So much for careful reading, or even reading at all. I didn't write this. It's an excerpt from FAIR. Wow. I'm stunned. You really thought I wrote this? -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> >Sent: Feb 3, 2007 7:39 PM >To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: From FAIR on Beating the Drum > >> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3037 >> >> NYT, networks offer scant skepticism on Iran claims > >> The next day, the New York Times ran a remarkably similar story >> (1/31/07), again relying exclusively on anonymous government >> officials (U.S and Iraqi). While the Times did note that "Officials >> cautioned that no firm conclusions had been drawn and did not >> reveal any direct evidence of a connection," the paper nonetheless >> went on at some length describing the theory that an off-shot of >> the Mahdi Army connected to the Iranian government was behind the >> attack. The Times report relied exclusively on unnamed officials. >> The article's entire sourcing: > >The Times reports what various unnamed officials say. Are you >questioning that they said it? No; apparently you think the Times (and >some of the more sensational sources you named) should have 'been more >sceptical.' How? By putting a 'Not!' after the story's headline? By >noting that the 'official sources' mentioned were lying scoundrels? By >not printing the story at all? > >You call running this story 'beating the drum' for an attack on Iran? >You were right the first time--you had no evidence for your earlier >claim. You still don't. I'm done. > >Robert Paul, >waiting for the circus of Doctor Lao >to return to Abalone, Arizona > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, >digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html