May 18, 2005
Squidward ho!

As with all other slimy spineless predators, when cornered journalists often attempt to escape in a cloud of ink. The Post this morning featured no fewer than four "yes, it was bad, but..." stories about the Newsweek retraction, one of which was on the front page:

Newsweek lied, people died may in fact be a bit of satire, but it's no worse than what traipses across the editorial pages of print journalism's bastions every week. And unlike last year's television news debacles, to date no one has paid a price for this particular print debacle.

Except perhaps for slightly more than a dozen people in Afghanistan.

Posted by scott at May 18, 2005 08:43 AM

eMail this entry!

It gets even worse - I was listening to the Pentagon press briefing yesterday and the press corps spent the entire time pushing the spokesman about this issue:

"Are you going to be investigating these allegations?"

"There is no evidence that they're credible allegations. They appear to be completely invented and are lies."

"Yes, but are you going to investigate them?"

"Among the training materials we have from al Quaeda, they speak of this tactic. Basically, the detainees are trained to make all sorts of allegations in order to drum up public sympathy and divert resources. If the allegations they make have no material support or any other credible support, they are not investigated further."

"Yes, but what are you going to do to repair your damaged image in light of this scandal?"

It went on for 30 minutes like this - circular questioning, why did you let this problem happen, etc.

I think the goal right now is for the press to do anything possible to redirect the scandal onto the gov't's shoulders instead of falling on the aforementioned shiny sword.


Posted by: ronaprhys on May 18, 2005 09:23 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?