In my Media Mangle column Wednesday I wrote:
If there was any doubt that the mainstream
media is in the tank for Democrats, the coverage of the recent cloture
vote on the various non-binding Iraq resolutions in the Senate
certainly erased it.
If there are still any doubters out there, then this will finally convince even them. Reuters had to correct its story on an inspector general’s report critical of the way intelligence was handled by the Bush administration in the runup to the war in Iraq. The error: The bombastic and accusatory language they attributed to the inspector general wasn’t his at all. It was that of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., one of Bush’s most rabid critics in the Senate. Here’s Reuters’ lame correction:
(An earlier version of this story mistakenly attributed comments from a
report by Democratic Cen. Carl Levin of Michigan in October 2004 to a
report by the Pentagon’s inspector general. A correct version of the
story follows.)
I’ve said many times before the MSM takes spin from the Democrats, but now it’s getting ridiculous.
UPDATE: It gets worse. The Washington Post did the same thing. Not only are the MSM incompetent, they’re colluding too, apparently. Here’s their Herman Melville-length correction:
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s
report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas
J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References
to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or
reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a
significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report
issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes
stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable
reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much
stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more
in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the
Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated
that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the
political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that
the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ
similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office:
Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment
process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report
states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated
alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida
relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent
with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior
decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that
Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence
Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by
the available intelligence.”
Now maybe the seen-no-evil members of the journalistic community, the deans and professors of the major J-schools will finally wake up. The manner in which the erroneous quotes changed the meaning and the apparent weight of this story is simply incalculable. It was on the front page of the Post today and, as result on all the news wires. I have yet to see the correction on any news outlet other than on Reuters’ updated and corrected story and the Post’s. The irresponsibility is mind-boggling.
Here’s how it’s going to work. Thousands of newspapers and Web sites tomorrow will have the updated story but will not mention that the original was mostly fiction. The damage has been done.