There is an Aug 2 2002 NYTs article by Will Broad where the FBI boasts they have mapped out Hatfill's every living minute around both mailings. We know how well that worked out for them.

They not only can't place Ivins in Princeton on 9/17/01, they can't even find him in Frederick when he's clearly there. So, they close the case? They skipped that whole "building" part, as far as I can see.

I mean, they continue unabated in most cases, without even trying to learn from past mistakes. We need a catchall which captures the essence of re-print-what-my-government-tells-me mentality.

I vote for "Britney Spears Reporting" or "BS Reporting".

As in, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

I mean, unless there's a dead, divorced, or strung-out white girl somewhere, that is the approach most of them take.

...especially with the Russia_Georgia thing sucking up so much oxygen, but its good to see that it is alive and well.

An observation or two:

On the article: Great stuff. It would have helped to have a link when you wrote

"But almost immediately after the FBI leaked this theory as to when and how Ivins traveled to New Jersey undetected, it was pointed out in several online venues, including here, that this timeline made no sense whatsoever"

I would have liked to know which ones specifically you're talking about.

Also, in response to the poster who wrote about Georgia--I never got the feeling taht GG is supporting Russia's activities. I think the point is that Russia is contravening international law, just as the United States has in Iraq. But the media seem oblivious to the parallel. Its a question of process in both issues--Ivins may be guilty, but the FBI has not proven it and seems to want to bury the whole thing in innuendo, with lots of help from corporate media.

You know, the latest "He drove all night" theory pretty much begs the question: "Did you ask his wife about this?" Not coming home until daybreak (on a weeknight, no less) is something most wives notice. Did anyone even bother to ask?

is this, by Dr. Nass' account a good article on the attack:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/messageanthrax.html

On the phone that day, S.S.A. Fitzgerald told me that Erin O'Connor (case 2), an NBC aide, had been diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax 17 days after opening a powder-filled letter addressed to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw. The letter, postmarked on September 20 in St. Petersburg, Florida, began:

"THE UNTHINKABEL" (the Ns are reversed as Cyrillic characters in the published Vanity Fair article)

SAMPLE OF HOW IT WILL LOOK

Brief but ominous, the handwritten note threatened bioterror attacks on New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

This is the EXACT kind of putrid reporting that causes me to time-and-again call on an all-out attack on the media for their complicity and outright support of government propaganda.

Here is a link to email Carrie Johnson and ask her why her reporting is so unbelievably incompetent:

http://tinyurl.com/5jy3fb

Please email her and express your opinion of her reporting. I'm including my email to her, which is far and away too kind given her utter dereliction of duty. (Not that it will change the way these "hardened" flatfoots choose to do their work, but a flood of critical emails might make her a little more hesitant to send such horseshit to her editor the next time.)

Ms. Johnson,

I'm writing to ask for your thoughts about some very disturbing (and legitimate) questions being raised by the media's (and yours in particular) lack of thoughtful investigation and reporting of the Bruce Ivins case.

Some very detailed analysis on this case is being done by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and others, and it appears he is raising very important questions about the veracity of the case that you are not. I would like to understand why you, as a reporter on this case, are not asking these kinds of questions or following up on very apparent inconsistencies in this case.

It appears there is ample room for questioning the information that is being passed on to you by your sources, especially as it relates to the timeline/location of Ivins and the mailings of the Anthrax. I'm very skeptical about the FBI's case, their selective release of information, and their changing storyline. Yet you do not seem to be as interested in exploring these avenues? Can you help me understand why that is?

Here is an excerpt from Greenwald's post this morning regarding this case. The entire article can be found here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and respond.

What drives me crazy is just calling something a conspiracy theory, automatically dismisses an entire argument. Doesn't matter how much evidence you have, just call it a conspiracy theory and that's it. Case closed, no need to listen further. If you've ever had an argument dismissed like that, you know what I'm talking about. It's infuriating. It's not like people don't engage in conspiracies, our government charges people with criminal conspiracies everyday. Conspiracy to sell drugs, commit murder, commit fraud etc. All a conspiracy means is two or more people working together to achieve a goal.

Fresh new data out on public perception of media, credibility, etc.

http://people-press.org/report/444/news-media

Worth reading.

http://tinyurl.com/6j9xnt

I believe emptywheel at firedoglake had it the next morning. atlargely also had it on Saturday.

While you're on the subject of FBI misinvestigations, there's the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui under totally bogus cirumstances. Was she held at Bagram for 5 years? Could the story of her arrest be any lamer? Where are her children?

I tried to find out more, and Google led to an incredible number of very angry stories from Pakistan. Cooperating with her arrest seems to have been what pushed Musharraf out of office today.

From the US media? Crickets.