The L.A. Times Gets It Wrong Again
powerlineblog
<font size=4>
Last Thursday we reported on Paul Bremer's inspirational farewell speech to the Iraqi people, as seen through the eyes of an Iraqi blogger. We also noted that the frequently-clueless Washington Post had denied that Bremer gave a farewell speech at all.
Now, Patrick Frey of Patterico has written us to point out that as recently as July 4, the Los Angeles Times went the Post one better, not only mis-reporting Bremer's speech, but turning their own error into a major theme of the paper's "news" report:
<font color=blue><font size=3>
L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator for Iraq, left without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year.
<font color=black><font size=4>
This would be unbelievable if we weren't so accustomed to false reporting by both the Times and the Post. If you were going to write an article criticizing Ambassador Bremer for failing to give a farewell speech, wouldn't you at least check to find out whether he had, in fact, given one? Apparently the L.A. Times considers fact-checking to be beyond the call of duty.
As for the Post, it has still not corrected its article, a full week after it appeared on June 29. The Post's article was by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, its head reporter in Iraq, who has repeatedly embarrassed the Post by his false and distorted reporting. Well, let me rephrase that: the Post is probably beyond embarrassment, but if it seriously aspired to be a news organization rather than a propaganda organ for the Democratic Party, it would be embarrassed.
And the L.A. Times is worse.
UPDATE: Reader Greg Schwinghammer pointed us to a post at Iraq Now, a site run by blogger, journalist and Florida Guardsman Jason van Steenwyck. Van Steenwyck wrote to Alissa Rubin, the L.A. Times reporter who authored the story that we quote from above. He pointed out that Bremer did, in fact, give a farewell speech and referred to Zayed's comments on the speech. Rubin responded with this weird reply:
<font color=blue><font size=3>
I am sorry you feel that my aim was to insult Amb. Bremer. I think if you look at my coverage of him through the year it has been quite consistently sympathetic. On the day he left and the day or two before that when I accompanied him on trips, he gave no farewell speech of the kind that one might give on the day or two before leaving. That was, I'm sure for security reasons. As you are probably aware, security had deteriorated badly or the the roughly three weeks before the transfer of sovereignty.
Western reporters who follow Amb. Bremer would have been delighted to cover an event billed as a farewell to Iraq. However, I will gladly look at the material you have forwarded me and if indeed I should have included a qualification I will discuss doing so with my desk.
<font color=black><font size=4>
As best I can decipher this, Ms. Rubin is under the impression that if Ambassador Bremer did not deliver a farewell address in her presence, then he must not have given one at all. Apparently the fact that his farewell speech was televised and widely viewed throughout Iraq remains a bit of a mystery to her. As of today, no correction has appeared in the L.A. Times.
<font size=3>
powerlineblog.com |
