I've never agreed with the administration in my life,

but I have to say, I think that they have at least one point in this whole Cheney shooting mess: I really believe that one reason the MSM is so pissed is because it was reported to a small-town paper first, before they got it. And I can say that, as the very proud editor and a writer at a medium-sized weekly paper. (We are a very good weekly, by the way, if I do say so myself - and VERY liberal.)

...and assorted bullshit breaks in between.

about a small newspaper at all. it may stroke your ego (not a jab) but i dont htink it has anything to do with it. nor should it. ot even the story though rw is tryin to make it one. they seemed more bothered and outraged with interview with fox exclusively

The WH press has become increasingly more aggressive with McClellen the past several months because of the ridiculous stonewalling, unbelievable spin, contradictions, overt arrogance and lies. This fiasco--coming on the heels of all the lies and pent up irritation--was bound to evoke a major reaction. The small town newspaper breaking the story has nothing to do with it, IMO. They simply see that using that newspaper was a means to an end--knowing it would delay the story coming out until the story was far too muddled to thoroughly investigate. It is the admin's MO and the press sees it for what it is.

I'm sure there are petty jealousies in the print news biz, but I don't buy this as being very important in this issue.

But it's pretty funny for the Bush admin to say that the press has got wrong priorities. The fact is that it tamed the MSM by making sure it had a regular supply of "news" to print and show and fill the needs for material. It tamed the MSM by trading access, that is, interviews and quotes to fill, for better coverage. Suddenly it is unable to feed the beast and it notes what it is that actually satisfies the MSM: to satisfy the MSM, you don't have to tell it the truth or be open. You can lie your ass off and it will dutifully write it all down without comment. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAND IT THE BULLSHIT IN TIME FOR THE SUNDAY MORNING PROGRAMS. Bullshit on Saturday, fine. Bullshit on monday, anger.

of setting the Strawman and Red Herring arguments for us to ponder.

Of the many reasons the M$M is upset, this is a minuscule point.

As for myself, I do not care WHY the M$M is pissed ~ I am just GLAD that they are!!!

instead of the national media? I don't. Cheney is the vice president of the United States. Not of that town where he shot the man.

That Cheney purposely put it out there as such, knowing it would trickle out very slowly, exploited the small paper, IMO. It made them look foolish. They may have had the story, but it only underscored how ill prepared they were to deal with the national ramifications of it.

They were doing their job if they carefully interviewed all sources, asked appropriate questions, did the digging, and then printed. But they certainly should have passed it on once they went to press, and immediately after they went to press.

I can fault the vp's press folks for not giving it to the right media, and I certainly think they used the small paper, but if the small paper got it right and then passed it on - well, I'd have done the same thing.

You should see how the "big" papers and the tv media act when they come to small towns to report something. They act as if they own the place and start shoving the locals out of the way. (Well, they don't shove me as I've gotten old, mean and nasty in my years swimming in printer's ink.)

I'm not saying Cheney folks were right, by the way, but I would have loved to have gotten that story and been able to run with it - then sent it to the AP.

"they were doing their job if they carefully interviewed all sources, asked appropriate questions, did the digging, and then printed."

Yes, I would agree. Unfortunately, I did NOT see them taking the local sheriff's office to task for the failure to truly investigate, the delay in talking to Cheney, the failure to test for alcohol, to fully interview all present, etc., etc. This is hard for a small newspaper that needs/wants to trust its local officials and may not regularly see the need to do otherwise. That is why it needed to go much larger immediately. It's retention as a local story only for so long, meant the opportunity to truly and critically investigate was lost.

I respect smaller newspapers and media and many do an amazing job of investigative reporting in their locales. But, that is not instinctive from day one with this kind of story. This doesn't mean I don't think they would run with a story once presented to them. I suspect there are countless journalists like yourself, who would stand for your principles. But, unfortuntately, without the support of a larger, powerful publishing and legal infrastructure, it is easy to intimidate the small town paper and reporters. That is, in fact, what I believe CHeney, et al were counting on.

He's president of EVERYTHING. Now bow down and kiss his ring, you miserable serf.

I often get stories first that the state papers pick up. Never the national press - goodness knows, we're not that important. I will have to say that if I were the source, my first thought would be "This is a national story" rather than "This is a local story."

It's absolutely a national story, and one would have thought that the national press would have been there to jump on it (except that Cheney was probably in hiding, as usual). But if I had been a reporter in that town's small paper, and I had learned that the vp shot a man and I got it out first and accurately, I'd be tickled to death. After we went to press, I would have called the AP, but I would have wanted it first in my paper.

The source was wrong, but had I been the local reported, I'd have investigated, reported and printed, THEN notified the nationals.

But it's not why I'm pissed. I am upset for the very reasons the reporters and opinion heads say they are. Hopefully, some of them are telling the truth and may wake up a little, for a little while.

I think he's our best bet right now.

Unlike the uncle toms who bob their heads, thank and "bless you , massa" to the bush masters, ever grateful for a few crumbs of worthless, spin-hyped drivel that their corporate monsters will allow them to fumble into a sort of coherent story, characterless and simpering.
I find the sudden outrage profoundly refreshing, no matter its source.

Having lived within 150 miles of St. Louis for nearly thirty years, now, I have been quite familiar with a number of news worthy events during that time. On listening to the "news" reports, even local news, I have been shocked at the mangling they do to the names, places, and even the nature of those events. They ALWAYS get it wrong and when I've tried to correct their mistakes, I have been treated with disdain: their arrogance is overwhelming.
Still, I naively expect them to, at least, try to get the facts straight and am sorely disgruntled when they deliberately shift the meaning of their "reporting" to hew to the tune of the most disgusting regime in American history.

Any shift toward accuracy and truth is like the proverbial breath of fresh air, whatever its source.
Gregory is, indeed, inspiring and astonishing. One hopes he will set a standard the others might consider. Msnbc's ratings have improved enormously and not because of Rita or (T)ucker.

Being sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. I just wish they would stay angry.

small-town paper with the story so that they could tell them what to print, instead of dealing with any awkward questions that someone like Helen Thomas or David Gregory might ask.

I had a repub offer to get funding for a pet local project of mine if I would endorse him in our paper. I was very green at the time and I was SHOCKED - really, I was. Of course, I told him there was no way that was happening, but today if it happened it wouldn't shock me at all. I still wouldn't endorse him, but it wouldn't surprise me to be asked.

By the way, with bake sales and grants and LOT of work, we got our project funded - with no help from the would-be congressman, who lost, by the way.

but did you see any of the interviews with the reporter who wrote the Cheney story? She just seemed really amused by it all, and tickled that she was getting attention out of it. I could be wrong, but I wasn't impressed.

Anyone think Cheney looks like an angry old "Elmer Fudd"? Skwewy Wabbit!

I don't think it's because they were scooped by a little guy that they're having their reaction. They take it as a given that little guys are nonentities, so they view Cheney's tactic not as the hostile fuck you it probably really is but as a chicken shit sneaking through the back door which it wasn't.

They've sold their souls for access and still don't get the scoop? That's just rude. It is a little annoying that they're turning on Cheney for this, rather than all the other evil things he's done. I think it also has to do w/the simplicity of the story - it's easy to report on, easy for viewers to understand, & involves guns. It's a winner.