Yes, I agree. They seemed to be exclusively mouthpieces for the
administration--no other point of view need apply.
On Friday, June 25, 2004, at 08:02 AM, Doug Brugge wrote:
> Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was out of town for a bit.
> I can't help you decide where to place your efforts, but I do think
> that we have to challenge the way that journalists operate today in
> the US. Especially when the state intimidates them as it did leading
> into the invasion of Iraq, there has to be some will power to stand up
> to the pressure and insist on sticking to higher standards.
> I am struck by the fact that the Boston Globe has undergone a palpable
> change in its approach to Iraq in the last month or two. It had been
> systematically suppressing certain points of view and carefully toeing
> the government line. Then it opened up. I do not know what changed,
> maybe it was the torture issue. In any case they now seem to be back
> to their somewhat irritating self that I frequently disagree with, but
> that does not blatantly suppress factual information about the war any
> more. Someone needs to study what happened to the press in the US in
> the time leading up to and right after the invasion. Whatever you
> think about the US press under normal conditions, during the invasion
> it changed in a way that I cannot recall seeing previously.