TOOLS OF THE TRADE: DOWNING STREET

 
THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD, BUT NOT IF IT REMAINS IN YOUR POCKET.  Your Laptop Can Be a Powerful Weapon for Truth, But Not If It Is Stashed in Someone Else’s Backpocket.  The media, the fourth estate, the sO called fourth branch of government, has ceased doing its job. Instead it is helping to do a job on us.  When the media fails to do its job, democracy is at risk. 

Is this the reason the Downing Street Memo story hasn’t been told.  Look who should be telling the story.

ELISABETH BUMILLER IS ONE REASON BUSH GETS TO LIE AS MUCH AS HE WANTS
Because Even When He Lies and She Knows He Lies, She Can Not Say He Lies.
The New York Times cannot say that.  If The New York Times, the paper of record that once printed the Pentagon Papers cannot now print the truth about lies, we are more screwed than anybody previously thought.

When somebody tells you they can’t say somebody is lying, they are lying themselves.  Journalists have lost their courage, cowering at the computer screen.  They come up with courageous euphemisms to hide their cowardice.  Read this and weep.  Is the president lying?

I think its much more powerful to say, “However, the president’s statement did not reflect the record”—

I think it’s more powerful to say you no longer hunt down stories and have all become lap dog bitches to power.  And like the president they cover, these journalists expect not to be called on their cowardice before the facts.  When truth becomes an insigificant thing, we end up with the rule of lies.

BUMILLER: IT'S VERY HARD TO WRITE .  . .

Bumiller: That’s why it’s very hard to write those, because you can’t say George Bush is wrong here. There’s no way you can say that in the New York Times. So we contort ourselves up and say, “Actually”— I actually once wrote this sentence: “Mr. Bush’s statement did not exactly . . . ” It was some completely upside down statement that was basically saying he wasn’t telling the truth. And I got an email from somebody saying, “What’s wrong with you guys? Why can’t you just say it plainly?” But there’s just—

Loren Ghiglione (Medill School of Journalism, Moderator): Why can’t you say it plainly?

Bumiller: You can’t just say the president is lying. You don’t just say that in the . . . you just say—

Ghiglione: Well, why can’t you?

[laughter from the audience]

Bumiller: You can in an editorial, but I’m sorry, you can’t in a news column. Mr. Bush is lying? You can say Mr. Bush is, you can say. . . .

[Murmuring and laughter continue from audience.]

Bumiller [to audience]: And stop the fussing! You can say Mr. Bush’s statement was not factually accurate. You can’t say the president is lying—that’s a judgment call.

Page: I think its much more powerful to say, “However, the president’s statement did not reflect the record”—

Bumiller: Or “was not factually accurate.”

Page: “Was not factually accurate.” I think that’s more powerful than. . . .
[Audience continues to murmur.]

Bumiller [to audience]: What is wrong with that? What is your problem with that? What? Why do you all object to that? OK. . . .

Ghiglione: Well, let’s not open it up to everybody in this room.

 

[laughter from the audience]
.....................................
 
FROM FAIR 

 
THE ONLY THING MORE SAD THAN THE AUDIENCE’S LAUGHTER IS BUMILLER’S EXCUSES. That and Somebody Pays Her for Her Sad Excuse for “Reporting’. Enter now the court stenographer ending her piece and making her peace with the end of the Bush Blair joint appearance at the White House yesterday.

 

BUT WHAT?
  The White House has always insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, which relied heavily on claims, now discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons. But as early as Nov. 21, 2001, Mr. Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what could be done to oust Mr. Hussein.
.....................................
 BUMILLER/ NY TIMES

BUT AS EARLY . . That is where the Times story ends.  Where the story starts.  Which is how we end up. We end up with the Downing Street Memo story not having traction.  Not yet.  But it still can.

TRANSCRIPT BUSH BLAIR AT WHITE HOUSE 06.07.05

 

Comments

[BadTux]

Gave you props. I've had arguments with editors on this. They insist up and down that their job is to accurately transcribe what's being said, whether it's a lie or not, and refuse to admit that they have any duty to the truth.

- Badtux the Reportorial Penguin

[jen]

pathetic. not proud to share a gender with her.

[eRobin]

I thought that story wasn't bad - especially after reading that great FAIR bit you found, Heretik. The thing about the NYT isn't that they don't follow up on so many stories. This Bumiller piece was pretty good considering she's writing in the American corporate media. (I feel like we can always tell when there's a story because Ms. Bumiller's writing becomes very spare. But that's me reading into it.) This should have been written on May 2nd, but okay, it's getting written now. Now they need to do a follow-up analysis that points out that what Blair said about the UN has nothing to do with what the minutes say. And that what Bush said was nothing but a he-said denial. They need to talk to Dearlove directly - dig into the minutes. It's been addressed by the preznit and it's being addressed in Congress and it's being addressed by the people. They have no excuse not to follow up now. Be sure to read Jefferson Morley on that topic here.

WRITE LETTERS to editors, guys! This is how the story gets pushed.