Help the "media" connect the dots!!

[slor]

Last night I recalled that I read a story about Blair needing to convince * to attack Afghanistan before going to Iraq. I believe it was either Time or Newsweek. In any event, Teach1st a DU sleuth if ever there was one, found this link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blair/etc/script.html

I ask that you get this in the blogs. While it is already clear to most intelligent people that chimpy chimp wanted to go to Iraq, even more so
following several reputable insiders stepping out from the dark and stating this fact, Clarke being the most recent, however the media seems incapable or unwilling to point out what is as clear as day. I know blogs have made a difference before, let it happen again. I still remember reading it in one of the magazines I pointed out, but the above mentioned link also points it out. Please get it out there. Thanks!

[Aidoneus]

1. 'unwilling' is correct

it is naive to think there is any seperation of interests, or that any deviation from such a status would be forthcoming.

[robpopulace]

2. From NOW with Bill Moyers 3/26/2004

Bill Moyers interviewing Michel Martin from ABC's Nightline.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript313_full.html

MOYERS: But didn't you hear that there was not enough investigative reporting in Washington? That we do take the he said/she said approach, we do take what government said. And we find somebody, it's the seesaw, the liberal versus the conservative, the democrat versus the republican. Shouldn't we be connecting the dots more for the people?

MARTIN: I don't know, we live in a time where people challenge authority at all levels. And they also challenge the authority of the media to connect the dots for them. You can hear people say "I want to make up my own mind." I mean, I think that's behind some of the popularity of the, you know, Internet news sources, you know, people call them blogs.

They're just basically Internet news sources that people are generating their own sources of information and putting it out there for the public to evaluate. It's fine for someone the do that. But I would also argue that's not a wrong thing to do in a democracy. And frankly, you know, as a reporter, it doesn't trouble me that people want to evaluate what I say in the context of what they see from other sources.

I mean that's what I'm doing. I'm making very fast judgments about what I think is most important and my colleagues, I know, I tell you… I can tell you that the night that I was writing about the hearing, the first night of the hearing, I was looking at my competition. I was looking at the news shows, I was looking at the wires to see what they thought the lead was. As it happened, I didn't agree with them.

But I wanted to know, what's your take on this. And the fact that there were so many different points of view about what the most important thing was to write about that day, you know, that doesn't trouble me.