Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There are sources for less biased views, and there have been panels that struck me as being significantly less political. Certain events deserve an airing that is at a higher level.
Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.
|
It's been interesting today to read the news coverage after following along with th testimony yesterday. I think the newspapers are playing the "partisan sniping" angle way up above the large amount of of information that was shared by all of the witnesses over the last few days. Which is to be expected, but I don't think that's a fault of the panel or the effort to learn more about what happened on 9/11.
To me it's more a symptom of the high profile of the inquiry itself combined with the horse-race election coverage template that the media seem unable to resist. Frankly I think the intelligence services are taking more of a beating than the admin, because it's not in anyone's interest to stand up for them (and I include Tenet's self-preserving ass in that statement). But unless you read the transcripts there's no way to know that because the pull out quotes of Clarke turning down a not-yet-offered post in the Kerry admin "under oath" are much sexier.
