Saturday, March 18, 2006
The New York Times has egg on its face, again.
Turns out the guy they thought was the 'hooded man' of Abu Gharaib fame - and about whom they ran a breathless front-page story (The Times just will not let that story die!) - was not that man at all.
Why did the Times fall into that trap?
Because according to the Times, "reporting" consists of calling a representative from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but not bothering to be "diligent" about seeking comment from the military.
Indeed, they could have searched their own pages, or the original documents from the investigation, and found that military investigators had named another man.
Which sort of lends a delicious little twist to the story: When the Times asked the DoD to "confirm or deny" the identity of the man in the photo, the DoD declined to comment. Did the Defense Department realize that the Times was barking up the wrong tree? Did they issue a "no comment" knowing the Times would go with what they got from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, "lawyers for the detainees," and the rest of the usual gang of terrorist sympathizers they usually rely upon, and run the flawed story on its front page.
And the Times, true to form, walked right into it. Brilliant!
Note to Times editors: Next time the Pentagon refuses to "confirm or deny" a story that has no OPSEC considerations to speak of, assume you're being set up, and then go back to the drawing board.
Splash, out
Jason
Why did the Times fall into that trap?
Because according to the Times, "reporting" consists of calling a representative from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but not bothering to be "diligent" about seeking comment from the military.
Indeed, they could have searched their own pages, or the original documents from the investigation, and found that military investigators had named another man.
Which sort of lends a delicious little twist to the story: When the Times asked the DoD to "confirm or deny" the identity of the man in the photo, the DoD declined to comment. Did the Defense Department realize that the Times was barking up the wrong tree? Did they issue a "no comment" knowing the Times would go with what they got from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, "lawyers for the detainees," and the rest of the usual gang of terrorist sympathizers they usually rely upon, and run the flawed story on its front page.
And the Times, true to form, walked right into it. Brilliant!
Note to Times editors: Next time the Pentagon refuses to "confirm or deny" a story that has no OPSEC considerations to speak of, assume you're being set up, and then go back to the drawing board.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
