Yes, but we all know Parton and Miranda had serious anger problems and once yelled at the TV when Testaverde fumbled. Do we really want people like that guiding our policy re: the UN?

Roger Simon's been all over this. But I can't link to his blog 'cause your comment filter's going spastic.

I'm waitin' for 60 Minutes to give these guys a whole hour to air their grievances, just like the did for anbody with an axe to grind with President Bush during the elections...

Ace - Your MSM victim schtick wears pretty thin when you link to an AP article in the San Fransisco Chronicle while whining about the MSM beating up on "some whistleblowers", but not these. You generally avoid such obvious cognitive dissonance by linking to other conservative bloggers rather than to the actual MSM reports, but for some reason you failed to provide yourself this cover this time.

Other MSM publications that are failing to victimize you on this story:

The NY Times?!?

The Guardian

The San Jose Mecury

The Boston Globe?!?!

ABC News!?! And this story is complete with Bush administration quotes!?!

Crikey! Even Al Jazeera covers this story!

But don't let the facts get in the way of you ongoing screed about the MSM not covering your issues.

VonK, maybe it's just me, but I think Ace's post has to do with the media championing their cause, not simply reporting the story.

I mean, that's how I read it, and I don't even have my decoder ring on.

Hob - Ok, I'll take that route. In that case I don't see the beef that Ace has, other than cherry picking a quote out of context to make a case that does not exist.

The first two lines from the AP article in the SF Chronicle:

Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday.

The investigators felt the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, played down findings critical of Annan when it released an interim report in late March related to his son, said Mark Pieth, one of three leaders of the committee.

So the article leads with the story that senior investigators believe that the commission's report is too soft on Annan and believe so strongly that they have publically resigned. Most readers don't get past this point in a story. Ace's quote about, "...the two investigators got "personally very involved" in the probe and so grew upset." occurs in paragraph 17, after an explaination of the Oil for Food scandal and other UN related scandals. Paragraphs 16 has Pieth saying, "I have high esteem for both Robert and Miranda," Pieth said. "It's not a bad parting. I think they are very capable people." In paragraph 21 Pieth says, "I am also quite happy that there are people who dare to speak their mind because that is one of the problems with the U.N. — that you have these guys nodding their heads," Pieth said.

Oh yeah, the MSM is covering this up, you bet because, well it must be or Ace wouldn't be able to maintain his Sullyvanian sense of outraged victimhood at the hands of the MSM.

VonKreedon (disingenuous ninny),

You are playing games with the word "covered." Obviously this story is "covered," as I am linking an MSM source.

You know goddamn well there are different levels of coverage. Do you think that this is getting the same amount of journalistic resources assigned to it that the DeLay "scandal" is getting? Are multiple reporters assigned to follow up and dig?

And--

ARE TWO YEAR OLD STORIES BEING REWRITTEN AND PLASTERED ON THE FRONT PAGE, ABOVE THE FOLD, AS "BREAKING NEWS"?

Yes?

or

No?

Don't be an asshole if you can help yourself, dude.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, that "NYT" story you link is just a reprint of the AP story. It's likely it's only on the web (though I'm not sure; but I don't see many AP stories in the actual NYT).

The times has not assigned a reporter to cover the story; or, at least, if there is such an assignment, no story seems yet to have been produced.

Let me know when a Times reporter digs and gets a front-pager, okay?

Ace - I assure you that I am an ingenuous ninny.

Now, should the US press give greater coverage to allegations of corruption against one of the most powerful politicians in the US, or against the leader of the UN? Since corruption in the Congress is likely to actually impact the governing of US citizens, while corruption in the UN is unlikely to have a signficant impact on the US citizenry, the obvious editorial choice is to give more prominence to the Congressional corruption.

Do you really, if you can step out of your breathless indignation, do you really think that playing down the Congressional scandal in favor of the UN is good journalism?

Coverage isn't the same as prosecuting it with serious intent. Any doltish media will parrot a story once as long as others have done so. Is it above the fold or on page 37? That's the question.

Where they are with it next week will tell the story.

What Congressional scandal? the one where Republicans are attempting to start the Ethics Panel so Delay can be investigated, exonerated, and everybody can shut the hell up about it already.. but Dems are blocking their efforts to do so? That Congressional Scandal?

So hard to keep up with these scandals.

Good God, the bought Paul Volker!

Correction:

Good God, they bought Paul Volker!

I need to get off this medication ...