« A Silly Lord of the Rings Analogy for Today | Main | A Rat In The Dirt »
Captain's Quarters has moved! Be sure to bookmark or blogroll the new site!
Sunday, December 14, 2003
The Post Buries Saddam-9/11 Connection
Power Line has an important post on the Telegraph story regarding the training of Mohammed Atta by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and why the story is not getting any attention from major US media outlets. In order to understand why the Washington Post, for example, does not appear anxious to look into this claim, Hindrocket notes the following exchange during an on-line chat this morning:
Annapolis, Md.: Will the Post be looking into the story reported by the Telegraph about connections between Abu Nidal, Mohammad Atta and Saddam Hussein? Very likely to be untrue, but would be immensely significant if true. And there's no mention on the Post's Web site about it yet.Robert G. Kaiser: If we put every rumor and story in the British press (not to mention many others around the world) on the Web site, you'd be dizzy--and no wiser. The Post does not print other papers' uncheckable 'exclusive' stories. And I can tell you that there have been dozens of bad--that is, wrong--ones over recent months. The Telegraph, Daily and Sunday, has not earned our respect for accuracy or careful reporting.
Read the entire post and remember that the Washington Post has actually been rather moderate in its stance on the war in Iraq. And if they're moderate, then you can imagine that the Star-Tribune-type hard-left broadsheets won't lift a finger to inform their readership of this development.
Now that you have read this post, read the most recent entries at the new Captain's Quarters at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/!
02:41 PM in Media Watch, War on Terror | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455934069e200e550829f918834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Post Buries Saddam-9/11 Connection:
Comments
They do have a point, though. Some British papers have a, er, less than stellar record for accuracy. The Guardian on the left, the Telegraph on the right.
Posted by: Jon Henke at Dec 14, 2003 4:55:28 PM
Yeah, I know, and it's a good point. But I think that the story itself could still be reported along with a qualifier regarding the questionable reliability of the source. Besides, in this case the Telegraph is reporting on a statement from the Iraqi governing council; the credibility of the Council is the question, not the Telegraph.
Posted by: Captain Ed at Dec 14, 2003 4:58:48 PM
Isn't it interesting that the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, etc. never hesitates in running stories about audio or video tapes that contain messages "purportedly" from Saddam Hussein or Osmam Bin Laden, even though they could never confirm that it was really them speaking on the tapes.
Perhpas the Post feels Al-Jazeera TV is more credible than the Daily Telegraph...
Posted by: Justin Levine at Dec 14, 2003 6:00:47 PM
(from what I can tell) It seems that the new allegations are pretty uncheckable by the WaPo. (as they indicated) Whereas they could verify that there is a video, they can't even verify that the Iraqi governing council official passed along that story.
The stories would correlate if they could get a statement from the official. Then, as with the tape, they could verify that it is being said, but not that it is accurate.
I DO hope they're pursuing that. (and I'm assuming that they can't check with the unnamed official. If they can get the name, obviously, they should check with him)
Posted by: at Dec 14, 2003 6:33:39 PM
