How are they doing...

Former Slate columnist Eric Umansky examines the ebb and flow of journalistic coverage of the Bush Administration's tactics in prosecuting its foreign policy.

Reporters and news organizations deserve enormous credit for exposing the abuse and torture of detainees during the U.S. war on terror, more than other institutions or individuals. Without Carlotta Gall, The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, The Washington Post’s Dana Priest, and many other reporters, we might well never have learned of the abuse and torture that have occurred in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.
…
What is true and what is significant are two different matters. Everybody agrees that journalists are supposed to ascertain the truth. As for deciding what is significant, reporters and editors make that judgment, too, all the time — what story leads on the front page, or gets played inside, what story gets followed up. And when it comes to very sensitive material, like torture, many journalists would prefer to rely on others to be the first to decide that something is significant. To do otherwise would mean sticking your neck out.

Umansky describes, with great detail, the various investigations and reports that have helped uncover methods and practices that seem to defy U.S. and international law. It also tells some compelling stories of how these issues finally see the light of day.

- Murphy