Brock raises some extremely good questions here. To paraphrase - Why does the Post protect anonymous sources who are lying? What journalistic good is served by serving as a megaphone for the mendacious powers that be, and not even forcing them to put a face to the lies? And isn't it newsworthy, in and of itself, that senior administration officials are covering their asses with off-the-record lies?
The Post has long been friendly to this administration on topics like the Iraq war, but as a supposedly journalistic entity how in the world can they carry on with this type of behavior? Have they decided to swim along at the bottom of ersatz journalism with MSNBC?
Posted by armand at September 7, 2005 03:50 PM | TrackBack | Posted to MediaThe WaPo must have been inundated with letters. I wrote one, and got this in response:
Posted by: binky at September 7, 2005 07:01 PM | PERMALINKThank you for contacting washingtonpost.com. Your suggestions and comments help us make washingtonpost.com a better site. Although it is impossible to respond to every individual comment, we do read all of them and will forward your thoughts to the appropriate people at washingtonpost.com and The Washington Post newspaper.
If you are looking for answers to a specific question, try our Help & Feedback page for answers at ">http://www.washingtonpost.com/help
Thank you again for helping us to make a better Web site!
Sincerely,
Michael Golden
Director, Customer Relationships