On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Doug Henwood cited a long FAIR article to the effect that
> <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012>
>
> The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the
> election-because it could have changed the election
Assuming this story is true -- and it certainly looks true, -- it kind of sums up the difference between Democratic-leaning media and Republican-leaning media, and explains why the former are getting their ass kicked. Beyond dirty tricks, beyond lying, beyond the echo chamber, they just haven't got any courage at all.
But I'm honestly puzzled as to why. Reading between the lines, the NYT seems to have been scared not about changing the election -- which seems to be the very definition of a political scoop, the grail every reporter wants -- but that they will be crushed if they are wrong. *And that they will suffer even if they are right.* And that the closer they get to the election, the more they will suffer. And they just can't stand it.
The NYT bigwigs cite as a cautionary example the "considerable heat" they had took from conservatives and from the Bush campaign for running the Al-Qaqaa story" (the unguarded missing high explosives story) the week before the election.
But I'm stumped: that story was 100% true. It didn't have the slightest weakness. So what sort "heat" could possibly have been generated over such a story that would matter?
It makes it seem like the difference between the two sides is purely and simply a matter of intimidation. As if the reason the conservative press has tons of bombshell stories and liberal press doesn't simply because the liberal side can be crumpled by attack -- even if they haven't done anything wrong -- and the conservative side can't.
Michael