The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Corroboration is for the little people
As has been noted all over, the infestation of anonymice continues. USG has no difficulty whatsoever in spreading its poison - via the ever-open conduit of the Very Objective Media, with nary a smidgeon of corroboration for any of it. According to the rules, the very anonymity of the source is corroboration: because, if the information really wasn't super secret, the source would have been able to go on the record. Stands to reason...
We suckers, of course, are supposed to trust the media to have exercised independent judgement in deciding to accept what an anonymouse has told them.
But, when it's a voice in opposition to the USG line - even a named source going on the record - everything is different.
As witness Sibel Edmonds, the erstwhile FBI translator who dares to contradict the super-stellar Condi Rice on 9/11 matters (WaPo April 8).
The WaPo piece says that, though it's had some play outside the US,
Edmonds's story has been almost uniformly ignored in the U.S. daily press.
Reference to Google News rather confirms this - Edmonds gets a few words in a Baltimore Sun piece (April 8) - but the Sun is the only name to stand out.
Edmonds says that she does have corroboration - it's just that it's all either destroyed or being sat on by USG. She says she's told the 9/11 Commission, in secret session, details to identify which documents they need to ask to see in order to let them check out her story.
But should the US media have sat on that story? If their reason/pretext is lack of corroboration, why do they let so much uncorroborated material from USG through to the choicest locations in their rags - supplied by anonymous sources, natch - even when so much earlier material has proved to be garbage?
We know the basic answer: the media is a junkie, and will take the Administration dope, whatever it's cut with, and whatever services they have to perform in return.
free website counter