Okay, sorry for the delay, but thought that I would link to several articles that are informative.
The first two will make you mad -- here is an article by Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times (he was forced to resign after one of his reporters, Jayson Blair, fabricated numerous articles, and the second is from a chat by Associate Editor Robert Kaiser of the Washinton Post.
Here is one question and answer from the online chat that is quite telling and explanatory of the Post's coverage of the war.
Atlanta, Ga.: I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but as of late, things that were once dismissed as laughable, impossible or "unpatriotic" are turning out to be at least partially true e.g. Halliburton's White House ties, intra-agency turf wars, U.S. government knowingly releasing "untruths," etc. My question to you, do you easily dismiss conspiracists or do you at least consider the possibility they may be speaking truths? How does this affect as you as journalist (assuming if affects you at all)?
Robert G. Kaiser : Lots of questions like this, too, but this is a particularly thoughtful version that I would like to answer.
Let's begin with an old joke: Even hypochondriacs get sick. Conspiracies are very difficult to run inside the U.S. government, thankfully. But they happen. Watergate is really a collection of conspiracies that were kept secret for a long time, and might never have been revealed. The Iran-Contra affair is/was a conspiracy that has never been fully explained (for example, we have never been able to discover the real role of George H.W. Bush in that dark business).
To answer your specific questions, I do personally react against theories of vast conspiracies. This is just part of my skeptical makeup, I guess. But I try never to reject the possibility entirely.
So, for example, I do think there was what amounted to a kind of conspiracy to get the U.S. into a war against Iraq, if we define the term as a secretive plot involving a group within the government but excluding many important officials, who bent events and information to their undeclared purpose. Although you'd have to say it was a barely undeclared purpose. "
Remember also that these two men were or are still in charge of hard news coverage for the New York Times and the Washington Post -- not the opinion pages.
Here are several articles that are much more interesting and beneficial.
Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal (former speechwriter for Reagan) and a marine stationed outside of Fallujah are required reading for today! If you wish, visit http://www.thegreenside.com for more letters from the front.
Also read this letter from another Marine. These stories are not being reported, but you can help spread them around!Posted by teach002 at June 3, 2004 2:19 PM