This is priceless -- and although it's late here in the Midwest and I need to get some sleep before my morning commute, I want to get it up before I go to bed.
Agence France Press came out Thursday with a scathing report on White House manipulation of the news of the foiled British airline plot. Reading it was like lifting a rock and seeing some very unpleasant creatures scuttling underneath. The article documented how Cheney, Bush and other officials coordinated their partisan statements around their foreknowledge of the arrests in London. It was enough to make anyone mad.
A later version of the same AFP story was enough to make anyone shrug and ask, "So what?" The transformation began with adding a single word to the headline. See what that was in the links to both stories after the fold.
Here are the URLs of the two versions, labeled with their respective headlines. What a difference a word makes! Comparing them provides an interesting vantage point on so-called "objective" mainstream journalism as it's practiced today. You can open them up in two windows on your screen. Judge for yourself.
"Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot"
"Bush, foes seek political gains from foiled plot"
You'll note that nothing was edited out in the later, softened version. Far from it.
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.
Instead, they simply balanced the quotes from Cheney, Bush and other Republicans with some Democratic comments by Harry Reid and John Kerry. That seems fair enough, doesn't it?
Not really. Think about it -- the first article made a pretty strong case that the White House used its inside information about the terror plot for partisan gain. Because the Democrats didn't have any inside knowledge, it seemed pretty clear the Republicans were taking unfair advantage of the situation and politicizing it. By adding some Democratic commentary -- and changing the headline to reflect the new, more "balanced" approach -- the revised article made the whole thing look like just another example of partisan political bickering.
Pressure from spinmeisters in the White House? Journalistic business as usual? Hard to tell. Only one thing is for sure -- this, kiddies, is how the game is played.