This report came out Saturday on CapHillBlue and today (Monday) in the NYTimes. Boy, those suckers at the times just don't know an unreliable source when they see one...
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jun 12, 2004, 08:29
Email this article
Printer friendly page
At least five soldiers objected last fall to abuses they saw at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. One demanded to be reassigned, saying the behavior he witnessed there "made me sick to my stomach."
[more]
Monday, June 14, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ah yes, the NY Times. That is what passes for credibility today. Still, I have to admit that they could turn around a newstory they read just Saturday and get it into the times on a Monday.
Meantime, we crap on capitalhillblues? What, not enough mansions advertised on their site to make them credible?
PLEASE! Capitol Blue didn't write the damn story! Its a "wire report" which means it comes from AP. Matt Kelley of the AP wrote the story. Capitol Blue and about a 100 other sites just post stuff from AP. The credible sites list the source, the inferior sites try to make it seem as though they created the material. Do a google search for any part of that article and you'll see it verbatim in a hundred places.
Um... Perhaps ye doth protest too much. From the by line
"By Staff and Wire Reports"
They tell you right up front that it is a wire report.
So maybe you should give them a break and read rather than decide that they are "inferior" and blast them. Like any source, one must weigh it with a certain amount of caution. I mean, the NYTimes has had far more issues come to light with respect to false reporting than has CapHillBlue (and yes, I know that's not a fair comparison, since the Times is under much more scrutiny, the point is that all sources need to be understood as biased, etc.)
The point in reading CapHillBlue is in trying to get an insiders take (slanted no doubt) of what is going on in D.C. It's akin to gossip. What the reporters believe but cannot say (if you read the site, they tell you this). You may say that there is nothing of value to be found in that, I disagree.
Your comment is demented. You claim in your post that Capitol Blue broke this story, but they did not. It is an AP story.
In reading my post, I see that it implied that CapHillBlue broke the story, and you would be correct in countering that implication. But I did not mean for it to due so. Please excuse the confusing wording.
I was trying to point out that CapHillBlue has information of value. This was to counter your assertion that nothing on the site can be trusted.
I will concede that the site contains information of value, in particular the stories like this one that come across the wire from more credible news agencies. The other stories may also contain some valuable information, along with a marked anti-administration disposition, a remiss attitude toward citing sources, and an ambition to engender outrage, acrimony, and antipathy.
You are WRONG Matt. You do not know WHAT you are TALKING about. Your mother is a hamster and you father smells of elderberries!
Post a Comment