Tolerable versus terrible journalism

I've gotten some attention based upon my support of a certain liberal photojournalist's attempt to break what he felt was an important story in Fallujah. Interestingly enough, some think becuase I support a journalist who happens to be liberal in this instance, they jump to the conclusion that I support all liberal journalism. They should probably read my blog more (bookmarking it is optional).

No, there is a world of difference between reporting a valid if controversial story with a moderate degree of bias, and completely making stuff up, a la Robert Fisk.

Fisk has long had a reputation as a hardcore liberal apologist. His coverage of the Margaret Hassan murder and mutilation by terrorists is a perfect example of crossing the line from liberal media bias to blatant propoganda.

Fisk opines:

So if anyone doubted the murderous nature of the insurgents, what better way to prove their viciousness than to produce evidence of Margaret Hassan's murder?

What more ruthless way could there be of demonstrating to the world that America and Alawi's tinpot army was fighting "evil" in Fallujah and the other Iraqi cities that are now controlled by Washington's enemies.

No, of course we cannot say that Alawi was involved in Margaret Hassan's death, even though he would have hated her political views.

Just because the "Interim Prime Minister" is widely believed in Baghdad to have executed seven prisoners in the Amariya Police Station just before taking office - he denies this - should not suggest he would ever have a hand in so terrible a deed.

But the question remains: Who killed Margaret Hassan?