.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

sufrensucatash

news & opinion with no titillating non-news from the major non-news channels.

 

I am: progressive, not a wild-eyed Progressive; liberal, but shun liberals and Liberals; conservative, but some Conservatives worry me; absolutely NOT a libertarian. I am: an idealist, but no utopian; a pragmatist, but no Machiavellian. I am a realist who dreams.

 

I welcome all opinions.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

More "Journalistic Integrity":
   Status Quo at the LA Times

In an October 22 article, the LA Times reports,

a top U.S. official for aid to Iraq has accused the Bush administration of rushing unprepared into the 2003 invasion because of pressures from President Bush's approaching reelection campaign.

It isn't until well past the shock and awe of the first couple paragraphs (often called "above the fold") that the paper more fully explains what was said by Robin Raphel, State Department Coordinator for Iraq assistance.

But the combined pressures of politics and military requirements "made us move before we were remotely ready for the post-conflict situation,"

I would think that military requirements would indeed be a powerful factor in, ahem, military operations, no? And political requirements, like 'em or not, must be considered when engaging in operations with serious political consequences, right?

There is also a rather perfunctory comment that the official is a 28-year veteran of the State Department's foreign service and a former assistant secretary of State.

So, the LA Times accurately reported the facts. But facts are merely facts, irrespective of their presentation? Aye, there's the rub.

I have not read the LA Times often enough to know its politics. I don't need to. This is a classic case of twisting a story for circulation impact over journalistic integrity values. Taking pot shots at a controversial Presidency has a higher paper purchase index than taking a jab at someone, who used to be a little higher up the political totem pole, might be a little disgruntled, eh?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home