Did this same man (Term used loosely) go to Mosques over the same time period, trying to find any radical Islamists who might be or become terrorists? Did he make tapes there?
We're talking about investigative reporting here. We're not talking about a survey or a study or a government program. In those scenarios there is an implied obligation for balance. In investigative reporting, you follow a lead, whatever that lead might be, and you report what you've found. If the investigator had found drugs being smuggled into Arizona from Mexico, you wouldn't be asking why he hadn't also looked for drugs entering through New Mexico or California. If the investigator had found a scheme to defraud the elderly of their pensions in Florida, you wouldn't ask why he hadn't looked for a scheme to defraud young couples of real estate in Michigan.
You may expect that he had ulterior motives for focusing on this particular story and that may be the case. But as long as there's a legitimate story there, he has legitimate cover for it. No one asked Woodward and Bernstein why they didn't also look for break-ins at the Libertarian Party headquarters.
There's a journalistic responsibility to report fairly and accurately. Expecting reporters to go out of their way to locate balance before reporting a story is bogus. Would he be expected to find a general of each religious denomination first? Would he have to find one from each branch of the service? How about balancing the general with a sergeant? Or maybe we'd need to find generals from each part of the country.? Or maybe some civilian executives to compare with military? Whenever our ox is gored, we demand balance. But there are a lot of oxen in each story. Which oxen do we balance. Maybe some men or women are offended (for different reasons) that he didn't follow a female general.
I guess that's enough beating on this point. I understand that this story gored one or more of your oxen. But next time it will be someone else's. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, as they used to say.
Mine too. WHAT possible reason would there be for following ONE General around to SEVERAL States
Perhaps a diligent reporter with a nose for an important story. If he'd been doing that to turn up an Al Qaida cell, we'd all be applauding him. If he'd been doing that to turn up J-Lo's six bigamous marriages, he'd be applauded for that, too. That's what investigative journalists do.
As for your other questions about permission to tape and the transcripts, hopefully we will get answers and we can then judge the guy accordingly. There may be some damning stuff there. Meanwhile, these privacy and balance arguments are bogus, IMO. |
