Frank Rich
Well, it's the weekend now, and here comes another edition of... Frank Rich's weekly op-ed column about how unpopular Bush is.
How much more of this do we need?
The spicy ingredient for Rich's column this week will probably be the revelation that Alberto Gonzalez and Andrew Card tried to coerce Ashcroft into authorizing the warantless wiretapping program (with the naming of a war czar running a close second). And no doubt Rich will have something clever to say about it.
To be sure, Rich was an invaluable voice back in the dark ages, when standing up to Bush did take a little bit of courage. But we don't need it anymore - this battle has been won. Bush's presidency will forevermore be acknowledged a failure.
Wouldn't you prefer if Rich adjusted his fire now, took aim at the media machine which continues to enable?
For example:
Seymour Hersh, from an April 2007 published Q&A with Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi:
A: ...Some of the columnists in this town who were beating the drums for that war really owe an apology. It's a sad time for the American press.
Q: What can be done to fix the situation?
A: [Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that.
When Rich started naming names a coule weeks ago ("All the President's Press", April 29), I thought it might be the start of something. Maybe it was. We'll see.
That's why his book is titled "The Greatest Story Ever Sold".
Tom
May 18, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but I was actually kind of disappointed in that effort.
What we need is an Eric Schlosser or Barbara Ehrenreich type to really investigate, tell the story of Fox and CNN.
May 18, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just the story of Fox and CNN. Take the Washington Post (please)! A once-progressive paper's editorial board was taken over by wingnuts who defended George Bush's power grabs and war at every point (with few exceptions), leading many to say "Even the liberal Washington Post recognizes that the war is necessary, etc."
May 18, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
JB, yes, the Washington Post is certainly right-wing these days. I'm not old enough to remember it any other way.
I've also been wondering about the correletion between the editorial position of a paper and the quality of the news reporting (balancing poor reporting with sound editorials, and vice versa. The Wall Street Journal has the best reporting I've ever read, imho)
May 21, 2007 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wrong - Rich wrote on evangelical hypocrisy.
He wrongly concludes his piece in this way:
"The agents of intolerance are well on their way to being forgotten, even in those cases when they, unlike Jerry Falwell, are not yet gone."
May 20, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I hope he rightly concludes "The agents of intolerance are well on their way to being forgotten, even in those cases when they, unlike Jerry Falwell, are not yet gone."
Tom
May 20, 2007 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Tom. But I just don't see it. Maybe, for this group, their time has passed, but new ones we haven't heard from yet will be there, waiting to strike. But yes, let's hope we have a good stretch of years without them.
May 20, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink