the intelligence and facts were being fixed
I've been waiting to see what gets published on the now-stale-yet-still-very-relevant Iraq memo from the London Times. Web posters have been buzzing about it, yet the American press has mostly ignored addressing it in any context. From a Google news search a few days back, I found < 8 articles, mostly from conservative damage control. FAIR has an assessment of the few outlets where it's been discussed. More articles are appearing (including one from Media Matters). This needs to be addressed, and I'm baffled why it's not.
This would be an excellent point of discussion to pursue the theory of media ownership and how this influences what is dissemniated or presented to the public.
Damage control? It's no mystery that the majority of the media falls in the realm of conservative/right leaning ownership. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that content decisions came from this "concern".
Are more people interested in Mr. Home Alone's (ironic isn't it?) testimony in the Michael Jackson trial? That hints towards profit motive.
In either case, both possibilities are shameful in that independant imperative has acceded to inappropriate or out-of-step goals.
And this relates to what we were talking about with Wikinews. If a story is ignored in the major outlets, a respected, public-edited outlet could fill that gap.
I do have to wonder though. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this seizing upon the word "fixed". Sure, in hindsight it has been constructed, quite effectively and convincingly that the "truths" were "mistkaes in fact" and some would go as far as to say they were "lies".
It comes dangerously close to quibbling which makes it all to easy for nay-sayers to be dismissive.
"Fixed" could mean any number things before it could mean conspiratorial subterfuge.
Posted by: Mason at May 12, 2005 11:02 PMFrom the memo:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record."
I'm the first person to say that any text has multiple meanings, but what else do you see in the intent of these sentences? You say it could mean "any number of things" (what are they?) "before it could mean conspiratorial subterfuge" (and why do these other things take precedence *before* conspiracy?).
I think the most important point is that any other analysis should come out of public discussion and official statements. These are not occurring.