April 13, 2006
Spin. Cut. Run.
To hear Editor & Publisher tell it, you would think that Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick was standing firmly behind his page A1 story from yesterday, where his opening paragraphs strongly asserted that the Bush Administration ignored the "unanimous findings" of a team of weapons experts to purposefully present the American people with false information.
The Post's agenda-driven journalism was destroyed before the first copy of the print edition hit the street.
Warrick's article was a perfect example of modern yellow journalism. He following an increasingly common technique of making a strong assertion in the lede (opening paragraphs)of a story, only providing any balancing coverage much further down in the story, while typically being dismissive of it or giving it little rhetorical weight (Jeff Goldstein provides and excellent look at the phenomena as applied to this story at Protein Wisdom).
Is Warrick really standing firm behind his article? Hardly.
Warricks's new article, hiding on page A18, has backed away from the "unanimous findings" claim that was proven factually inaccurate in his scurrilous lede. A June 7, 2003 NY Times article found by Seixon found that far from presenting "unanimous findings," this third team of experts was "divided sharply" in their opinion of what the trailer represented. Warrick's sources—all anonymous—seem to be contradicting each other, bringing into doubt their credibility.
In addition to the credibility of Warrick's anonymous sources and the discrepanies about the report they issued, all mention of the two teams of military experts that thought that the trailers were mobile bio-weapon labs have been removed from the follow-up story. Unable to address the fact that their existence proves he was presenting a minority view (even one that turned out to be accurate), Warrick seems intent on deleting all references to these contradictory teams mentioned in earlier article. The "smoking gun" has turned out to be what Seixan noted as a "minority report about a minority report."
Is Joby Warrick standing by his story, or is he guilty of spinning, cutting, and running?
I report. You deride.
Update: Blue Crab Boulevard says, "What's 'unclear' here is if Mr. Warrick was aware that he was writing a hit piece or just that bad a writer."
What's 'unclear' here is if Mr. Warrick was aware that he was writing a hit piece or just that bad a writer."
ONCE = Chance
TWICE = Coincidence
THIRD TIME = Enemy Action.
I find it also strange that there would be any need for an anonymous source on a story about an event that was reported on several years ago. Perhaps they wanted to be anonymous because they did not want their friends and associates to know they were passing on bogus information.
Posted by: Merv Benson at April 13, 2006 03:37 PMbio trailers retread + yellowcake retread = what?
my guess is an attempt to mitigate new info.
Posted by: rawsnacks at April 13, 2006 04:40 PMPerhaps they wanted to be anonymous because they did not want their friends and associates to know they were passing on bogus information.
Or, they are involved with some rank partisan organization and their expose would only pave the way to being discredited.
My understanding of the military teams were that they merely confirmed that the trailers had the pieces of equipment in them that "Curveball" and other engineers described. At least, that's what the CIA's website suggets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html
And I just read that NY Times story that Judith Miller wrote, and I found the language a touch confusing. Was it the third group that was sharply divided internally, or sharply divided from the other two groups.
And it also seems that while this third group was taking more of a scientific approach to determining it because they were senior analysts, the others may not have been as skilled and jumped the gun. Check this sentence out, "Some doubters noted that the intelligence community was still scrambling to analyze the trailers, suggesting that the white paper may have been premature."
I don't think Warrick's reporting was very good, but I still think there are questions that need to be answered before you all put him through the partisan wringer.
In other words, much like his story was more of a
"Ready. Fire. Aim." story, so too is the blogosphere drubbing of him. I guess I just wish somebody could take it apart free from the partisan rhetoric. That would be a welcome change.
bio trailers retread + yellowcake retread = what?my guess is an attempt to mitigate new info.
They are losing on so many fronts that they have to retread stuff to keep the "bush lie" theme alive. What is really funny is these are the same conspiracy theorists that claim Bush comes up with a new OBL tape every time his ratings go down...
Posted by: Specter at April 13, 2006 05:47 PMJustin -
I think the problem is that the MSM usually gets the first shot at the patisan rhetoric. What they tend to do is simplify information, generally in a way that supports thier views. What the blogosphere does - at least the conservative part of it - is point out the bias. Is that putting the MSM through the partisan wringer? I don't think so. I actually think its providing the needed balance go on to wish for.
Mike
Oops - there should be a "you" after "balance". Should have hit preview.
Mike
I sometimes wonder at our yellow journalism charge. I have read the articles which debunk Lincoln before his election. Yellow journalism is the rule, not the exception. I do wish people would look historically at this.
Pat
This is no worse than the NYT hit piece using the mistake (lie which Fitzgearld released on Friday so it would run the weekend barf news cycle such as meet the depressed) of Mr Fitgerald as a front page 'massive story' and printing the correction days later on page a17. Do they wonder why their profit's are taking a nose dive. You can find more correct, honest 'news' in any supermarket tabloid at a much cheaper price. Not one of them would dare print a lie as the NYT does daily for fear of lawsuits.
Posted by: Scrapiron at April 13, 2006 08:08 PMJustin,
Believe it or not, my post that was linked above is not partisan. It's actually a hit on crappy reporting. I like to think I will take the exact same stance on some article doing a hit on someone I personally detested. I may or may not live up to that standard in the future, but I like to think I'm honest enough not to tolerate a rather obvious hit piece on anyone.
Gaius
Posted by: Gaius Arbo at April 13, 2006 10:24 PMYES - this is all about the "Bus Lied" meme, popularized by Michael Moore in 2004.
Back then, the Dems believed their own press, and the election was decided in August when the Swift Boat critics emerged and the media advised them "ignore them." They did, and the election results matched poll numbers back in August. (This is unprecedented in my lifetime: presidential elections are always decided after Labor Day. But not last time.)
Now the press is believing their own Bush lies and recycling them to the people. Just as the NYTimes has become the Dems cheerleader, so the WaPo has become the "conscience" of the White house press corps. This item reflects that goup-think.
The elite media is corrupt beyond repair - that is the lesson we had better all learn this spring.
Posted by: Orson Olson at April 13, 2006 10:25 PM
