We have a minor scandal involving a new mayor who is digging around into old deals made by prior administrations ten or more years ago, and our local paper has reactivated a semi-retired reporter/editor to help cover these controversies because of his vast, intricate knowledge of those particular deals.

if you don't know what to look for, you might never find it. That's especially true for things that happened before the Internet cataloged and stored everything that happens. Even if the information exists on the Internet, unless you know what you're looking for, based on your own memories and experience, you probably won't find it.

There's a new youth culture in the media that has pushed a lot of senior journalists out. They were highly paid, typically, so that makes some sense in today's money-starved news media. But, there is a great loss of people who have decades of knowledge stored in their minds. We need to remember that.

Certainly, the typical member of the public doesn't keep track of news stories from decades or even just a few years ago. We're really not that interested, mostly. That lets people say things that are not true, often without anyone checking on what they say against what they already know.

It's a shame, really.

...when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988.

The part I wanted to document wasn't the incident itself but the conspiracy theories conservative Republicans started spinning: That the Iranian government loaded up a plane with dead bodies, that the plane had been modified in a way that would show up as an F-14 on US radars, etc., all to put the blame on Iran and pretend nobody on that ship did anything wrong. And these weren't street-corner crackpots, these were "respectable" Republicans and were treated as such.

Sainted Ronald Reagan played footsie with these people rather than just come out and say there had been a terrible accident.

I'm sure some articles that covered that part were digitized, but finding the magic search term to bring them to the top is in needle-in-field-of-haystacks territory.

Not to mention material that wasn't digitized. Or even stuff that was, but was stored in long-ago defunct places (dial-up BBSes, early websites, etc.).

Heaven help you if you float the term "microfiche", you'll get a look like you're trying to grind grain with a windmill.

Pre-Internet, too. Nobody except us oldsters remembers anything from that long ago. Even fewer care.

out there, or if they are, it's just a little snapshot of the whole story. Like you said, it's the interest factor that drives why things get remembered or not. Fortunately, there are lots of people out there taking advantage of the capabilities of the Internet to document these stories, add to them, edit them, etc. so as to preserve for the future these stories.

...and that should never be left to stand uncorrected.

Billions of dollars in US cash bundled and packed up on cargo pallets were indeed sent to th Middle East, but...

It didn't have a goddamn thing to do with Iran, and Obama didn't have a goddamn thing to do with it.

This money was sent by George W. Bush's administration to Iraq. The idea (or maybe pretense) was to be able to pay local subcontractors in cash, and plenty was needed for that.

In reality? It was like everything else the Bush administration did: sloppy, half-assed, and left plenty of room for corruption. Plenty of that money just disappeared, and accounting was beyond inadequate. No telling which fingers it stuck to or where it ended up. Some of it may even have ended up with the people who became ISIS.

But Republicans are tireless in deflecting, so they try to use it against Obama.

You are the first to post the truth.

Believe part of this had to do with our Courts ruling that the Embargoed Money from the Reagan years had to be returned.

Is that Obama drew a red line on chemical use in Syria and Trump and other republicans claim that when Assad used chemical weapons Obama did nothing. Obama was actually told by congress he could not bomb Syria without congressional approval so Obama made his case to congress and they turned him down. It is all bullshit they are peddling.

And didn't he drop $1 billion on a coronation for himself and his wife, Farah, as Shah and Empress of Iran?

And didn't the USA have "something" to do with him becoming Shah in the first place despite his secret police and other extrajudicial activities?

Wikipedia headline

Your point is well taken but not sure this is the best example of the point is all.

ANY (one who claims to be a) journalist writing a story on Trump's claims of how the US (under Obama) 'gave Iran Billions' should have the relevant facts in their memory banks, and obviously should report those facts along with IQ45's attempt at deception. If not they should be able to take 5 mins to Google it ... I'd guess Snopes has a debunking at one's fingertips.

If they don't it's not cause they're too young, it's ... other reasons.

Just sayin'

Here's an article that runs it all down for you:

https://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Some are confusing this with a payment sent to Iraq a long time ago. See how confusing it can be?

it's what we lose when the seasoned participants are replaced by something/someone with less experience.

Soon, they'll be convinced that nothing existed before the Age of Trump. Their new god is the creator, is the omnipotent one who will lead all humankind.

Just as these nimrods believe Jesus rode a dinosaur.

That's why I appreciate Charlie Pierce so, so much. His commentary almost always includes historical background. His weekend dispatches for folks that are donating to his web page are really great history/civics lessons.

And study history much more than they do.

But, there is a lot of history to study. They'll get better as time passes, but then they'll be the old journalists.

However, there are some very smart young journalists working. It takes time, though, to build up a knowledge of relevant history. You don't know what you need to know until you need to know it a lot of times.

MSNBC calls in experienced journalists a lot and that's good. But, then, Fox News has no journalists at all, so that's bad.

that comes out of tRump’s mouth. Haven’t they seen enough evidence to question everything he or his administration says already? Age, experience and memory of years past is no excuse. That’s not to negate in any way the value of long-timers and the institutional memory they bring to the table. No question about their value and our loss in that regard.

a degree in Journalism helps.

the spin-masters who try to "hold court" on these shows.

Example du jour : Today on "Morning Joe", Scarborough CONTINUED to push the idea of "Obama retreating from Iraq in 2011". Every thinking person knows damn well that the withdrawal of troops was completely based on the Status of Forces Agreement, signed by BUSHCO. They did not want American service personnel subject to Sharia Law in Iraq, and the Iraqi gov't. disagreed, leading to the decision to pull out the troops.

SO STOP WITH THE "RETREAT" BULLSHIT, SCAR!!!

Never did.

of Trump's lies, I would think they would assume any statements to be false, and go from there. The people on the television, get a story, and present it the way they want the viewer to see it. And the stories they choose to tell, are chosen for a reason. As are the guests they invite to share their 'expertise'. I do wish there were some laws that prevented people from lying, or at least admonished them. But instead, the lies are repeated until they become factual in the minds of those that consume that garbage all day, every day. Of course, if someone lets the truth slip out about the wrong person, they're out of a job.

The same thing happened at Boeing, leading to the deadly 737 crashes.

The same thing has happened in the petrochemical industry, pharmaceuticals, etc., with deadly consequences.