I try not to link to every [tag]Paul Krugman[/tag] column, but today’s piece was especially strong, in part because Krugman seems equally disgusted with Bush and the news outlets who cover his presidency.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.
It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when [tag]Orwell[/tag] wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?
Krugman points to an awkward co-dependency between the White House and the press, which we’ve all seen for years. Fortunately, [tag]Krugman[/tag] fleshed out what he sees as the process by which rhetoric overtakes reality.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts. Sometimes the officials simply lie. […]
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag. […]
The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it’s not entirely gone.
I sometimes wonder what Krugman’s NYT colleagues think of his frequently-scathing criticisms of major news outlets, including, presumably, the NYT.
Given Krugman’s track record, though, I suspect he’s more concerned with making the case than protecting reporters’ feelings.