Balance Via Omission
I was struck by this sentence in a few paragraphs down in a Friday NYT article describing the efforts of Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby to prepare "the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier."
We are left to wonder what Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed actually suggested about the Vice President's role in sending Wilson to Africa and if whatever was suggested was true. This is reckless ambiguity. The Op-Ed is publicly available. To wit, it appeared in the same newspaper as this article. And there's a Senate Intelligence Committee report that could be used to verify whatever Wilson might have suggested.
In fact, it appears that Wilson gave a very accurate description of the origins of his trip. Here's the relevant passage from the Op-Ed:
This is what the Senate Intelligence Committe report concluded:
Why is it important that the author point out the accuracy of Joe Wilson's article? Because this has been a key angle in the efforts to smear him. Indeed, Joe Wilson's top Inaccuracy/Mistatement according to the RNC:
I understand that I'm picking on one sentence from a fairly long article, but I think it's symptomatic of a larger problem: The media often chooses an empty notion of balance in place of truth. That "some said" something should not be enough to state it without qualification.
[The response] did not mention Mr. Wilson or his wife, and Mr. Libby made it clear that Vice President Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson to Africa, a notion some said Mr. Wilson had suggested in his article.
We are left to wonder what Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed actually suggested about the Vice President's role in sending Wilson to Africa and if whatever was suggested was true. This is reckless ambiguity. The Op-Ed is publicly available. To wit, it appeared in the same newspaper as this article. And there's a Senate Intelligence Committee report that could be used to verify whatever Wilson might have suggested.
In fact, it appears that Wilson gave a very accurate description of the origins of his trip. Here's the relevant passage from the Op-Ed:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake  a form of lightly processed ore  by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
This is what the Senate Intelligence Committe report concluded:
Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Department of State and Defence on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.
Why is it important that the author point out the accuracy of Joe Wilson's article? Because this has been a key angle in the efforts to smear him. Indeed, Joe Wilson's top Inaccuracy/Mistatement according to the RNC:
1. Wilson Insisted That The Vice PresidentÂs Office Sent Him To Niger
I understand that I'm picking on one sentence from a fairly long article, but I think it's symptomatic of a larger problem: The media often chooses an empty notion of balance in place of truth. That "some said" something should not be enough to state it without qualification.
posted by Ernie at 3:38 PM
1 Comments:
The article states that some said Mr. Wison had suggested that Cheney sent him to Africa.
My point was that we know exactly what Mr. Wilson suggested about the origins of his trip in his Op-Ed, and what he suggested jives with the Senate intelligence report. That should have been pointed out in the article.
Post a Comment
<< Home