PrintWaPo article draws more criticism
Yesterday's Washington Post article on Iranian nuke capability criticized by Rick Moran today on AT also drew the attention of Roger L. Simon today. It is "repellent and dangerously close to disinformation", he says:
Today's Washington Post article on a new intelligence report that Iran is ten years away from nuclear weapons is almost a burlesque of the mainstream media reliance on unnamed sources — there at least three, possibly as many as five (hard to tell) in the fifteen—hundred word story. But amongst the miasma of phrases like "Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said..." (same people? different? who knows?) my absolute favorite for comedy value is:
"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.
A U. S. source!? They actually printed that with a straight face. (I assume they did anyway.) What, pray tell, is a "U. S. source"? I guess they mean someone in the government, but it could just as well be your Aunt Fanny in Nome, Alaska. And they say bloggers don't have editors!
But even more disturbing than this obfuscation is the subject of this story itself — the leak of tidbits from an intelligence report which the public, of course, is not trusted to see. Leaving aside the atrocious record of our intelligence agencies over recent decades (something it is hard to do since I suspect the current housecleaning at said agencies is motivating this leak), let's look at the substance of what little of this report we know. (more)
Clarice Feldman 8 2 05
