eliminate the middleman

Redsock posted this excellent excerpt from Greg Palast:
Was there a problem with the [Newsweek] story? Certainly. If you want to split hairs, the inside-government source of the Koran desecration story now says he can't confirm which military report it appeared in. But he saw it in one report and a witness has confirmed that the Koran was defiled. Of course, there's an easy way to get at the truth. RELEASE THE REPORTS NOW. Hand them over, Mr. Rumsfeld, and let's see for ourselves what's in them. ...

Despite its supposed new concern for hidden sources, let's note that Newsweek and the [Washington] Post have no trouble providing, even in the midst of this story, cover for secret Administration sources that are FAVORABLE to Bush. Editor Whitaker's retraction relies on "Administration officials" whose names he kindly withholds. ...

As with CBS's retraction of Dan Rather's report on Bush's draft-dodging, Newsweek's diving to the mat on Guantanamo acts as a warning to all journalists who step out of line. Newsweek has now publicly committed to having its reports vetted by Rumsfeld's Defense Department before publication. [Emphasis mine.] Why not just print Rumsfeld's press releases and eliminate the middleman, the reporter?
That pretty much sums it up for me.

Comments

  1. Thanks so much, G. I'm very behind on my reading various blogs, planning to catch up this weekend. This reminds me to include AWSAD on that list. "d" (lower case, if I recall correctly) is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks so much, G. I'm very behind on my reading various blogs, planning to catch up this weekend. This reminds me to include AWSAD on that list. "d" (lower case, if I recall correctly) is excellent.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

dipstick