No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 
How did the Mainstream 'objective' press fail America in the WMD debate?

The Washington Post has finally admitted that it “underplayed” skeptical reports on WMDs during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

So they were trying to appear unbiased (perhaps) or maybe just not negative towards to administration policy. As a result, they failed to do their jobs.

This article lays the blame squarely where it belongs, on the timid editors.

So essentially we had a conservative right-wing press (FOX, CNN, The Washington Times, The American Standard, National Review, etc.) that was touting the administration line 110%, and an “objective” mainstream press who was emphasizing the administration line and downplaying the facts that contradicted the administration. There was no debate. Just a rush to war.

As a nation we were poorly served, especially by the mainstream press.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts below:

Post says it underplayed skeptical reports on WMDs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5676702/

By Howard Kurtz
Updated: 1:15 a.m. ET Aug. 12, 2004

WASHINGTON - Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

posted by Richard at 8:59 AM