He also said "I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." - Thomas Jefferson Letter to Nathaniel Macon January 12 1819.
Why should the President sit down and read the NY Times' spin on what is happening with the war when he can call up a general instead? Why should he read what USA Today's said about Dr. Rice's latest statement when he can talk to her directly? Why should he read the Washington Post's version of a leaked intelligence memo when he can just read the original DNC talking points on it? Modern day "journalism" has fallen so far back into it's history of yellow journalism that there isn't much to be gained from it anymore.
I'd argue as well that much of what passes for jornalism today, is blatantly incorrect. Never mind the bias...I can sort out fact from opinion. But, when the reporters don't even bother to get the facts right....
The article is quite the Bush bashing screed. I agree with Mr. Iacocca....but for different reasons. I'd love to see pols in DC (Dem or Rep) with a little spine...rather than a bunch of people that squirm and wet themselves everytime some race-baiter or pundit or pollster yells "BOO!". Doing the right thing may not always be good for the image, but the voters will see that it's right, eventually.