articles headlined, u.s. risks isolation, breakdown of old alliances in case of war. u.s. lacks specifics on banned arms. u.s. misstepped led to failed diplomacy. this is an amazing story and a tragic un. david corn was a skeptic of the war before, during, and after. joan walsh was news editor at salon in the lead up to the war and also a war skeptic. both are msnbc s analysts. joan, you ve been in editing, and this is the same thing that you ve got bill keller saying and the same thing that the media critic or media writer for the washington post, admitting now, and it s way too late, that the placement of the story is for more pizazz or embedding, whatever you want to call it, joining the troops. but none of the good edward r. murrah reporting that we later came that we identify with murrah was critical journalism, not rah-rah journalism. right. that stuff was there, chris, but it was really hidden. and paul fari s piece is really good, but there was a line that said the pr
that s our story tonight. welcome back to hardball. that s the new york times great bill keller. the editorial decisions wound up carrying great weight, of course, in getting the american public to support the war. in friday s washington post, for example, it s pointed out there was some skeptical coverage but it was often buried inside the paper. like this article which ran on . it was headlined, bush claimed dubious allegations about iraq, page a-13, 13 pages into the neighborhood. and on the sunday edition, the washington post put this on the front page. audacious mission, awesome risk: bold war plan emphasizes lightning attacks and complete logistics. but buried inside that edition of the paper were more skeptical articles headlined, u.s. risks isolation, breakdown of old alliances in case of war. u.s. lacks specifics on banned arms. u.s. misstepped led to failed