Friday, March 17, 2006

MSM hypocrisy: unnamed sources vs. unnamed sources

To the MSM, unnamed sources are good:
Sources told ABC News that the vice president's team had debated issuing a statement early Sunday morning per the White House's request. But sources said Cheney's team decided it would be more credible to allow ranch owner and witness Katharine Armstrong to make the information public.

However, to the MSM, unnamed sources are bad:
(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable โ€” i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document โ€” four days after 9/11 โ€” is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

So remember, you fledgling reporters, if you want to be a part of the MSM, unnamed sources are good if they are saying something that hurts the Bush administration, but they are bad if they are saying something that helps the Bush administration. Why, if you follow that faithfully, you could become the main anchor at CBS News and work on 60 Minutes, too!

[Purloined from Wizbang.]


Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!