Who are these "American officials" you speak of?
The story they want you and everyone else to read,
But take just a minute to ask yourself, if this took place last month, why are we just hearing about it now, completely packaged and explained, and why is the only sourcing "American officials?"
Someone dumped this story on the NYTimes because they wanted it out there. "American officials" is likely two or three administration members confirming each other.
(It's important to note that this is authored by "aluminum tubes," Iran in Iraq, give credibility to anything the administration says, Michael Gordon.)
Look at the play, not the story.
Later: Here's another timed "American officials" story, "warning of mounting signs that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is poised to mount a terror attack against "Jewish targets" somewhere outside the Middle East."
Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.....
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
But take just a minute to ask yourself, if this took place last month, why are we just hearing about it now, completely packaged and explained, and why is the only sourcing "American officials?"
Someone dumped this story on the NYTimes because they wanted it out there. "American officials" is likely two or three administration members confirming each other.
(It's important to note that this is authored by "aluminum tubes," Iran in Iraq, give credibility to anything the administration says, Michael Gordon.)
Look at the play, not the story.
Later: Here's another timed "American officials" story, "warning of mounting signs that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is poised to mount a terror attack against "Jewish targets" somewhere outside the Middle East."
posted by mikevotes at
8:48 PM
8 Comments:
It's just a game to the corporate media, isn't it? It's all about selling papers and the bottom line.
By
-epm, at 10:02 PM
I dunno. I'm not really sure of the relationship between the editors and Michael Gordon.
I don't doubt that the body of this story is true, but it's the control of the release, the shading, the details given that I would worry about.
By
mikevotes, at 10:58 PM
I guess I'm just a little disappointed that there's no qualification of the sources, nor any context for the veracity, factuality of the statements. I'm speaking broadly and not just about this little nugget of dictation.
It's like the other cancer on the media: the need to contrive false "balance," like giving equal time to scientists and crackpots, historians and conspiracy theorists, as if each were as credible as the other. (Oh, yeah. And the need to manipulate all politics into a horse race.)
I don't know. I'm probably nostalgic for a myth of journalism. Maybe it never existed.... But I think it did.
By
-epm, at 8:22 AM
Again Michael Gordon. That's been his trademark.
And there have been windows of ethical journalism. Some elements of the Murrow era. The Cronkite window. Post Watergate.
If you want a real opinion, it is the transitions of the news business that are causing the problems right now. Dropping circulation, internet competition for print. Profit motive, non-news competition for TV. All forcing mass layoffs and dropping actual reporters and foreign bureaus.
That's putting alot of pressure on everything.
By
mikevotes, at 8:27 AM
An Israeli attack on Iran is probably the Bush Administration's best hope on this front, since we will be "forced" to 'defend' Israel from retaliation by obliterating Iran.
The next President will have to deal with the fallout of that 'unfortunate but necessary' scenario.
The real question is if Israel will allow itself to be bullied into this. Unless we are willing to invade and occupy Iran, it will remain hostile to Israel (and for good reason) and several new problems will be created for Israel on top of the old. The Gulf States wish to see Iran's influence reduced, but don't want another Iraq disaster. And that's all that Cheney can promise them.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 12:23 PM
Wasn't that the Cheney plan being bandied about awhile back, that the Israelis would undertake some small provocation forcing the US to be drawn in on their side?
Don't I remember a Cheney aide getting caught on the record saying that?
(PS. you don't have to look it up to cite back to me. I've got it somewhere in the blog if I cared enough to dig back.)
By
mikevotes, at 1:36 PM
Wasn't that the Cheney plan being bandied about awhile back, that the Israelis would undertake some small provocation forcing the US to be drawn in on their side?
Hard to argue with someone that agrees with you, isn't it?
Cheney is the "mover" behind this, and his time is running out. Olmert desperately wants a "win" after Lebanon, but Iran is only a big question mark without an occupation.
Iran is about three times the population of Iraq, and they remember who backed the Shah and Saddam against them. Even without us fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, an Iranian occupation would be an immense "challenge". Iraq would explode, Lebanon would explode, Palestine would explode, oil would skyrocket, and our allies would treat us like a leper. And that's if we were 'successful'.
It's such an incredibly stupid idea that Cheney can't help but back it. I don't pretend to know what kind of leverage Cheney has over Israel, but it will end soon enough.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 3:40 PM
Iran also doesn't have a military and industry destroyed and kept weak by sanctions. And as you mention, a regional presence among the Shia nearly everywhere.
Don't know if that plan is on the cards, but it was out there and floated. My sense is that it won't happen.
By
mikevotes, at 4:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home