Wednesday, May 12, 2004
The LA Times' John Carroll
Here's the full text of Carroll's speech on 'pseudojournalism.'
And here's Stefan Sharansky's caustic response.
My favorite passage:
I have no doubt that FoxNews viewers would outscore fans of socialized broadcasting on any of the following poll questions, if asked:
Whether or not there was an "Oil for Food" scandal.
If such a scandal existed (hint: it did), how many, if any, of our "allies" who did not support the war in Iraq, were benefitting from that scandal, or were paid off by the Saddam regime in some other way.
Whether or not Saddam Hussein's regime gave refuge to Abu Nidal, the international terrorist
Whether or not George Bush claimed in advance of the 2003 war that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S.
Whether or not CNN, by its own admission, intentionally withheld for years any stories of the Hussein regime's atrocities in order to maintain "access" to the regime, which access would then enable CNN to broadcast even more half-truths and misleading stories from the country.
Whether or not Scott Ritter, the darling of the anti-war movement, willfully refused to talk about the Hussein regime's mistreatment of innocent children, as he more interested in "waging peace" than he was in honestly describing the state of affairs in Iraq.
Whether or not any credible allegations have been made about Mr. Ritter which, if ultimately proved, would seriously undermine his credibility on Iraq, or overall.
Whether or not Saddam's regime attacked the U.S. at any time between 1991 and 2003.
Who Micah Wright is.
Where Kuwait is, on both the internationally recognized map and the Iraqi version.
A couple of people wrote in wondering why I hadn't mentioned this episode, in which an LA Times photographer was fired for doctoring an image to create a more powerful photo.
In fact, I had heard about it, and I read about it again when I was working on the first piece.
I didn't use it because 1.) I thought the newspaper management acted appropriately--perhaps even heavy-handedly, and 2.) The photographer himself seemed genuinely repentant and contrite.
At some point, you have to be able to forgive and embrace.
As far as I am concerned, that particular matter is concluded.
Splash, out
Jason
And here's Stefan Sharansky's caustic response.
My favorite passage:
I have no doubt that FoxNews viewers would outscore fans of socialized broadcasting on any of the following poll questions, if asked:
Whether or not there was an "Oil for Food" scandal.
If such a scandal existed (hint: it did), how many, if any, of our "allies" who did not support the war in Iraq, were benefitting from that scandal, or were paid off by the Saddam regime in some other way.
Whether or not Saddam Hussein's regime gave refuge to Abu Nidal, the international terrorist
Whether or not George Bush claimed in advance of the 2003 war that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S.
Whether or not CNN, by its own admission, intentionally withheld for years any stories of the Hussein regime's atrocities in order to maintain "access" to the regime, which access would then enable CNN to broadcast even more half-truths and misleading stories from the country.
Whether or not Scott Ritter, the darling of the anti-war movement, willfully refused to talk about the Hussein regime's mistreatment of innocent children, as he more interested in "waging peace" than he was in honestly describing the state of affairs in Iraq.
Whether or not any credible allegations have been made about Mr. Ritter which, if ultimately proved, would seriously undermine his credibility on Iraq, or overall.
Whether or not Saddam's regime attacked the U.S. at any time between 1991 and 2003.
Who Micah Wright is.
Where Kuwait is, on both the internationally recognized map and the Iraqi version.
A couple of people wrote in wondering why I hadn't mentioned this episode, in which an LA Times photographer was fired for doctoring an image to create a more powerful photo.
In fact, I had heard about it, and I read about it again when I was working on the first piece.
I didn't use it because 1.) I thought the newspaper management acted appropriately--perhaps even heavy-handedly, and 2.) The photographer himself seemed genuinely repentant and contrite.
At some point, you have to be able to forgive and embrace.
As far as I am concerned, that particular matter is concluded.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
