Most papers bury/ignore Bush's Saddam-Sept. 11 words

[Newsjock]

This is MEDIA WHORES personified.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1982860

Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play
Story Doesn't Make Many Front Pages

By Seth Porges

... So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

And according to some newspapers, it was a big story. The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune (both owned by the Tribune Co.) ran front-page stories on the revelation Thursday. But an analysis of most major American newspapers found the story either buried deep within the paper -- or completely absent.

Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14.

The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all.

more
But I'm proud to say that it was the lead story on my front page. :)

[Brucey]

1. When he suggested a connection, of course

it was all over the news. The denial is not a story. What we have here are corporations. Screw the media.

[PATRICK]

2. Shame and confusion

Since they live off W's daily statements minus the gaffes and sanitized would it not be that they know their cheerleading arrogance has now left them hanging in the wind twisting slowly on this issue? It's like printing a retraction only worse. The usual suspects reacting in unison seem to signal this analysis.

The can't report news. They can spin news, lie about news or be the news, but never report the news.

[Newsjock]

3. They want the lie to continue

When I looked at USA Today and saw the story buried in the middle of Page 16 -- a short story (no more than 10 inches), under the heading "Public Opinion" -- I was disgusted.

I can only conclude that most of the media want Americans to continue believing Saddam and Sept. 11 are linked.

When I put the story as the lead on our front page, I didn't think it was a particularly radical act. But as I look at other newspapers, including some that I've considered working for, I'm coming to the conclusion that many newspapers simply don't want someone like me doing their front pages. They want the pablum -- it's not about the news at all; it's about selling ads, and doing whatever is necessary not to offend the advertisers or the readers.

[damnraddem]

4. We were outraged when it only made page 4 of our paper.

Now we find that that was better than the norm.

Disgusting!