Ok, fellow HuffPosters, we are on to this Cooney red pencil evisceration of science on behalf of the corporate interests Bush favors over the well-being of our planet. And, let's face it, many of us were alerted to it by the NYTimes. They are covering this story. The decision makers at the Times can look in the mirror and say "We're covering this story." But those of us who attend to how major news outlets cover things understand why they presented the photocopies of the Cooney corrected report but didn't shove the story to the top of the news agenda. The photocopies are implying that it deserves to be at the top of that agenda because it's the latest (but this time undeniably documented) example of a pattern of factual deceit that's so various it practically escapes comprehension. It almost can't be covered, there's so much of it, and the Times hasn't been able to figure out how to deal with that fog.
That's where a decision has to be made. You just can't cover every lie they tell. Sometimes I think they tell so many just to neutralize coverage of any one of them. But this Cooney story seems like such a simple containable case in point. How did this actually happen? What were the specific day-to-day mechanics? Maybe this is the one that's worth knowing about, in detail, as an exemplar?
But pick something—and, when you do, placement is everything.
Comments for this entry are currently under maintenance but will be restored soon.