Thursday, February 10, 2005
First and Goal on the Eason Jordan story...
since Captains Quarters and Michelle Malkin pretty much do all the original reporting on the story, all the NY Times had to do was prance the ball into the end zone.
So what does the Times do?
Well, on first and goal, of course, it's time to punt.
No. Just target them, arrest them, and torture, them, right?
ONE???!!!!???!!!!
Why just the online petition? Why isn't the New York Times pounding the table for the release of the video?
(What the hell kind of idiotic organization VIDEOTAPES a conference intended to be "off the record," anyway?
Ok, so the AP is willing to accept the testimony of Rep. Frank and others indicating that that is, indeed, what Jordan said.
So how is it that the 12 journalists were "targeted" but not deliberately killed? Does this guy just not know what "targeted" means?
Further, the article makes no mention of the context of Eason's earlier remarks to the UK Guardian - which others have already noted. I guess the pros couldn't be bothered with doing the reporting of the rank amateurs.
This is really a pathetic effort.
All the more so, since the Times apparently thinks the story's not worth devoting any of their reporters to...they farm it out to the A.P. It's called "plausible denial."
And then there's this bit of odious, backhanded tripe:
I feel like bitchslapping this idiot. As if we're the problem. Just what does he expect US forces to do? Who was it that killed Danny Pearl? (Hint: it sure as Hell wasn't US Forces. Unless he wants to blame the Pentagon for causing its own collision with a jetliner, killing Barbara Olson.
Pathetic.
Splash, out
Jason
So what does the Times do?
Well, on first and goal, of course, it's time to punt.
Despite comments that may have left a different impression, CNN's chief news executive said Thursday that he does not believe the U.S. military intended to kill journalists in the Iraq war.
No. Just target them, arrest them, and torture, them, right?
One Web logger has already called it ``Easongate,''
ONE???!!!!???!!!!
and an online petition is circulating calling on CNN to release a full transcript of what Jordan said.
Why just the online petition? Why isn't the New York Times pounding the table for the release of the video?
(What the hell kind of idiotic organization VIDEOTAPES a conference intended to be "off the record," anyway?
Jordan, speaking at the Jan. 27 panel in Davos, Switzerland, said he believed that 12 journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.
Ok, so the AP is willing to accept the testimony of Rep. Frank and others indicating that that is, indeed, what Jordan said.
So how is it that the 12 journalists were "targeted" but not deliberately killed? Does this guy just not know what "targeted" means?
Further, the article makes no mention of the context of Eason's earlier remarks to the UK Guardian - which others have already noted. I guess the
This is really a pathetic effort.
All the more so, since the Times apparently thinks the story's not worth devoting any of their reporters to...they farm it out to the A.P. It's called "plausible denial."
And then there's this bit of odious, backhanded tripe:
``We have not concluded that U.S. forces have deliberately targeted journalists,'' Campagna said. ``But we remain very concerned about whether U.S. forces are adequately working to insure that journalists who are civilians are not harmed in areas of conflict.''
I feel like bitchslapping this idiot. As if we're the problem. Just what does he expect US forces to do? Who was it that killed Danny Pearl? (Hint: it sure as Hell wasn't US Forces. Unless he wants to blame the Pentagon for causing its own collision with a jetliner, killing Barbara Olson.
Pathetic.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
