A new headline caught my eye today: “Pentagon doubts Iranian rocket test succeeded“
This article helped bring my opinion on US news into focus. I did not give one whit about whether or not Iran’s missile test succeeded or failed. I found myself wondering why the Pentagon wants to tell me that Iran’s test failed. I did not wonder if they were sincere, because a) it’s entirely likely that they are not, and b) I will never know if they are and neither will you, and c) even the Pentagon doesn’t know if the missile test succeeded or failed. Once again there was the ubiquitous source: an official “who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.”
Really? This is actual intelligence? Maybe it’s a really sensitive hunch? Maybe there was another “official” who has a hunch that Iran was only doing a very huge weenie roast. Will his name be protected by the media as well?
Why is this statement on the front page of the most trusted name in news? It is a hunch from an unnamed person, and it’s un-newsworthiness is as obvious as a man in a Gorilla suit in a beauty pageant. Maybe the Pentagon pressured CNN into delivering the message so they could reiterate this single, laughably horrifying statement:
“Senior U.S. officials had expressed concerned over the weekend about the new reported test, saying Iran could use the rocket to deliver warheads.”
Or this one:
“The Iranian development and testing of rockets is troubling and raises further questions about their intentions.”
Scary stuff … except the whole rumor mill is in dire contradiction to sanctioned government reports that belie the opposite. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25?language=printer The whole thing is sounding suspiciously similar to how Iraq had WMDs, al qaida connections, blah blah blah.
Fool me once, shame on … (most of you know the rest.)
So it all comes down to this: we don’t know anything, and there appear to be no news organizations who care. Where are the Edward R. Murrows of today who are willing to stand up to the Pentagon (i.e. the White House) and set the record straight?
The moment I wrote that statement, I thought of one person and immediately found this.
Thank you Keith. Of course, when making these statements, his network is quick to divorce themselves from Keith, saying “Hey, this is just his opinion.”
Eureka. I have figured it out.
1. If the News Network renounces a source, the source tells the truth.
2. If the News Network “protects” the source and keeps them anonymous, the source lies.