Memo Vs. Press Conference

Greg Mitchell over at Editor & Publisher has a unique angle on the New York Times story that's been burning up the blogosphere today. Here's the first two grafs of the Times story, if you're as yet uninitiated:

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

Mitchell has reprinted excerpts from the press conference that followed the meeting, in which the two leaders stress that Saddam could disarm in order to avoid war. You can see the excerpts here.

[jfspeed]

to Bob: I am a consumer, an independent and an avid follower of the news. For me this is relevent news, period. If it isn't to you then I suggest that you follow some of the stale news stories about that girl missing in Aruba and let the rest of us follow up on this story. It angers me that someone disregards a news story that may shed some light on a war that the majority of Americans are questioning right now. It is completely relevant to me and the family members of mine that are currently serving in that war. Please let us have our news and our questions and the answers (or more questions we have) from stories like this. j speed

[peterbaldwin-2009]

Our Americentric viewpoint is that whether or not Bush was hellbent on war (and orchestrated a feigned diplomatic effort as a cover)is no longer important. However, it is not a forgone conclusion that Bush will not be dragged before a war crimes tribunal. Most people do not realize that an act of aggressionin and of itself is a war crime , and that there is mounting evidence of a bogus casus belli. When Bush unleased the US Air Force on a defenseless Baghdad, killing all those powerless civilians, it was a war crime no different than if he lined those victims up and shot them in the back of the head, or gassed them in shower stalls. Americans have to face up to the fact that Bush is a mass murderer and a criminal and the rest of the world wants him brought to justice.

[gizmo5151]

I don't get it...the conservatives in this country control the House, Senate, White House, Supreme Court, many newspapers in the "red" states, one of the tv news channels, almost all of talk radio...yet get upset about anything reported that questions the motives of one of their own. Come on...counting the paragraphs??? Must have been a slow news day.

[bob___k]

This three year old memo was considered of such importance by the NYT that 40+ paragraphs were devoted to it. Must have been a very slow news day if nothing else more currently relevant could be found to fill the space. Publication bias anyone?

[gizmo5151]

Excuse the typos....it's still early.

[gizmo5151]

Maybe what's newsworthy to me isn't newsworthy to you, and vice-versa, but I'm glad we have choices of what we want to see, hear, and read. I have a feeling if you were the editor at the NYT, this story wouldn't have been printed. Is there news value in it? To you, obviously not...to me, some, yes. This gives the Downing Sreet Memo stories more credence. And wasn't it just reported that the VP asked for info about Iraq, and only Iraq, before taking office in 2001? Do we see a patern here? I bet we won't agree on a answer to that question either.

[BinderBounder]

I agree that any thinking person could see at that point that war was a foregone conclusion--that despite what the President said publicly, he had already made his decision. But I think it's cynical to say that hard evidence that his public statments were disingenuous does not even rise to the level of being newsworthy. Moreover, although all this did happen in the past, and although it does concern a decision that has long since been made, it is still relevant today because it reflects upon the character of the President. If true, the story shows us that the President is the kind of person who would give the outside appearance of thoughtful consideration when he has in fact already made up his mind; and that, further, he would use subterfuge to make it appear as though there were evidence for the side that he has already chosen. Some people might find this information useful when judging the man's character.

[bob___k]

Gizmo5151, The point being, it has no news value, as in nothing new. A memo about possession of WMD would be new. The US was already moving troops and equipment into the area before the memo was written. Did you really think that was being done just for fun and this memo was some sort of tipping point?

[gizmo5151]

Bob .... I'm not sure you get it. Being 3 years old has nothing to do with something's importance. I bet if it was announced that a 3 year old Saddam note was discovered that said where his WMD's were hidden, you wouldn't think that was unimportant and un-newsworthy.. Why are you blaming the press for reporting something they found? Aren't you just shooting the messenger?

[bob___k]

Why is this memo considered newsworthy? It's three years old and says nothing of any import. The triviality of the things the press comes up with in an attempt to disseminate negative press about the war is simply amazing! And they can't figure out how to stop the bleeding of their customer base. I guess they're just not very bright.