For those who didn’t know, or may have forgotten, the Washington Post contributed $100,000 to Bush’s inauguration. I don’t know if this is a common thing for a newspaper to do, but I thought it was very odd when I read about it.
Posted by LynChi at August 12, 2005 05:45 PMWhat can we expect of the WaPo with Bob Woodward as the Assistant Managing Editor? He has become such an apologist for BushCo -- and I'm sure it is to keep the money flowing from his sycophantic books.
What was the Bushism about being fooled twice? Oh yeah: "Fool me once .... won't get fooled again!" Too bad that doesn't apply to the WaPo's editors.
Posted by Analytical Liberal at August 12, 2005 05:48 PMI've never heard of a media company sponsoring and funding a government event, which they will then report on!? Previously the Bush administration paid reporters to promote their policies, now the media is paying the Bush administration to do it. There must be a Soviet-era word for this?
Leslie, how different is it that Dick Cheney is a leader in the industrial military complex, gets elected and then starts wars? Same MO.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 12, 2005 06:48 PMIf we didn't buy/suscribe to the Washington Post, this would not happen!!
Posted by smooth at August 12, 2005 06:54 PMThe WaPo Ministry of Information?
I'll bet that a bunch of thier reporters are just so ever slightly not pleased with this. But owners and top mgt, hey, they think they make more money for themselves that way. And that's the problem, isn't it? Not so much the press, but the guys that control them.
Downie is no Perry White.
Posted by Duckman GR at August 12, 2005 07:41 PMCome on Steve, this is new to you? The Repub's have the Washington Post, the Lib's have the New York Times. Big suprise. Where's the news is this old story? I expect better dirt than this from you.
Posted by Centrist at August 12, 2005 08:07 PMYes, Centrist, the liberals did so well with the New York Times in the runup to the war, with Judith Miller reporting Ahmad Chalabi's dictation about WMDs and such plus the occasional White House press release.
Posted by KCinDC at August 12, 2005 09:40 PMWhat can we expect from "news" organizations that if this were 1972-74 would have been using Haldeman, Mitchell and Erhlichman as their sources on Watergate?
Posted by Marie at August 12, 2005 09:48 PMI think the Post's publisher should give George Bush a public blow job. That way neither of them will ever have to lie about it.
Posted by Bill Clinton at August 12, 2005 10:07 PMIamcoyote,
You're right, silly me.
How much taxpayer $ is going into this charade?
Posted by emel at August 13, 2005 08:41 AMHey Steve,
As usual a dead-on analysis.
But in the future could you skip using the term "pussy-whipped"? Outside of Condi and Hughes, this operation is all boy.
Language like that just perpetuates a myth that those who listen to women are weak and ignorant.
I know that you don't mean to say that, which is why you should file this message under a "gentle nudge."
Posted by Cath at August 13, 2005 08:46 AMPoint taken Cath; thanks
Posted by Steve Soto at August 13, 2005 12:15 PM