Smoking Gun Editorial

I read Michael Kinsey's editorial in The Washington Post today. I like how Kinsey suggests how the media was reporting that the war in Iraq was basically "inevitable." So why are all these bloggers now claiming to have a "smoking gun?" I remember the media covering the talks that took place between the U.S. and Britain prior to the war. Maybe this is the phenomena that Sunstein was referring to in his article. Perhaps these bloggers are so filled with ideological discontent (fueled by their constant blogging with each others and others of equally critical ideologies) and they are so insistent on criticizing the President that they will resort to using old news to do it?

At the same time, there is no doubt that some blogger spearheaded the effort to push this old news as a new "smoking gun," but Kinsley nicely pointed out the tardiness of the bloggers accusations. Therefore, this is a great example of how Sunstein's arguments may be a little extreme and how Jenkins is more accurate in his analysis. With Kinsey's alternative analysis, no one is receiving news in a vacuum. A reader who only receives his or her information from one source of media (i.e. blogs) is doing themselves an injustice, as is evident by the old information being presented by some bloggers concerning the Downing Street Memo.