December 27, 2005

JUST BACK FROM IRAQ, Bill Roggio responds to a Washington Post article by Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck. Excerpt:

There are three problems with this article which require a response: the use of incorrect facts which could have been easily checked; the portrayal of my embed as an information operation; and equating U.S. military information operations with al-Qaeda propaganda efforts.

Read the whole thing. I hope the Post will run a response and correct the errors.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt and Paul Mirengoff are unhappy with the Post.

Bill Quick, meanwhile, says the Post reporters are afraid of competition.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Post is accused of engaging in a FUD campaign. “This is fascinating stuff because the production of FUD is a sign of an organization whose product is facing a competitive threat that it can’t beat head to head.”

Meanwhile, another freelancer who covered Iraq on his own initiative, J.D. Johannes, weighs in, too.

And Mark Tapscott writes that this will be a test for the Post in terms of handling major errors regarding the blogosphere. He also wonders how the mistakes that Roggio outlines made it past all those layers of editors and fact-checkers we hear about.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: The Belmont Club has more thoughts.

And Ed Morrissey writes: “I have to express some disappointment with the Post in this instance.”

MORE: Dymphna has further thoughts, though I don’t endorse her John-Lennon-inspired vision.

And Gateway Pundit notes that Egyptian bloggers are unhappy with the Post, too.

As Ed Morrissey notes, in general the WP has been much fairer than most American outlets. I’m a bit surprised by this, and I hope they’ll make it right.

Comments are closed.