BushWorld: Ignorance Is Bliss

What does it take for a story to get "traction" these days? Why do some stories run and run ad nauseum, while others cannot even get a mention on page 99?

For example, the WaPo today says new information suggests that senior intelligence officials in the government appear to have had doubts about the Bush's case for war with Iraq. Well, excuse me, but that's not gonna get much traction, is it?

How about a big cover saying BUSH LIED and then a 20-page spread documenting every single one of the Bush lies in full detail. How about reporting the facts:

New Information Proves Bush Lied!

That's the big picture issue, of course. But the same thing is happening time and time again with countless minor stories.

For example, an Australian Liberal senator employs a liar to spread pro-war propaganda and who cares? The media rush to his defence instead of demanding his resignation!

Another example. An Iraqi blogger exposes a US charity as a bogus propaganda fraud. Who cares?

Well, certainly not all the crazed right-wingers who worshipped his every word while he was telling them what they wanted to hear! No word of Ali Fadhil's controversial (well, you would think so) accusations against Spirit of America on Roger L. Simon's blog today, even though he once called for SoA CEO Jim Hake to take over Kofi Annan's job. Glenn Reynolds is already over it. So is Michael Ubaldi. Tim Blair and Arthur Chrenkoff don't even seem to know about it. Hell, even Ali's own brothers at Iraq The Model are treating him as an embarrassment that is best ignored.

If a tree falls in the Amazon and nobody blogs about it, is it really dead? If millions of people around the world know Bush lied, but Rupert Murdoch doesn't want his papers to report it, does that mean it didn't happen? If we all want the moon to turn blue, and if we all close our eyes and wish hard enough, and then we all pretend it's blue, is it really blue?