“The Downing Street Memo Story Won’t Die”

So says the Washington Post. Of course, they’re not reporting on it, just mentioning how it won’t die, even though everyone keeps saying it’s not a story.

Blink. Blink.

John Howard of Upon Further Review… has a few thoughts on the subject:

Dear media fucknuts –

I'm seeing more and more stories about The Downing Street Memo, which is great. However, all of these stories just seem to be stories about how it's not getting any attention in the media. How about instead of writing these stories about how little attention it's getting, you just fucking give it a little attention, instead? Is it really that much easier to write a story about the lack of coverage than it is to actually cover it? This shouldn't be so difficult. How accurate is it? What are the implications of it? What do the parties involved have to say about it? Isn't this the kind of thing it's your job to find out? There didn't seem to be any shortage of coverage when Newsweek (slightly) misrepresented the facts. It should be a pretty fucking big story when the President misrepresents the facts and we go to war because of it.

[…]

Oh yeah, The President is having dinner with a porn star. You may want to mention that, too. Not that I care, but if it was Clinton, it would be on the front page.

And PSoTD, in the comments thread to John’s post, notes:

All we ask is that it be investigated. If Congress has time to investigate steroids in pro sports, they have time for this.

Good point. If only a lack of time were really the primary motivator behind their resistance to investigating the President.