tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801479.post115713593715940284..comments2023-10-08T07:35:25.126-05:00Comments on insight-less:: Goodbye Joe WilsonBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07563956581194180991noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801479.post-1157543805652924642006-09-06T06:56:00.000-05:002006-09-06T06:56:00.000-05:00I would agree that this Editorial is rather belate...I would agree that this Editorial is rather belated. Three years is a long time in the "news" and it's allowed the wrong impression to fester. What bothers me is that in my sense of journalism, an Editorial is meant to synthesize information that's out in the open into a coherent thought. This piece sort of does that, but it rings hollow. Aside from some folks like Hitchens, a thorough discrediting of this case hasn't happened. It seems odd that this Ed. is published only after a book about the same subject comes out. That books co-author, Michael Isikoff, also works for the Post via Newsweek. <BR/><BR/>Aside from that, I'm wondering why, exactly, the NYT article is an example of crap journalism. If I were to guess, it would be because it retreads the same rationale for this investigation that was hypothesized 3 years ago. I.e., Plame is the victim of White House pushback instead of being the victim of her husbands questionable reasoning skills. Beyond that, the NYT article makes many of the elements mentioned in the WaPo Editorial more clear, but without making the leap that Joe Wilson is an idiot. It would be ok to me if this leap was made in another article, but I'm annoyed that it isn't alluded to. Given what else appears in the article, it's reasonable to cast doubt on the guy. <BR/><BR/>I should re-iterate that I don't care about Joe Wilson, but I'm not convinced that this NYT article quite lives up to crap journalism (while others most certainly do).Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07563956581194180991noreply@blogger.com