Raging Double Standard Alert
This is laughable, but then Greg Mitchell has been the dictionary definition of that word for a while now. Today he blasts "anonymous reports" and the major media reporting them.
NEW YORK First it was Michael Gordon in The New York Times on Saturday. Now The Washington Post and other media outlets have joined in suggesting a slam dunk case for Iranian weapons killing Americans in Iraq.
An article by Joshua Partlow from Baghdad — long atop the Post's Web site — first carried the declarative headline, "Iran Sending Explosives to Extremist Groups in Iraq," without even "U.S. officials say."
Not that those officials could be named anyway. As in case of Michael Gordon's article, the officials are unnamed.
Let's just leave out the fact that if the anonymous sources are bashing the Bush administration, Mitchell proudly pimps them to the best of his ability. If they in any way support the administration, they are to be damned, loudly, in full frothing rage mode.
Other Links to this Post
-
Flopping Aces — February 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
-
The Anchoress » Radio bloggers, Plamegame, “Indulgences” for rich eco-sinners — February 12, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
By Quilly Mammoth, February 12, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Of course the Krazy Koz Kidz beat him to the punch. Even one diarist with an impressive military background that I usually respect has descended to calling the information about Iran “Rovewellian”.
::sigh::
BDS is such a terrible thing. It’s actually become harder and harder to laugh at the madness because now it can have serious consequences.
By jpe, February 12, 2007 @ 8:53 am
We tend to give more credibility to adverse anonymous statements. If the speaker is toeing the admin line, it just looks like the admin’s way of starting a whisper campaign, of getting unproven assertions into the news. A contrary statement, though, carries risks of employer retatiation: the risk of leaking would probably have to counterbalanced by something of importance that the public ought to know but that the administration thinks would be politically damaging.
That’s just common sense.
By TC@LeatherPenguin, February 12, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Mitchell=Columbia J School=”IGNORE.”
By Granddaddy Long Legs, February 12, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Greg Mitchell is actively trying to control the narrative on Iran, and he’s just angry that his colleagues aren’t following his advice. Back in April of 2006, he wrote:
“The media dropped its guard in the run-up to the attack on Iraq. Will they redeem themselves if pressure builds for an air strike or war against Iran? There are some indications that some lessons may have been learned [...] Newspapers may be in the role of bullpen stopper right now, with the current Iran “semi-crisis.” In baseball lingo, they should try to “put out the fire” there, after losing one for the home team in Iraq three years ago [...] To those who would say that this inflates the power or even role of the press in America today, I would reply: You don’t expect the Democrats to keep us out of war, do you? Just as they would not stand up to the president on Iraq for fear of appearing “weak on terror,” they would likely be wary of appearing “weak on the Tehran Bomb.” Let’s face it: All the Democrats want to do right now is stagger through to November with an unpopular president in office, and hope that, maybe, they can re-take at least one house of Congress — without having to stick their necks out.
So the media, usually only a middle-reliever or in a mop-up role on this playing field, might have to pitch with the game on the line.”
He’s staked out the position that the self-titled “messengers of information” should manipulate the facts to control the public debate. And he probably still considers himself to be a fair and unbiased journalist. Sad, isn’t it?