- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The "correction" follow-up is part of the pattern:</>
The WaPost followed up with an article about the BBC report
FWIW. You used an article in the June 23 Washington Post as an example of a reporter using the Military's press release as gospel. In all fairness, yesterday (6/29) the Post ran an article (by the same reporter) about the BBC's report calling the Military's version of the incident into question.
This has been going on since the beginning of the war. Of course, by the time the "questions" arise, everybody has moved on.
The initial report did its job as propaganda. The follow-up is ass-covering and means nothing in the bigger scheme of things.
Of course it did. But that's my point. The BBC ran the same information that the Washington Post did based on the the same press release: (from the June 26 BBC article Glen highlighted) "On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days.
The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website.").
The BBC, to it's credit investigated and published it's findings three days later. By that time the damage had been done. The real culprit here is the Military.
As a matter of fact, when I contacted the POC on that press release and pointed out that the BBC article differed greatly from the info in press release, the reply I got read:
"Sir,
All indications are that we were correct in our assessment. We are still pressing forward with an investigation to dispel reports of killing civilians. Until our investigation is complete, we will not be able to provide any further information. However, we have and are still currently diligently investigating these claims."
(Almost certainly a canned answer specifically written for incidences like this.) I hope someone follows up on this, but I'm not sure how you can prove the military wrong in cases like this. It comes down to a "he says"/"she says" situation. I would first check to see if, in fact, the Army really is investigating this further. If they aren't then the Army, in the person of the Sgt who sent me the email, lied.
