August 10, 2003
WaPo's Slap at Gore Should Be Slapped Down
Reading the Washington Post editorial about Al Gore's speech reminded me about how much the Washington Post did to March Us to War. No time for questions, it must be done right now. No wonder they didn't like Gore's speech:
But then why do so many other people support those policies? Mr. Gore has an umbrella explanation, albeit one that many Americans might find a tad insulting: "The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to embed in the public mind mythologies. . . . "
Evidently the WaPo editors don't have a need to review the facts, because they know they were behind the war 100% and are in no mood to go back and question why they came to that support.
Personally, I remember reading their editorials before the war started and thinking that they were a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards anxiously waiting to see the bombs drop. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they haven't reconsidered their part in putting our country into this mess.
Let's review some of the editorials they were writing and the responses from their readers:
[Warning: Links are pointing to the WaPo paid archive.]
Fred Hiatt
March 17, 2003; Page A19
Editorial
If a terrorist were to detonate a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb in Grand Central Station, about half a million people would die immediately -- roughly equivalent to the population of Washington, D.C. Much of Manhattan would be destroyed, and depending on the prevailing winds the rest of the island might have to be evacuated. Hundreds of thousands more would die of burns and exposure to radiation. The direct economic effects would surpass $1 trillion, or one-tenth of the nation's annual economic ....
March 1, 2003; Page A17
Section: B
I am one of the people to whom your Feb. 27 editorial was addressed: readers who are disturbed by your pro-war editorial position on Iraq. Thank you for this acknowledgment of our existence. Also, please know that I do appreciate the firewall that exists between your paper's news and opinion departments (without which I'd be long gone). Otherwise, the editorial was disappointing. It was condescending in tone and replete with oversimplified, false choices (e.g., between strength and...
'Drumbeat' on Iraq? A Response to Readers
February 27, 2003; Page A26
Section: B
"I HAVE BEEN a faithful reader of The Washington Post for almost 10 years," a recent e-mail to this page begins. "Recently, however, I have grown tired of your bias and endless drumbeating for war in Iraq." He's not the only one. The national and international debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and our editorials in favor of disarming the dictator, have prompted a torrent of letters, many approving and many critical. They are for the most ....
The March to War
February 21, 2003; Page A26
Section: B
Posted by Mary at August 10, 2003 07:05 PM | TrackBackThe Feb. 15 editorial "Sound and Fury" concluded, "Even if others lose their nerve, the United States must ensure that this time the dictator suffers the 'serious consequences' that are due." Apparently the editors find the case against an invasion of Iraq false. However, world opinion -- as well as opinion here at home -- suggests otherwise. The Post's literary allusionists might recall that the words "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound ....
It doesn't appear that anyone was willing to put their names to this steaming heap, either.
Posted by: natasha on August 10, 2003 07:57 PMDonald Graham wrote it. Soembody helped him, but this was written at the highest levels of the paper.
They don't give a shit what the facts are. Graham demanded propaganda and had to write it himself--that's why the writing quality seems not up to snuff, let alone the facts.
Something is strange here, though. Things are so screwed up and the case against the Bush felons so obvious Graham can't stop the real reporting from coming in. He can't look Pincus and Millbank in the face--and their editors--and tell them to stop being journalists. He just can't, so we get this goofy dichotomy with real reporting on the front page and propaganda on the editorial page.
It's not working at all, Donald. Get a clue: you're enabling a bloody felon and everybody knows it. It's going to kill your paper.
Posted by: paradox on August 11, 2003 11:40 AM