But the WHOLE story is no story!

My post about UNSCAM has gotten too long, with far too many updates, but as the story-about-the-story-that-will-not-be-reported continues to metastasize I thought it was time for a new post.

Let me start by saying that I'm beginning to think my initial suspicions were wrong. Well, half wrong. I thought, naively, that because Senator Kerry champions both the UN and Kofi Annan, this story would be suppressed by a press loyal to John Kerry.

I think that's only half the reason. The other half is that Republicans have also been recipients of the kleptocratic largesse. How far does it go? Considering the downright shocking nature of the non-reporting that I have seen with a major local newspaper (the Inquirer is listed in the top ten of major metropolitan newspapers, and advertisers boast that an ad there reaches a million homes), I think all signs point to a bipartisan coverup.

I have devoted a good deal of time in this blog to bipartisan coverups, which are at least as old as Hadrian.

The phenomenon can take many forms, but usually it starts as a simple I'll-scratch-your-back-if--you-scratch-mine sort of deal. But here's the problem: if an issue is big enough to threaten the publicly perceived integrity of both parties, there is an unfortunate tendency to circle the wagons. Journalists, being intimately involved in politics, tend to see themselves as players instead of reporters, and they're more than happy to join in.

I see the story of Watergate as the ultimate example, because the foundations of both modern journalism, and the machinery of modern politics are built on the assumption that conventional Watergate history is true. Watergate is the crown jewel of the modern media. Glenn Reynolds and Peter Morgan called it the "Big Bang" in the context of ethics reform, and I would apply the same term to modern politics and journalism. Watergate is so important that the idea of questioning the story is seen as sacreligious, the way a rigid fundamentalist would see questioning of the Bible. Evidence that calls into question the Watergate story is suppressed and ignored by a system built on foundations as unsound as they are unquestionable.

I offer Watergate as an example because I am very familiar with it, and I know the bipartisan coverup mechanism, because for ten years I wrote letters to high officials, journalists, writers, anyone I thought might listen. There wasn't such a thing as blogging in those days. But I tried to get the story out.

How naive of me!

Of course, this is not about Watergate, because there is no settled, agreed-upon history. No big event which brought down a president, and shook the political system to the core. Here, there is simply a scandal in the highest places -- worldwide and probably domestically -- but it isn't being reported.

Bloggers have recently infuriated South Dakota's leading newspaper by daring to report what they won't report, and by questioning the accuracy and pointing out the bias of what they do report. The journalists have replied by heaping vitriol and accusations against the bloggers.

So far as I know, with UNSCAM, no blogger has been attacked for reporting the story. Yet. But the mainstream media are, simply, not reporting the biggest news story of the year. That's a story in itself.

In other words, there are now two stories: UNSCAM, and the refusal to report UNSCAM.

Why aren't Philadelphians being told about this scandal? While it's true that anyone with a computer can get on line and read the blogs, the fact is, most ordinary citizens don't even know what a blog is. Those few who get read news stories on the Internet might see this story somewhere (even if it's not on Drudge), but when they don't see it in the daily paper they'll tend to think it must not really be news.

So what is news? If a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, did it happen? Is news only that which powerful people agree is news?

I used to believe that newspapers had an important role as a sort of public trust. No more. These days, I am beginning to think that comparisons to Pravda are not hyperbole.

Is everyone, as Glenn Reynolds asks, "on the take"? If they are, I was definitely half wrong to imagine the Democratic Party is behind this one.

Amazing as it sounds, the news may be too big to be considered fit to print. William Safire, noting that this is a "multination coverup," concludes by saying:

expect little coverage; this scandal has no friends.