Time Magazine Picks The Wrong Reporter To Criticize Bush On The Hurricane

Written from Ashland, Oregon--

I was anxious to see Time magazine this week on its hurricane coverage, but when it arrived at the bed and breakfast I'm staying in here, I was very disappointed.

Time compromises its criticism of the Bush Administration by using its discredited White House correspondent, Matt Cooper, to make the criticism.

Ever since Cooper followed the cowardly Time, Inc. CEO Norman Pearlstine and testified before the grand jury in violation of his pledge of confidentiality in the CIA leaker case, he, like Pearlstine, have had no place in big time journalism.

We can only hope that Cooper and Pearlstine resign. For Cooper to be critical of the Administration that pursued his disgrace further discredits himself and Time magazine.

Much of what Cooper says, I happen to agree with. As readers of this blog know, I've been very critical of the Administration's and Bush's response to the hurricane. It has been inadequate, and it was to be expected given the Administration's downgrading of FEMA and its general insensitivity to black people.

But to use a reporter like Cooper who has every reason for revenge against the Administration for ruining his career, is ridiculous. Another reporter needs to be appointed to the White House beat.

It cannot be journalism as usual while Judith Miller of the New York Times remains in jail in the CIA case. All those who have given in to the Administration have sold out freedom of the press.

Time needs to recognize that when it gave in to the Administration it ruined its credibility. Now, it cannot easily recover it by correct reporting in other areas.

I'm not sorry to be so tough. As Mr. Lincoln said, "Important principles may and must be inflexible.