In White House Talk at The Washington Post on June 1, much of the talk was about the Downing Street Memo, but why isn't The Memo in the paper?

At least four of the questions to Dan Froomkin in White House Talk on washingtonpost.com were pointedly about The Downing Street Memo and the press's abdication of its duties. A geographically (if not politically) diverse group would not let the question drop:

"Fairfax, Va.: A Post editorial today praises President Bush for doing what he is supposed to do, hold regular press conferences. But something is missing. Look at the transcript of yesterday's press conference and you will see no questions about the Downing Street Memo which claims Bush was fixing the facts to justify the Iraq invasion. If no one lights that slow fuse you talked, how are the facts ever going to see the light of day? To see the smiling face of Mark Felt ought to inspire The Post to reclaim its heyday of investigative reporting."

"Arlington, Mass.: Dan, Why, why, why do reporters consistently not ask the President pointed questions? Yesterday's Rose Garden chat should have included questions about the Downing Street Memo, questions about the Pat Tillman cover-up, questions about {. . . } I know this frustrates you as well but what can be done??!!!"

"Pyongtaek, Korea: What will it take to get the MSM to report in-depth on the Downing Street Memo and, now that it has come to light, the stepped-up bombing campaign of Iraq months before Congress approved any action or the U.N. even considered Resolution 1441? {. . .}"

"Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi Dan, I have repeatedly asked various Washington Post online chat hosts (not all of them Post journalists) why the MSM isn't pursuing the Downing Street Memo more doggedly and the question never gets posted. I see a poster just asked you on today's chat and you answered the 2nd question but did not address the Downing Street Memo. What gives?
Dan Froomkin: I wrote about this in my May 17 column, and frankly expected coverage to pick up afterward.
I said then that the memo story was possibly "less a dud than a bomb with a long, slow fuse."
So I guess that either the fuse is even longer than I had thought, and investigative reporters are digging away even as we speak, or the American press is cynical enough to consider this all old news."

Or maybe all the investigative reporters are just careerists more interested in getting Bush to invite them to, and call on them at Rose Garden events. Or maybe all their digging is for the book they plan to write in a few years rather than the public service they can do by publicizing this now.

But it is great to see that the mainstream media outlets are getting pressure from all directions about this lack of coverage. How many people do you think are calling or writing to them with complaints that there's too little coverage about Michael Jackson or the Runafuckingwaybride?

Just asking, TBL