By: E&P Staff
In today’s letters, reaction to Greg Mitchell’s column about news organizations’ coverage of the Iranian threat of Iran and readers weigh in on Ann Coulter.
Newspapers Hyping Iran Threat?
Watch out, you imply that Michael Gordon is the only current New York Times reporter guilty of unquestioning reporting about tenuous links between Iran and arms used to attack Americans in Iraq. James Glanz does much the same as Gordon. He’ll report a few obvious questions, but insists that there’s fairly serious evidence linking Iran to C-4 explosives used in Irag, while never once explaining what the evidence is or what is so profoundly Iranian about a common military explosive. Don’t fall for the idea that the Times has learned anything.
… The media at every level has a totally unhealthy relationship with elected officials and their surrogates. …
Who in the Washington press corps wants to be guilty of asking a really tough question in a news conference and be blacklisted by the President? They would have to ride in the back of Air Force One. Politicians retaliate for such acts. After all, these media folks have careers to marshal and what reporter doesn’t like the notoriety of standing up and asking his/her question before a national TV audience. God forbid they should be denied a future on-camera opportunity because they asked an entirely too tough question. It’s much healthier to throw marshmallows instead. Ergo, we have WMD signed sealed and delivered; by the President, by the Congress and by the media. Reporters need news even if it is erroneous.
I know this sounds cynical. I don’t trust George Bush or the national media to deliver the truth. I think the solution for nationally televised news conferences is for reporters to submit questions anonymously. Questions get read to the President or whoever by a member of the press corp, acting as a monitor, with no attribution to the member who posed it. The President has to answer the question and/or a follow up. Retaliation for the hard ones is impossible.
The symbiotic relationship between the media and President is sick. The American People along with the rest of the world suffer greatly.
Little Rock, Ark.
I enjoy your reporting. I’ve wondered… if there was a Times public editor before the Iraq war … would it have affected coverage?
This seems like it might an interesting question to approach or ponder since I suspect the answer is: “not much.”
Doesn’t it seem like there would have been just some mild blandishments written about the minority of people at the time who were jumping up-and-down and waving their arms about the build-up to war? It just seems the public editors thus far have refused to take common sense stands against certain clear blind spots and deficits in the way modern journalism is gathering information.
The Walter Reed Hospital Scandal
Walter Reed reminds me of Willowbrook … Thanks for the Galloway piece.
Coulter’s ‘Faggot’ Remark
Ann Coulter’s homophobic attacks would strike me as humorous in an infantile Howard Stern sort of of way were it not for the fact that she is touted as one of the intellectual lights of the Conservative movement. Intellectual may mean something else to people who vote for a President who disdains reading, but there is no doubt Anne qualifies as light — as in lightweight.
My experience has shown that those who are most vocal denouncing homosexuality are frequently covering over a fear they cannot own. … But whatever Ms Coulter’s sexual orientation, it is no business of mine — just as no one else’s should be her business. What is my business is that the money-grubbing “news” networks see fit to give a forum to someone who should be consigned to suffer the ignominy she so richly deserves – a career as a sideshow attraction along with the dwarfs, crackheads and porn stars on the aforementioned Howard Stern show. …
Tellico Plains, TN
Quit sniveling. Remember, sticks and stones, etc.
K. Douglas Lee