[lit-ideas] Re: From FAIR on Beating the Drum
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:39:12 -0800
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
Other related posts:
