Impeachable Sources

It turns out that the New York Times and a fair number of other media outlets have have been caught pushing anti-war propaganda, as opposed to reporting, on the American people, again. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss this as simply a mistake. See this:

Last Saturday the Times ran a front page profile of a man who claimed to be the same man in the iconic photograph of abuse from abu Ghraib, and he has basically shaped his identity around that claim.

But only days later the online magazine Salon ran a piece questioning their reporting, and they had to run a second piece walking back from the story a bit.

This morning comes the piece admitting they were wrong

While back pedaling away from the story, the NY Times points out that said individual has been all over the media telling his woeful story lie. I believe this is very significant to our government's greater case. No one is claiming there weren't some abuses at abu Ghraib. The military's position has always been that some admitted problems were isolated events engaged in by a select number of individuals who have now been arrested and prosecuted.

Given that we now realize there was a propaganda effort at work to exploit abu Ghraib as a means of embarrassing the US military, now taken the form of law suits for financial gain, it's fair to question all the sources for the scope of the stories on abu Ghraib.

That was a story the media seized with glee, just as it did with Katrina and Valerie Plame, because they would sell - and sell anti-war and anti-administration themes. In almost every case now, significant elements of their reporting has been flat out wrong.

Not only is it time to put talk of abu Ghraib and especially torture to rest, it's time to acknowledge that as regards any significant proof re abu Ghraib, the military has probably been as, if not more, honest and forthright then the media we're constantly told we should trust.

Clearly that's impossible these days. The most that we can say is that there were some unfortunate incidents at abu Ghraib and the military has taken action to see that offenders were punished and any actual abuse wasn't likely to be repeated. I can't recall any history books that tell us the same thing could ever have been said for Hitler's concentration camps or Russia's gulags.

Unfortunately, don't look for that analysis to come up at Sixty Minutes any time soon.

Comments

[annie]

Although we want to know what is going on in the world, it has got to the point where the media can't be trusted as they have their own agenda.

They seem to care more about the terrorists than they do the troops. The media in the US is not alone in this, as the BBC here in UK is one of the worst offenders. It panders to political correctness to a revolting extent, it is sickening to hear the anti US, anti Israel stuff they push out.

They were thrown a bit with the bombing of the tube, but have since tended to focus on the Brazilian guy who was shot by mistake by the police when they thought he was a terrorist. The victims of the bombings seem to have been all but forgotten.

All they are doing is giving aid to the enemy as they must love to hear this stuff, and it is like people are also beginning to think that if the terrorists are not mentioned, then it will all go away. If only. Meanwhile, people just go sleepwalking along their way.