It’s the next morning, and the “speech of Bill Richardson” that Politico is presenting to the world is still the speech that Bill Richardson didn’t actually give.
Bill Richardson delivered an entirely different speech — a kick-ass speech that mentioned Guantanamo, mentioned torture, mentioned the Bill of Rights, mentioned the Constitution, mentioned domestic spying by the government, mentioned civil liberty. This was a speech that demanded the next President of the United States of America on “his first day in office will say this: I will follow and uphold and respect the Constitution of the United States. And then actually does it!”
Why, it’s as if the staff at Politico weren’t actually aware of the disconnect, as if they didn’t actually watch the convention, as if they weren’t really reporting, but just converting the press releases of the DNC and other PR sources into its “news.” Hm!
Update: Two days later and Politico still is publishing the speech Bill Richardson didn’t give as if it was the speech Bill Richardson did give.
Well, why not?
Isn’t the text of the speech the Democratic establishment handed Bill Richardson a better representation of what it is prudent to present as the speech Bill Richardson gave, even though it isn’t? Isn’t it a much better representation of the agendas of vested interests and Democratic strategists?
I mean, why would it be in the interest of the press to represent the speech Bill Richardson gave as the speech Bill Richardson gave?
Unless they care about the truth…
I’m just kidding. That would be sooooo Walter Cronkite. Prepostmodern empiricist wonkism. Very out of style.
Folks, this is the twenty-first century. Isn’t it about time we stopped clinging to the old-fashioned notion that the symbolic output of the press has to be determined by some standard external to the will of the powerful?