What the press doesn't report

One thing the press will seldom do is break away from the herd. If the predominent story runs in one direction, the press lacks the courage (or something else?) to investigate the "other" side of a story. Since the runup to the war, the predominent story in the press has been there there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq and therefore no justification for the war (since WMD have supposedly not been found even though sarin gas has been) and no link to the war on terror. Even when possible links have been reported, it's been in a condescending manner, as if they're props provided by the administration rather than real evidence. But this story in the Weekly Standard reveals that, prior to the change of administrations, the links between al Qaeda and Iraq were "understood" by the press and never questioned. Furthermore, the investigations of the Iraq Survey Group have strengthened the case for the ties between these two groups and the justification for deposing Sadaam now. In other words, the President's claim that Sadaam represented "a grave and growing danger" (not the falsely reported "immiment danger") has been buttressed by the evidence uncovered since the liberation of Baghdad.

Why isn't the press reporting this? What changed?