Talking Points Memo
(July 2nd, 2003 -- 12:46 AM EDT // link)

"Was [Judith] Miller a cheerleader or a reporter?
A propagandist or a journalist? How tainted was
her work by a demonstrable bias for one set of
informers—the former Iraqi exiles, who have
their own agenda to push? Did the Times publish
inaccurate stories because it failed to police her
bias? Never mind her high-handedness: The Times
owes its readers a comprehensive review of her
recent work."

Those are questions Jack Shafer asked last week in
Slate about New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Shafer´s been asking questions about Miller´s
reporting for months. And he´s posed some pretty
damn good ones -- as has Howard Kurtz of the
Washington Post -- largely centering on Miller´s
biased reporting, extreme partiality to a
particular source with an extremely conspicuous
agenda, and questionable adherence to several
basic canons of journalism.

I´m confused. I thought mau-mauing the Times was
all the rage these days. In media criticism terms,
this is twenty M80s, half a jerrican of gas, ten
packs of sparklers and a six-pack of Pop Rocks --
all waiting for a spark.

But no spark.

What is it exactly that has prevented all this
from blowing up other than the fact that most of
the people who drummed Howell Raines out of the
business have benefited so mightily --
ideologically, that is -- from Miller´s excesses?

Don´t bother sending me the answer. I think I´m
set.


-- Josh Marshall



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index.html

ap schrieb:

was sagt man dazu?

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,2
55765,00.html

Ich würde sagen dass der Spiegel - wie so oft -
lügt.

http://www.henryk-broder.de/html/tb_kulturzeit.htm
l

Übrigens: In puncto einseitige Berichterstattung
sind die deutschen Medien wohl kaum zu schlagen.