WASHINGTON POST EDITORS HELP KARL ROVE BURNISH HIS REPUTATION

[kpete]

The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent
« | Main | »

WASHINGTON POST EDITORS HELP KARL ROVE BURNISH HIS REPUTATION. The political media is utterly incapable of acknowledging its own role in shaping voter perceptions of our political figures. This blind spot borders on pathological.

Case in point: In today's Washington Post, there's a front page story about Karl Rove and the coming 2006 elections. The story says:

White House political strategist Karl Rove emerges from the CIA leak case with his reputation scuffed, his power slightly diminished...

Most Republicans and Democrats interviewed for this article said Rove's White House stature has been diminished only slightly, and perhaps only temporarily, by Bush's political problems and the leak probe. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061602015.html

What do you suppose is the reason Rove's rep is only "scuffed" and "only slightly" diminished? Here's a thought: Maybe it has a little something to do with the editorial choices that are made day in and day out by editors at the Post and other news orgs. Incredibly, this Post story on Rove's post-Plame rep doesn't contain a single word about the very Plame-related things that should have damaged his reputation: The fact that he played a role in outing her and the fact that the White House repeatedly lied about it. That's a glaring omission. You'd think Post editors might have seen fit to include such crucial context.

Now go back to the story that was done by the Post a couple of days ago on the lingering questions about Rove's role in the Plame case. The piece was buried on page A4, ran under the headline "Bush Reaffirms His Confidence in Rove," and described those still raising questions about him as "partisans."

more at:
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_127.html

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm sure a lot of back slapping is going on between the bush admin and

the owners of newspaper corporations around the country.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Post Editors Laud Selves for Propaganda Mission Well Done (nt)

[NJCher]

3. story on CBS news

It was sickening and a puff piece of the highest order. It wasn't on Rove--it was on Bolton and how he has "transformed" the bush administration. Things are looking up for bushco.

The piece was all about how "open" the administration is now, thanks to Bolton. The "new" bush adminstration.

It's so obviously another one of their marketing/PR schemes to dig themselves out of the disaster they've created.

As I watched it, I kicked myself in the head for even turning on the corporate news. Why do I even bother? Everytime I watch it, it's something like this.





Cher

[AndyTiedye]

4. In Other News, New Media Owner$hip Rule$ Being Written by the FCC

Time to let big media get even bigger, if they play nice until the election.

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. Oh Please, this is Pathological Blindness, not just a 'blind spot'! If

the public were fully aware and informed of Rove's evil history, and they did not collectively reject him, then we are facing a potential holocaust of events, IMHO. He is evil and this adminstration is the opposite of everything they claim to be. We are verging on some future disaster of horrendous proportions if something is not done to save our government as it was intended to be. We are not a Democracy, but currently, we aren't even close to a Republic. Nancy Pelosi should take some of her 'righteous indignation' and start labeling the truly evil thugs that no longer represent us.

"This blind spot borders on pathological."