Thursday, July 28, 2005

Curiouser and Curiouser

Hey!

I was just sort of thinking. Like, if you were totally paranoid, you know? You might start wondering about all these reporters from, like, the big liberal newspapers who were maybe sort of helping out Bush and Cheney and those guys when they were talking about mushroom clouds and stuff to get people all fired up to go over to Iraq and bust the place up.

I'm just saying.

---

Over at her place, Ariana Huffington pretty much paints The New York Times' Judith Miller as a full-blown aider and abettor of the Rovewellian campaign to sell the war. (And Arianna makes some darn compelling arguments in that regard.)

Blog favorite Capitola Banta points out this piece from The New York Times' Doug Jehl that casts murky aspersions on the role Walter Pincus of The Washington Post played in Plamegate. Jehl also conjures up journalistic names like Novak, Cooper, and Russert.

Another piece of the puzzle: conservative pundit William Safire seems to have to come out of retirement to bang the drum about the travesty of Judith Miller being in jail.

Funny how Plume/Rove/Niger/Traitorgate is become a story about reporters--for the most part, reporters who work for the "liberal" mainstream media.

Do you think maybe, behind some curtain, there's a short, bald, fat guy throwing switches and pulling strings to make all this happen?

Like I said, I'm just saying. But wouldn't it be something if, at the end of the day, the free press takes the fall for Traitorgate?

"Just because you're paranoid..."

8 comments:

  1. God, I love a good conspiracy. This is an interesting point-of-view. Quite intriguing. I must now go research it as it hadn't occurred to me in quite that way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm just saying...

    Folks like Frank Rich and Molly Ivens (and little old me) keep trying to keep the story focused on who knew the Niger story was bogus (Dubya himself?) when Dubya put it in his SOTU speech.

    Everytime I see the story getting steered away from that, I wonder what's up.

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  3. But Judith Miller et al. do share responsibility. They failed in their duty to us to show due care and professionalism. Should they take the WHOLE fall for it? Naw. And I don't see how they can. I would be happy if they'd just start doing their damned jobs.

    Incidentally, the NiP I just finished (guess it's no longer an NiP!) focuses on a reporter who is duped into being the mouthpiece of a rightwing conspiracy. He makes good in the end, though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds cool, Doug. Good luck with NnliP.

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  5. I lvoe a good conspiracy too, but I find that the vast majority of conspiracy theories turn out to be hind-sight correlation of a bunch of interesting facts and/or events that may not have been related at the time but can be made to look that way in hindsight. Conspiracy theory is kind of like numerology - you can make anything look like anything you want.

    I'm not passing judgment on Jeff's theory, because it is to soon to tell and he may well turn out right. I just approach such things with a healthy degree of skepticism because it is easy to connect dots that aren't really connected when looking back on events.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott:

    I'm skeptical of my own theories, particularly this one.

    HOWEVER, the media have let themselves be manipulated before (e.g., Swift Boat Veterans got a lot more air time than they paid for,) and the Rovewellians have been masters of the art.

    To say they haven't actively manipulated the media in the past is an act of complete denial. To think they aren't actively manipulating it now--well, I'd call that downright delusional.

    Just how well they're able to achieve their precise goals is hard to say. How well they'll be able to spin Traitorgate away from themselves is to be determined.

    At the end of the day, though, I hardly think you can call suspicion of neocon media manipulation a "conspiracy theory."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jeff:

    Agreed. I think both political parties, and subsets of the parties, actively manipulate the media all the time.

    I know the Dems do it because I know some high-ups in the party. I can see that the GOP does it, and in some ways they do it better than the Dems.

    ReplyDelete
  8. They're all guilty, Scott. I think, however, that the GOP is--and has been--inside the Dem's turning circle for quite a few years.

    ReplyDelete