"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Thursday, March 16, 2006

CNN.com - Libby's lawyers subpoena N.Y. Times, reporters - Mar 16, 2006

CNN.com - Libby's lawyers subpoena N.Y. Times, reporters - Mar 16, 2006

"Defense lawyers for Lewis "Scooter" Libby confirm they have issued subpoenas to reporters and media outlets as they prepare to fight charges against the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney."

Misreporting/lazy reporting abound in this article.

"Plame, who was a covert agent for the CIA before her name was published." This is literally true, since she was, at one time a "covert" agent and obviously this was "before" the publication (is that 1 year prior, 2, 5?). But whether or not this was the case just prior to Novak's column has not be answered yet. You would think the msm would be more curious about this aspect of the story, it seems they haven't felt it necessary to go down this road. Whether accurate or not we can see they've decided.

Byron York on National Review Online had this to say recently, "Fitzgerald has steadfastly refused to provide lawyers for Lewis Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff charged with perjury and obstruction in the case, with any documents concerning Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA. Fitzgerald has also refused to provide Libby with any evidence on whether the disclosure of Wilson's identity caused any damage to national security." Were CNN/msm to do it's job, might they mention a tid bit along these lines? Might this be why the "defense" is subpoeaning documents that they can get, when they have difficulty getting what they have tried to get?

"Wilson, (who had) publicly challenged the Bush administration on a key element in its case for war against Iraq." Here, CNN has no interest in what truth there is to Joseph Wilson's story. Articles in the past, 9/11 Commission Report etc., reveal that a number of statements by Wilson were not entirely true, i.e. wife had no influence in his election to go to Niger, counterfeit documents he claimed to have seen (he hadn't seen them at that time), etc.

Is the msm covering their own poor performance or is it something more akin to their being a part of the DeMediacratic party? This post may seem like a big ado about nothing, but if the media is going to do its job, it might like to do so with a bit more accuracy; which oddly enough would be the whole story. See further posts of this nature here, here, here, and here.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks