The 4th Column

During the run up to the Iraq War, I was able to locate contradictory views on the internet and alternative media to the statements being made by the Administration when analyzing the case for war. However, it was much to difficult in my opinion. The NY Times recently plead guilty to making errors in their reporting prior to the war. (Interestingly, they dedicated less that 2000 words to this article on page A-10, while they dedicated over 7000 words to Jayson Blair's misdeeds on the front page. Food for thought...) Today, the Washington Post airs their dirty laundry.

"Here is an excerpt that I think demonstrates that they may still have a few lessons to learn, in what I considered a relatively good article worth reading.

Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials had no problem commanding prime real estate in the paper, even when their warnings were repetitive. "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power," DeYoung said. "If the president stands up and says something, we report what the president said." And if contrary arguments are put "in the eighth paragraph, where they're not on the front page, a lot of people don't read that far.

Why is it inevitable? If so, will they have to write this article the next time a major long running story occurs. The media, especially the major outlets have tremendous power. It is the duty of good journalists to provide both sides of a story, regardless of the source. Yes, access comes at a price, but that price should not be credibility.