The New York Times has an interesting interview with former Bushie strategist Matthew Dowd, who has decided that supporting the president was Bad Idea Jeans. It's reasonably good reading.
But that's not why I'm writing. Instead, I would like to take this moment to point out how annoying it is that the Times isn't pushing a transcript of the interview. It wouldn't be that hard. It sure wouldn't take up too much server space. And it would be good journalism and allow readers to get a fuller flavor of the interview.
Why the Times (and other papers) don't do it as a matter of course is beyond me. (Wait! It's not beyond me: I suspect it's a reflection of their perception of their job, which is to serve as mediators and gatekeepers. I'm all for the mediator role. Journalists should be adding value by giving context, etc. What they shouldn't be doing is keeping potentially information from readers. (For example, transcripts!)
