Mercy on me
Mark Kleiman, posting about the ten-year sentence given to the Cpl. who carried out some of the worst of the tortures writes, in part:
“I think it’s fair to criticize those who voted for Bush for implicitly ratifying his actions, since they (and especially the bloggers and other journalists) knew or should have known what he’d been up to.”
I wonder about that. Because, perhaps the last shred of hope those of us who voted for Kerry have left is this: The idea that those who voted for Bush only did so because they truly didn’t know what he’d been up to. Because the journalists with the loudest voices in this country didn’t do what they should have done. But Kleiman’s post raises a question. If a populace is uninformed, at what point do we stop blaming those who are supposed to be doing the informing? Ought we to start blaming those who should be informed?
The world being what it is today it’s possible to find out something about any subject. There’s at least one web site you can visit, or even (gasp) book you can read. Then again, if someone told you they got their news from a web site, a newspaper, and TV you might be excused for thinking they were well-informed about the day’s events. But what if the web site, newspaper and TV are Drudge, the Washington Times, and FOX News?
