02.15.2005 07:14

Old Media publication standards


I know it's the Independent, but Rupert Cornwell, their Washington correspondent, has a real hooter today, US accused of plan to muzzle al-Jazeera through privatisation.
America and its key ally Saudi Arabia are being accused of quietly seeking to muzzle al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news station that has often incurred Washington's ire for its coverage of Iraq and President George Bush's "war on terror".
Accused by administration sources? Staff on the Hill? Saudi officials? Independent observers? Al-Jazeera employees? NGO contacts? Terrorists? Georgetown party-goers? Men in black?

There's not one word in the article indicating from where this story comes. In fact, there's no further mention of the charges, except for two sentences: 'US officials reject all charges of meddling. Nonetheless, such suspicions are inevitable.'

Here we go again: throwing out charges with nothing to back them up, as Capt. Ed describes it. This time, 'salivating morons' might fit, Cornwell, that is.

Ace has it right: 'Reporters are supposed to report verifiable, or at least confirmed, facts. They are not supposed to traffic in ludicrous Al Jazeera level conspiracy theories ...' (Let's Be Honest: We're All A Bunch of "Salivating Morons").