[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Thanks for the link. It puts the lie to Eason Jordan's recent words, doesn't it?

It really does. Some people are defending CNN's performance on the basis that it was journalistically preferable to have reporters inside Iraq, even at the cost of such compromises. I disagree strongly with this, given that those reporters couldn't report the truth anyway.

But I don't see how anyone can defend CNN knowing that Jordan went out of his way to lie to the American people about the quality of CNN's Iraq coverage.

[Timesink]

It really does. Some people are defending CNN's performance on the basis that it was journalistically preferable to have reporters inside Iraq, even at the cost of such compromises. I disagree strongly with this, given that those reporters couldn't report the truth anyway.

The question that shuts these types up: "So you'd have been accepting of CNN covering up the rape, torture and/or murder of your own spouse/daughter/loved one as long it was for The Good of the Bureau?"

[peeve23]

I just watched the FoxNewsWatch dude (don't remember his name) and he found CNNs excuses extremely lame.

He said, "Sure...they didn't have to give the name of the guy who did X,Y,orZ, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have generally demonstrated that Iraq was a brutal, sadistic regime."

He's gonna be fun to watch this weekend. I can't wait to hear Cal Thomas on this. (Thomas...imho...is gifted with words.)