Comments on: Couric Critiques Iraq War Run-Up Coverage

CBS News Anchor Calls White House Press Corps Performance "Embarrassing"

[jn122736]

Couric might need to be careful, remember what happened to Dan Rather?

Also, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, a hard-line and vocal critic of The Bush administration%u2019s plans for the Iraq fiasco, was killed when his plane crashed in October 2005 (his pilots, supposedly, slowed down too fast and just flew the plane into the ground).

Anthrax was delivered to Democrats, but not to republicans.

Americans were being frightened with attack alerts (red, orange, etc), Mushroom clouds, WMD%u2019s.

I have no doubt that journalists were afraid of loosing their jobs, or worse.

Of course this is just another conspiracy theory, but, those are just a small fraction of the unexplained %u201C%u201Dcoincidences%u201D%u201D over the past 8 years.

[jon2012-2009]

Couric is right. The media failed in its role as a watchdog for democracy and failed so badly. But the media is only one pillar in our system of society. More important is an educated citizenry. When John Kerry was swiftboated based on hearsay and anecdotal testimony, it not only spoke of the lengths to which Republicans will go to distort the truth but the ease with which ordinary Americans, even some Democrats, can be manipulated by propaganda. It was almost beyond belief to see that these people don''t understand such basic concepts as burden of proof and, in a debate, which side is charged with this burden. The swiftboat attacks were paid advertising in an election, not a neutral news release in the media, for crying out loud. So blame the media. But blame the level of intelligence and education in this country that has allowed Bush to claim the White House twice and leave a trail of disasters.

[elkc]

There''s a world of difference when watching election coverage from the "Big Three". No the right questions, journalism with a backbone, and objective reporting were not a part of the coverage, national news anchors were too cozy with, in reporting on "how to destroy two countries with a republican party in control under one Texan. After 9/11 the word was "there will be blood" in retaliation for the attacks. Bush used the deaths, injuries and destroyed lives of that brutal day as a catalyst to scream the word "charge" on his way in to the oil laden land that had for so long been just out of the Bush Families reach. The media hampered by public opinion polls that ruled ad agencies which poured money in to sponsorships making your nightly news possible were cornered into the puppet show where the administration clearly said "you''ll report what we tell you." You either followed suit or you followed Rather!

[zorar-2009]

NBC,ABC,CBS..puppets for the regime and corporate bottom line profits..the "Truth" what''s that got to do with anything

[theanchores]

Actually, I think Couric had it wrong. The press actually did a very good job covering the lead-up to the Iraq war; their most embarrassing moments have been their incredibly awful coverage of Katrina and its aftermath (some of those narratives have never been recanted and corrected) and their slobbering coverage of Barack Obama, of whom no negatives may be reported.

American Journalists have plenty to be embarrassed about. The lead-up to Iraq is not really one of them.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Our responsibility is to sometimes go against the mood of the country," she said, "and ask the hard questions."

That''s a good one Katie!

There is no doubt whatsoever, that Western Corporate media tools, including Ms. Couric, are DEEPLY complicit in the fraud-based Bush regime War of Terror.

[greatdrivew]

Posted by ibsteve2u at 12:55 PM : May 28, 2008

"ABC News'' Charles Gibson disagreed with Couric."

Well, duh.

Try this for an experiment: Wait until some sort of controversy arises with either McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

Then, record all three (NBC, ABC, and CBS) networks'' coverage on the evening news.

Then, compare the three...lollll...NBC and CBS are relatively unbiased...but ABC?

Snicker...is like ABC lives just to the left of Fox''s house....that stephanopoulos/gibson abortion of a debate wasn''t a fluke...

*******

I agree.

[ron4691]

Sorry folks, but the media jumped on the war bandwagon from the start. Who asked, "What does Iraq have to do with 9-11?" Who asked, "Why was the bin Laden family the first to fly after 9-11?" And I now ask, "What does Iran have to do with mostly Sunni terrorist?" I%u2019m not blind to Hamas, but the new propaganda sound a lot like the last time and nobody in the media is pointing this out.

[secundus2]

There were serious issues about Saddam''s weapons. It was his obligation to account for their disposal and he could not or would not, defying UN ultimatum after UN ultimatum. I agree completely.

But in the mind of the public because of the media and the pro-war rhetoric the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was allowed to become a way to stir up fear about anthrax in your mailbox and sarin gas in Iraqi rockets meant for Israel. The real issues about weapons got obscured by the propaganda. The issues surrounding Iran''s weapons are being handled much more carefully.

Have the media learned anything? No, they haven''t. Their coverage now is dominated by anti-war slogans at a time when the military situation in Iraq is vastly improved (the quarter from Jan-March showed casualties reduced by about a half from the same period in the previous year).

The media believe that we are all too dumb to understand anything but tiny sound-bites that can serve as rallying cries.

[missingamerica]

"ABC News'' Charles Gibson disagreed with Couric."

Well, duh.

Try this for an experiment: Wait until some sort of controversy arises with either McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

Then, record all three (NBC, ABC, and CBS) networks'' coverage on the evening news.

Then, compare the three...lollll...NBC and CBS are relatively unbiased...but ABC?

Snicker...is like ABC lives just to the left of Fox''s house....that stephanopoulos/gibson abortion of a debate wasn''t a fluke...