Imaging that if Nixon were to be President now and do the things now he did then, including the Watergate break-in.

Consider, that in that event, there would have been no Watergate investigation and Nixon would not have been impeached. Indeed, there would be no one in the media who would do a serious investigation of the break-in. The media of today would accept at face value the government's explanation and move on to something else. The media of today would have supported the Vietnam war and not publicized the protests.

Yeah, Nixon would be jealous as hell of W and everything he gets away with without so much as a second glance from the media and the people. It seems W can do no wrong.

We live in a disgusting age.

well said

Don't forget that in my state, the CHURCHES are trying to PROTECT CHRISTIANITY by TOSSING OUT THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS!

Now that is TRUE ENLIGHTENMENT! BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY...THE GOP...GOD'S OWN PARTY!

AMEN, PRAISE JESUS!

HALLALUJAH AND PASS THE BISCUITS....(and don't forget to pass the moonshine and the money under the table. )

Catherine

As I said, we live in a disgusting age.

If I ever forget this, all I have to do is recall that Condi Rice, of all people, is Secretary of State. That's just about as wrong as it gets.

A recent interview with Paul Krugman:

McNally: I've talked about this with [UC Berkeley journalism professor] Mark Danner and others... Is it because the press is afraid of Bush's popularity and basically the media don't want to be caught ahead of the people? Is it corporate profits? Is it just a loss of true journalism? What do you attribute it to? You must talk with your colleagues about this.

Krugman: Well, actually, less than you might think, in terms of talking with colleagues. I'm based in Central New Jersey...

I'm not even sure I believe that the corporate influence thing is important yet. It may be at some future date, but I think that -- outside of Fox News, which is of course simply part of a machine -- it's not that crucial. By the way, I insult Fox News whenever I can, hoping that they'll sue me.

McNally: Best if they can do it while the book is fresh in the stores, right?

Krugman: That's right. But meanwhile, I think a better story is two things. One is that the media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that's partly because there's a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the right doesn't like.

So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column -- in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally -- was that if Bush said the earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: "Shape of the Earth -- Views Differ." Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round.

Journalistic organizations are afraid of being accused of bias. There's also a fair bit of low rate intimidation of journalists themselves. I have received a couple of elliptical death threats but they weren't serious. The real stuff is the hate mail that comes in enormous quantities. Organizations try their best to find some scandal in your personal life and disseminate it. I don't think a lot of journalists are sitting around saying: "I better not cross these guys, they'll ruin me." But they do know that every time they say anything the right doesn't like to hear, they get the equivalent of a nasty electric shock. They sort of get conditioned not to go there.

McNally: Your initial op-eds dealt with Bush's campaign economics, but now you've grown to believe that the lying and the other things are basic approaches across the board, haven't you?

Krugman: Sure. Whatever you think about the Iraq war, the way it was sold was exactly the template they use for selling the tax cuts. The hyped evidence, the misleading statements, the bait-and-switch, the constantly shifting rationale. And the same things can be seen in less politically hot issues...the "Healthy Forests" plan, for instance.

In terms of naming things, Orwell had nothing on these guys. So the "Healthy Forest" plan turns out to be a plan to allow more logging of the forests. The "Clear Skies Initiative" turns out to first, get rid of new source review, which is an integral part of the Clean Air Act, and so on down the line.

So it's definitely a pattern. And if you step back a moment and look at it, you start to realize that, although looking at selling of the 2003 tax cut and what it does to our physical future is a bad thing, looking at the whole picture makes you feel a whole lot worse.

McNally: You point back to Reagan who had ideas you didn't agree with but at least sold them on what he believed to be their merits. Whether it was true or not, it was the actual case.

Krugman: That's right. Reagan, I think sincerely believed in trickle-down economics. Look, it's funny. Not only do I miss Reagan who I thought had bad policies but didn't approach the skullduggery of these people, I actually miss Nixon. Although God knows he did skullduggery, as John Dean says, even Nixon didn't go after the wives.

McNally: The CIA leak of Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife...

Krugman: Yeah. Also Nixon seemed to be at least sincerely interested in governing. He was actually trying to run the country. He didn't think anybody else should have a chance to run it, but he actually tried to solve problems. The old hands of the Environmental Protection Administration will tell you that the Nixon years were a golden age. These people now... they're ruthless, they're dishonest, and they haven't actually tried to deal with any of our real problems.

Link to full interview