Australia’s Blue Mountains are covered with bluish Eucalyptus trees ( thus the name) which during a certain season release volatile oils which set off brushfires. Our political season is like that- the air is just filled with volatile oils.

This is quite a long piece especially if one follows the links Zeke thanks. I get a sense of it though. Some things stand out for me: the competition or battle between citizen journalism( legitimacy) and the main stream media( turf), the pros and cons of each ( for those of us out here reading), the way they serve as checks or critics, on each other ( bloggers to MSM most usefully, MSM in turn conferring legitimacy on bloggers) and the way that news gets manufactured and/or distorted, what gets magnified for what rationales .

Wasn’t the MSM is just looking to pick up something like the Obama “bitter” story to create a brushfire? ( Remember the Howard Dean “scream”?)

Outed by one of his own people.No one is safe.

“In between there is uncharted territory. Mayhill Fowler’s report quoting Barack Obama at a fundraiser (“It’s not surprising then they get bitter”) was posted at OffTheBus Friday afternoon. By Sunday morning Tim Russert had it top of show. How it happened. Why we did it. ”

http://tinyurl.com/5oma7s

Mayhill Fowler: Pennsylvania Campaign Journal: Obama Hams It Up, Flirts, And Gets A Bit Cocky

I forgot how these events colored everything. Everything. It not only took our funds- it took our attention. It seemed as though every story in every category, business, style, food, art, local national foreign- was all 9/11 or all Iraq War all the time. If you were from outer space and came upon these papers you would have to wonder at this representation of life on the planet through this lens. Were we really so wrapped and so distorted? I think so. And it was not immediate either. It took a little while to sink in before it spread with the help of administration demagogues and the media. So maybe that is the answer as to why and how Bush got to stay 8 years. We have been gradually collectively waking up. But there were many who have been angry all along who still want heads to roll for this.

I have my own list of names.

I’m in the middle of watching the new Frontline on the Web, Bush’s War. Good stuff.

So I need no soul searching. Regarding the Colin Powell case- you had to take it on faith because there were photos shown and interpretations given and facts given that your average person had no way of knowing about. But even then I was not sold- just scratching my head.

Thanks for the info about the NYT.

Yet I’m troubled by this idea that it’s ok because the NYT was presenting a balanced view. Half the voices for the war and half against it. It’s like that argument with Global Warming.

Rosen in this interview says that big media did not listen to enough of the “skeptical” voices. This feeds into what bothers me…the NYT should be the skeptical voice – not looking for it.

Potter, i’ve heard you say before that you were for this war and now you know it was a mistake. But what I would like to know (from anyone that was not against this) is what soul searching have you done. It’s not enough to say that you thought they made a good case. That doesn’t cut it. We now know it was not only not a good case, it was one of the worst cases in history. What responsibility have you take on and what changes have you personally made in how you read the news.

Here is his presentation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

I would love to know what part of this presentation convinced you that we should invade a country.

This is what it has cost us and you, just in treasure (think about the opportunity cost).
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Thanks again for reminding me about the op eds. Make sure you keep that original paper. I just looked at a Boston Globe displayed in the BPL about the 78 blizzard and it was riveting to see it in black and white.

Anyway I am glad that Chris asked those questions at the end about the NYTimes. I cannot say that I am uncritical or not disappointed, but I agree with Rosen that the NYTimes is unique and a treasure and now I worry that they will die for lack of air. Or maybe they will do “top down” (second choice for survival) better than anyone and surprise us. The “more air” (participation by readers) will change the NYTimes as we have known it much more than the latter. Anyway I am not letting go yet- and not out of stubbornness.

Nother-So happens that I am cleaning out my garage and I (a hopeless saver) have a pile of yellowing New York Times from 9/11/01 and the days following plus from spring 2003 when we actually invaded Iraq. I can’t bring myself to throw them out before flipping through- at least to look at some of the awesome front page color photos. But without looking more deeply yet I do remember that even with Judith Miller reporting the editorials were dead set against the war and there were many op-ed contributers who also were against (but I think not Bill Keller). I will get back to you on that. It’s interesting how we remember and what we remember. I do remember that across the board there was pro and con discussion. And the fact is that many very bright people were taken for a ride by this president and believed that he needed backing and would never take us into a war precipitously. He was the one who betrayed us. But that is NOT to say that the media ( investigative reporting, not opinion) did not let us down. I don’t know if revenue and readership had anything to do with it but it is true that they are human and got swept up.

I was troubled by Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN. Manymuch brighter and more knowledgeable also bought it. Though I was against going to war but it seemed to me at the time that he made a strong case against Saddam. As well, the administration, it seemed, held so much secret information close to itself that it was a matter of trust about what we did not or could not know. Still William Safire in his columns seemed like a fool to me until the day he left the NYT. Still is WAS the job of the press to question and it did not for the most part.

Rosen suggests that with the blogs being so strong today- this would not happen.

BTW- I really enjoyed Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) in his bathrobe days. Now I see he is a big operation by comparison and I have to look to find him. I am a big fan and happy to see his well deserved success but I loved the simple site in those bathrobe days.

I do differ with Jay’s explanations for the compliance by big media on the war front. I feel that Jay is far too lenient with his criticism. The issue often gets framed as big media not questioning, but it’s much worse than that, they were negligent.

Jay’s rational for big media not questioning is to say that “The information is held by a small number of people.” He says the intelligence was very closely held (as opposed to the current mortgage crisis) and consequently it’s easy for the media to be manipulated.

Well, I’m just an ordinary citizen and I had the information that weapons inspectors were not finding anything. I also watched Colin Powell’s speech at the UN and I was sure at the time that the information/evidence that he put forth would not win him a case in small claims court. I was watching CSPAN when General Kinseki said we needed at least a few hundred thousand troops. I could go on and on. This was not closely held information!

The media cherry picked it’s stories just as the administration cherry picked the intelligence. Personally I watched in a state of fascinated horror as the media beat the drums of war and eventually I came to a simple conclusion, human nature trumps all. Jay’s explanation for the media’s actions paints them as an objective entity mistakenly succumbing to “authority,” but the truth is, the media is made up of individuals. Individuals who on a personal level felt violated by the terrorists on 911 (and were reactionary) and individuals who on a professional level would rather be reporting on a war than a rise in shark attacks on Florida beaches.

Bush proudly declares himself a “war president.” Don’t you think these individuals in the media want to declare themselves “war reporters”? They are just as wrapped up in their legacy.

Of course it’s also true that the ratings go up and more newspapers are sold during wartime, as opposed to shark time.

I knew we were screwed as soon as the major news organization agreed to be embedded (or as I like to say, in bed with) the Army. Your gonna pay for that access, one way or another!

Thanks again for letting us in our the class.