The LA times finally issues a correction about Paul Bremmer's farewell address - he gave one, the LA times reported he hadn't.
What's telling for me is their reason for not knowing -- it wasn't publicized to the Western press. In other words, because the CPA didn't give them a press release and a transcript, the press covering Iraq had no idea that he gave a farewell address. The press that purports to have their finger on the pulse of Iraq for us hasn't a clue, and doesn't realize it. Next time you read about how the Iraqis feel or what they think or what is going on in Iraq, just remember this.
And since this appeared in a "news analysis" piece, let me remind you, "news analysis" is just a fancy word for "opinion" that deliberately tries to make you think its actual news.
That's one of the rots in modern journalism - the lack of investigative ability and the reliance on handouts -- from "sources", from organizations, even from readers. Far too often a story is generated by the source, not the press. A think tank or advocacy organization (e.g. The Center for Science in the Public Interest) issues a press release about a study, and poof instant story that relies on the press release. I was amazed to discover through Google how many stories are created this way, and how reliant they are on the press release, with no critical examination of what lies behind the press release. Oh, perhaps the token "critic", but face value belief in the way the story is written. And then you go to the organization's web site, and you read the press release, and you see how much of the "story" is a verbatim copy of the press release, and then you read the substance behind the press release, and you realize how much of the context is missing, or how many of the caveats are missing, or how laughably "scientific" the study is, and you realize you've been duped.
Or a "source" drops a dime and settles a score, and a hit piece appears, and if you know anything about the situation you know it's a hit piece, but the reporter either doesn't care (heck, the response is a whole nother story that will fall in your lap) or doesn't know enough to know better.
There is a world of difference between an organization that relies on "facts" handed to it, and an organization that goes out and uncovers the facts themselves. And since news organizations don't fact check in any meaningful sense, what we have is a press that purports to keep us informed but simply provides us with information that particular people and organizations want us to see for their own reasons. The whole breast implant scare was cooked up by the journalist trial lawer complex to poison jury pools -- journalists used stories pre-packaged by trial lawyers copmplete with fake science but real anecdote.
And this is what passes for journalism. And this is why I no longer believe a word written in the paper other than direct quotes -- and even then I'm not sure.
