Why is the Washington Post trying to start a new war?

[babylonsister]

http://www.trustme.com/story.php?title=Why-is-Washington-Post-trying-to-start-new-war

Why is the Washington Post trying to start a new war?


---TrustMe.com Original Editorial---
Posted by josephcannon 3 hours ago View profile


Yesterday, Reuters published the following account of fighting in Diwaniya, Iraq:

Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.


(Emphasis added.) A factory? In Iraq? Producing EFPs? How embarrassing.

Y'see, right now, Bush is trying to convince the world that the Iraqi insurgents get all their EFPs from those awful, awful Iranians. That factory was awfully inconvenient.

So the Washington Post picked up the story and, er, well, sort of rewrote it. No more factory. Poof. It's gone; it never existed.

In the revised version, EFPs are called "a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants.”

Technically, every word here is true. But it conveys an impression which -- as revealed by the original story -- is at a complete remove from the truth.

Is this the most blatant example of journalistic lying we've ever seen? No. But it's probably the most unforgivable example to appear in months.

We need a name. Just who is this Charles Foster Kane wannabe at the Post who decided to help launch a new war by rewriting the words of his journalistic betters? Why is the Post rewriting stories to conform with Bush's fantasies?

[liberal N proud]

1. Because georgie couldn't use force to get the British troops out

He is looking for a reason and the regime needs a reason to attack Tehran

[Monkeyman]

5. Yep

[bobbie]

2. Because they want perpetual war for perpetual profit.

To answer your question.

[NormanYorkstein]

3. WP is a neocon newspaper

they have been more pro-war than any major paper (except for Judith Miller's NYT propaganda of course)

[youngdem]

11. Yep. Neo-con rag staffed by partisans and Mockingbird members

[solara]

4. Because they are psychopaths

:shrug:



INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE IMPALE INCINERATE :patriot:

[MikeNearMcChord]

6. Well I guess, since none of the kin

of those WP honcho's are going to fight in it, I guess that they are gung-ho to get those profits up.

[malaise]

7. BBC also changed their story

It didn't fit the spin.

[stirlingsliver]

8. $$$MONEY$$$

The Post knows that stories like this generate more people to buy their newspaper.

And the Post also knows that stories like this create more buzz for the Post.

It's all about M.O.N.E.Y.

[frogcycle]

9. wow

I guess there actually isn't any remedy, is there? I mean, rags with an agenda can pretty well print whatever they want. There is only "journalistic pride" (I think there once was such a thing) to keep them honest. Only if another journalist counters them, leaving the public to decide which lies to believe, is there any semblance of "balance."

Somehow it seems like there should be some sort of standard, doesn't it? But that would be control, or censorship, as the case may be.

Only if they quit selling ads because readership (or ratings) drop do they reconsider which side to take.

Tell me, who was the last honorable person? Was there ever one?

grrrr

[Mabus]

10. Their star rah-porter Bob Wood-ward wahnts to write another book

and he still has contacts in the White House he can use. :shrug:

[AX10]

12. Because it's a neo-con rag. Kathrine Graham's son Donald is...

a Republican and a Neo-Con and is in charge. The editorial board is stacked with them. They also have called for removing all trade barriers. :argh:

[nealmhughes]

13. Because people like me don't give a shit what they have to say and turn to Blighty.

Namely, the Guardian, Observor and Independent. Or independent outlets like NewStandard online here in the Most Serene Christian Republic.