E&P Says The Times Took A Dive

This continues to fascinate me.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002985837

Without getting into the argument about the program again, does anybody think if the NYT had revealed this before the election it would have cost the administration enough votes to affect the outcome? Having watched the debate since the NYT finally ran the story, I doubt it. However, no paper the size of the NYT should sit on a story for the reason that it might affect the outcome of an election. It's SUPPOSED to do that.

 

Like I've said many times before, our Washington colleagues are, in general, failing us bigtime. Partially, it's the corporations that own us. Mostly, it's us.

 

But is it really the corporations holding back the stories?

Or is it the old-boy Washington club, no one wanting to scoop each other? You scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Or am I overthinking this?

 

Every story affects the outcome of elections.

 

I'm glad the NYT took its time and got the story right. For the simple fact that if they had come out in October '04 with a half-baked story, they'd certainly have been Dan Rathered.

Never mind that 90 percent probably would've been true, like the National Guard story. The Bushies would've found an error and hammered it home.

 

I think Fenian chipped to the green but the rest of you failed to make the putt ... they held the story for fear it would HELP Bush, not because they thought it might hurt him.