博客浏览米歇尔·马尔金(Michelle Malkin)档案



书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... 这个评论者 这个线程 隐藏线程 显示所有评论
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Robin Boyd at Newsbusters notes that the Associated Press is playing book publicist for NYTimes reporter James Risen, whose book blabbing about the Bush administration’s classified counterterrorism programs is out today:

The AP has earned quite a reputation of ignoring the positive reports out of Iraq and painting with a broad brush of negativity. They have sunk to a new low by writing a “news” article that is essentially a promotional advertisement for a book. It is just another way for the AP to get a “hit” against the Bush administration. The AP should stick to reporting the news – they have enough trouble with that.

Time magazine’s preview of Risen’s book is only slightly less unbalanced. Romesh Ratnesar concludes:

Risen’s reporting isn’t bulletproof. Like most intelligence reporters, he relies heavily on anonymous sources, and several anecdotes in State of War are attributed to a lone leaker. That makes some of the book’s claims difficult to verify, while leaving Risen open to charges that he is being used by partisan ax grinders. Risen, who is contesting a court order to reveal the identities of sources he quoted in a series of disputed articles about the nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, admits that the book requires readers to make a “leap of faith” and accept the credibility of his sources. But the number of intelligence officials willing to risk their careers and come forward convinced Risen that their critiques have merit. “I got to these people at a good time,” he says. “The frustration over the way things have been going in the Bush Administration had built up within the government. There were a lot of people who were increasingly uncomfortable with what was going on.”

Risen gave his first TV book interview this morning to the Today Show’s Katie Couric (of course!). Channeling 查克·舒默, Risen cast his anonymous sources as “whistleblowers” motivated “by the purest reasons.” How do we know that’s true? Because Risen says so.

Couric and Risen.jpg

Download video clip #1 (.wmv文件)。

Asked about the timing of the story, Risen says “it wasn’t my decision” and refuses to “discuss the internal deliberations.” Instead, he pats himself and the Gray Lady on the back for their “great public service” in publishing the story and reiterates his praise of his anonymous sources as “truly American patriots.”

Download video clip #2 (.wmv文件)。

I guess we’ll see if and how long Risen is willing to stay in jail for his patriotic illegal leakers.


Tim Graham at 角落:

I do wish Couric and others would push harder on the anonymous-source question: how do we know these sources aren’t members of MoveOn.org? How do we know they aren’t die-hard Hillary Clinton fans, or long-time Bush haters? Just because they’re career government officials tells us nothing about their anonymous motivations.


收缩包装 has an interesting post on the psychology of the Times.

小林丸 plumbs the MSM franchise, erosion, and backlash.

AJ 地层 有一个提议。

那也是 Tigerhawk, who examines the ethics of journalism and asks: “When did journalists decide that their citizenship did not matter?”


斗牛犬专家在 ABP suspects “that the moonbats are counting on Risen’s book to do for them what Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, the Bin Laden tape, “NYTrogate”, Halliburton contracts, the “Jersey Girls”, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Christopher Reeve and John Murtha couldn’t do – convince the American people to come around to their way of thinking. Sadly for them, but luckily for the country, this too shall fail.”

John H. at Power Line: The predictable distinction between us and them

• 类别: 思想 •标签: 丹·拉瑟, 希拉里·克林顿, 凯蒂库里克