. How they handled it showed where their loyalties lay.

[JABBS]

5. the post

And of course, the Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, is a big fan of conservatives.