But while most urged the paper to better explain what went into the decision-making process, others praised the Times' journalistic effort and stressed that the onus should be on what the Bush administration is doing, not the paper.Dan Rather, September 9, 2004:
...Some noted a weariness over the paper continuing to be hammered for its actions, while others were angry that people were ignoring the fact that the paper broke a major story and continued to break others.
Others say that the powerful journalism underlying this latest controversy should be the issue, not the related elements.
"Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story but on the documents that were part of the support of the story."Gee, don't you wish it was the 80s again. Back in the good old days when the public didn't have a voice to ask questions and just followed mainstream media stories blindly.