statement.
In fact even the conclusion seemed flawed since "Monday Morning Quarterback"
specifically refers to somebody that claims that they could have done
something better than somebody else. In this case they are saying that they
allowed themselves to become lax, not placing themselves in another's
position. Woodward is specifically saying that, in his opinion, this
complacently was universal among the major media and that furthermore nobody
was willing to make this claim out of fear of later embarrassment.
They were very clear, again, that this apology related to actual, published
articles, not imagined research or investigation that they could have
possibly done. In other words it wasn't that they "could" have known
anything: it was that they had writers that were questioning the
administration but they failed to give them the exposure that the stories
deserved.
There was no claim (direct or implied) of supporting Bush that I could see.
Instead there was a regret for trusting the administration-backed
intelligence as much as they did coupled with a herd mentality when it came
to determining "top stories".
Jim Davis
From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 7:47 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Washinton Post issues mea culpa for prewar coverage
Assistant managing editor Bob Woodward told Mr.
Kurtz that no journalist wanted to challenge the
belief that weapons of mass destruction existed in
Iraq, in case weapons were later found. "I think it
was part of the group-think."
Sounds like they're claiming that if they weren't so
focused on supporting Bush they would have known the
WMDs didn't exist. Monday morning quarter backing.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
