Thursday, December 09, 2004
The Armor Follies, Continued...
So much has been made of some E-4's pointy question of Donald Rumsfeld. I don't have much to add, since I was making the same points a year ago. And at the time I had some readership in the Pentagon.
The story's so old, and the news so old, though, that the only possible reason I can imagine it got so much play is that it fits with the press's rabid hatred of all things Rumsfeld.
From all accounts of those who were there, the Q and A session was far, far from a "grilling." And yet that's exactly the headline the
One pointy question does not a "grilling" make.
It's obvious that the only reason this story got the play it did was not because the media gives a shit about the troops. If they did, they would have been covering the issue nonstop. What the press gave a shit about was "getting Rumsfeld."
The story deserved some follow-up. But it deserves follow-up from serious-minded reporters who actually care about troops -- not from some opportunistic hack practicing "gotcha journalism," which is what we have here.
UPDATE: His editor agrees with me, somewhat: "He is there to write stories; not make news himself."
(The irony of a newspaper editor counseling a reporter not to leak emails about how another reporter covers the news is a bit rich, considering how much all reporters owe to people who leak emails and memos not meant for public consumption.)
Splash, out
Jason
The story's so old, and the news so old, though, that the only possible reason I can imagine it got so much play is that it fits with the press's rabid hatred of all things Rumsfeld.
From all accounts of those who were there, the Q and A session was far, far from a "grilling." And yet that's exactly the headline the
New York Timesuses.
One pointy question does not a "grilling" make.
It's obvious that the only reason this story got the play it did was not because the media gives a shit about the troops. If they did, they would have been covering the issue nonstop. What the press gave a shit about was "getting Rumsfeld."
The story deserved some follow-up. But it deserves follow-up from serious-minded reporters who actually care about troops -- not from some opportunistic hack practicing "gotcha journalism," which is what we have here.
UPDATE: His editor agrees with me, somewhat: "He is there to write stories; not make news himself."
(The irony of a newspaper editor counseling a reporter not to leak emails about how another reporter covers the news is a bit rich, considering how much all reporters owe to people who leak emails and memos not meant for public consumption.)
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
