This isn't the first time for this plot, See-Dub reminds us. They just dusted off their old plans.

And he notes this.

Complete the series:

9/11

3/11

7/11

...?

How about 8/11?

I know 7/7 doesn't work, but mustn't stand on ceremony when you have people to kill.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

2. Ok...
"Everything had to be checked in and that includes mobile phones, ipods, wallets - even spectacle cases had to be checked in."

That is just freakin stupid.

Don't they know about x-ray scanners?

Smart, tough.

There's another useful law-enforcement device out there. It's called "human vision."

3. Have to keep the Sheep Afraid.

[graphic of silly gost saying "Boo!"]

Too "courageous" to be afraid of terrorism, like the scaredy-cat chickenhawk righties are.

Smart, brave.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Some Planes Were To Be Blown Up Over US and UK Cities

British Security Source: Plot "Had the Potential To Be Bigger Than 9/11"

Tickets Were Bought/Were To Be Bought On Consecutive Flights Originating out of Gatwick, Birmingham, Manchester, & Heathrow, En Route To US; American Carriers Specifically Targeted

Twenty One Terrorists Arrested; Two More At Large (At Least); Unconfirmed Tip: Up to FIFTY Terrorists Involved In Plot

Terrorists Were Mostly British-Born Men "of Pakistani Origin"

United Kingdom At "Highest Possible State of Alert"

Scotland Yard "Confident" the Plot Has Been "Disrupted"

Majority of Arrests Made in London, Some In Birmingham and Thames Valley; Other Addresses Being Checked For Remaining Suspects

Terrorists Were Not On The Planes Yet, But They Were "Close"

US Official: A "Serious Al Qaeda Connection"

Bush, US Intel/Law Enforcement Have Known Of Investigation For Months

Note: this post was live-blogged as information came in. Not all information below remains accurate at this time. I'm too tired to edit all the changes, like "10-12" suspects becoming 21 suspects in custody. Information in the subheds above is accurate as of 4:55 AM ET. (Insomnia.)

I wonder what the inciting event here was that caused the cops to move. If I had to guess, going on bits like "the terrorists were going to board consecutive flights leaving Gatwick, Manchester, Birmingham, and Hethrow," and "they were not on the planes yet, but they were close," I'd just hazard the obvious -- they bought the tickets.

I wonder, then, if that Monday event, with a UK to US plane turned around due to a name on a watch-list, was related at all. Could have just been an unrelated event. If it were a dry run-- how did they know it was a dry run, and why did they let the guy on the plane?

Note the number given of up to fifty terrorists involved comes from Larwynn. I didn't see it myself. However, she's been emailing me tips on this all night, and there hasn't been a single thing she's sent me that I didn't see or read myself within ten minutes later. So, pretty much, I trust her, unless the number "50" was a typo for "30" or "40."

...

Terrific:

LONDON (CNN) -- British police have disrupted what they believe was a major terrorist plot to blow up aircraft in flight, likely between the United Kingdom and the United States, a statement from Scotland Yard said Thursday.

"It is believed that the aim was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board the aircraft in hand luggage. It is believed that the attacks would have been particularly targeted at flights from the UK to the USA," the statement said.

Arrests were made overnight in London by the Metropolitan Police Department's anit-terrorist branch and security service.

Police are being cagey about describing the men arrested, so you know what that means...

"Moderates." G-darn moderates.

Greerwynn tips, and adds this, which I can't find on my own, but:

UK AIRPORTS BANNING HAND LUGGAGE

There's going to come a point when we just have to accept that you can't travel with luggage anymore; luggage gets loaded on a luggage-only flight.

A hassle, yes, but thanks to the "moderates," we have to continue giving up more and more of our freedoms, but God forbid we should curtail any of theirs.

The Luggage Thing: Via the BBC:

Passengers will not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said.

Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - will be allowed to be carried on board in transparent plastic bags.

"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only," the statement said.

More: Terror level in Britain raised from Severe to Critical.

The "at least 20" is from a FoxNews/SkyNews television report.

The report seems joined in progress, but 10-12 "individuals" (read: moderates) intended to smuggle explosives on 20 planes or more.

MONDAY: UK TO US PLANE TURNED BACK FOR "SECURITY CONCERNS:" Didn't think much of this at the time. Didn't even read it.

US-bound plane carrying 240 passengers was turned around mid-flight for security reasons.

American Airlines flight 109 left for Boston on Monday, but two hours into the journey it turned back to Heathrow Airport in west London.

Scotland Yard said four people were being "spoken to" at Heathrow, but no-one had been arrested.

A spokesman for Boston's Logan Airport said one passenger's name matched a name on the "no-fly" list.

There were 240 passengers and 13 crew members on board the Boeing 777 aircraft, which was due to touch down in Boston at 1805 BST.

...

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said four people were being spoken to under port and border controls - a section of the Terrorism Act under which a person can be questioned and detained for up to nine hours.

But she stressed they had not been arrested.

In a statement, American Airlines said the plane returned to Heathrow "due to a security issue that needed to be resolved in London".

You realize how close this came to actually happening?

More... "At least 12 people," Fox is saying now, have been arrested. And there are more suspects out there.

Most are British born, but -- please sit down before I tell you this -- "of Pakistani origin."

They won't say what terror group is behind this -- making me think it's actually not Al Qaeda, or at least not Al Qaeda proper. If it were, they'd just say so. It's not un-PC to note that Al Qaeda wants to kill us.

Liquid explosives -- ALL LIQUIDS NOW FORBIDDEN FOR CARRY-ON.

Frankly, I have no friggin' idea why the hell I was allowed to bring shaving cream or -- get this -- up to 20 ounces of lighter fluid on planes. I don't know the exact figure, but I remember seeing I could take a certain large amount of lighter fluid on a flight. To which I sighed, "We're not serious."

God knows you couldn't just buy shaving cream, toothpaste, lighter fluid, etc., at your destination city. Oh no-- you need to travel at all times prepared to shave, brush your teeth, and light a massive beach bonfire.

The Politics: Fuck it, the whole world is politics, let me lay it out.

A spokesman at Logan Airport, USA, said that the flight had been turned around because one name matched the watch-list.

Although this is not dispositive that American snoops found the name, it suggests that the plane was turned back due to objections from the American side.

Again: This is not dispositive. I'm speculating based on limited information. But let's assume that's correct -- provisionally. And see what flows from that.

Although there has not been a terrorist attack on America itself, no one has given Bush credit for this. The assumption, sometimes expressly stated, by liberals is that Al Qaeda just isn't even trying -- that's why there have been no attacks. (Yes, this contradicts their other claim that Al Qaeda is growing stronger due to Bush's "miserable failures," and etc., but they never cared much for "internal coherence.")

So, politically, if it is the case the name was spotted on the American side, than this is plot on the level of 9/11, to blow up twenty airplanes of 200-400 people each, OVER American and British cities as they descended to land, thus causing casualties on the groudn as well, and THE CURRENT SECURITY REGIME OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION STOPPED IT. Apparently mere days before it happened.

Questions that arise:

Was it a good idea to rtry to repeal the Patriot Act?

If the names came from America-- what y'all think of NSA wirefuckingtaps now?
Kind of nice to know the people a terrorist is calling, huh? You can round them up in a hurry, eh?

If one of these bastards wouldn't give up his allies, would it have been justified to use "coercive interrogation practices" on him?

Shall these bastards necessarily be tried in civilian courts? Are they really deserving of the full protections of law? They don't really seem to be "British citizens" to me, no matter what their passports say.

Was Bush reading "My Pet Goat" when this happened?

A lot of commenters have been saying we wouldn't get serious about terror again until, unfortanately, a massive chuck of a city was destroyed.

But there is a less destructive wake-up call-- the mega-terrorist plot that is not successful, but thwarted days (or hours) before it is implemented.

Let's hope people finally get it that we can't just "go back to normal" and pretend there is no terrorist threat, no matter how childishly some may like to pretend 9/11 never happened.'

GREERWYNN TIP: Parents will have to taste baby-bottle milk to get it on board?

Let's go one step further. I know nothing about parenting or nursing, but can women tell me-- is it such a big deal if all baby-bottle milk came from the plane itself? That is-- you use their formula. Would it be difficult for a plane to just stock up on the stuff ahead of time? Is it very important to have a certain kind?

Are there nonallergenic formulas for babies who are alergic to formula milk? (Is there such a condition at all?)

Nursing moms -- is it a big deal if your kid has to drink formula for six or ten hours, rather than premilked mother's milk?

I sort of would like to avoid this risk, if possible.

The Assumption: Seems weaker. FoxNews says this plot had been monitored by British Intelligence for months. So the American-end-of-it-catches-the-plotters theory seems wrong.

Any Relation? The Dearborne, MI terror bust.

Thanks to Stepanie for the tip. Unrelated, but as I just stole her tip, let me note her report on rumors that Hezbollah head Nasrallah is hiding out in the Iranian Embassy in Beirut.

Numbers: Allah says he heard "12 planes, 20 suspects," but I just heard Skynews say again, clearly, "up to 20 planes or more."

This may not make sense when you think there are only 12 suspects, but I don't think that's the case. There are 10-12 suspects in custody and others still at large.

Terror Alert In America Raised To High, Orange, for airports/commercial flights only; raised to Red for flights originating out of UK to US.

No indication of plotting in America, according to DHS head Chertoff.

Updates: Limited carry on/no liquid rule now applies to US flights.

Suspected that terrorists have formulated potent home-made liquid explosives.

Electronic devices --cell phones, Blackberries, laptops -- now must go into luggage in UK to prevent their components being used for detonators. Rule will probably extend to US. So, more delays at airports, with less to distract you.

Just a thought... this will force people to buy more crappy magazines at airport newstands... maybe Bush has engineered this to bail his Fat Cat buddies in the magazine industry out of a prolonged air-revenue slump.

They're now saying six planes were targeted, but they were saying 20 all night until twenty mintues ago.

Posted by: Ace at 08:45 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 1912 words, total size 12 kb.

I completely missed this. Let Confederate Yankee put you some f'n' knowlege:

Scan the photos coming out of Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, and you'll see and unending stream of dramatic photos of dead women and children and anguished rescue workers climbing through the remains of bombed-out residential buildings, and you will see heart-rending photos of toys in the rubble. You will see mourning. You will see pain. You will see a civilian infrastructure in tatters.

What you will not see, except in very rare cases, is Hezbollah.

The "Party of God," well-known for their parades of armed masked men in the past, have vanished into the ether. You will see no Hezbollah fighters brandishing their weapons with bravado. You will see no photos of HezbollahÂ’s rocket launchers or rockets prepared to fire upon IsraelÂ’s civilian population. You will see no photographs of shattered launchers or weapons caches or even fighting aged men amid the rubble. The media itself quietly reports that anyone who does take such pictures may be killed, though you wouldnÂ’t know it from the amount of attention that disturbing detail has received in the press.

He notes many media figures admitting to being "handled," guided, harrassed, or threatened by Hezbollah, showing what Hezbollah wants to be seen, not showing what Hezbollah wishes to be invisible.

I don't blame reporters for not getting tough when armed lunatics have weapons in their faces. Fine-- but make damn-sure you report that context, every time your report on the story at all, and try to balance that thuggish censorship back at the safety of Big Media HQ by spinning opposite of Hezbollah, in order to achieve, as is best possible, a counterbalance, and hence a rough approximation of the truth.

We've been focusing on what the media is showing -- an endless parade of the victims of war. Confederate Yankee is right to ask about what is not being shown-- the actual thugs and killers who make victims of the Lebanese.

No wonder the world has the idea that this war is being fought by the IDF against the Lebanese citizenry-- the stories, and especially the pictures, flowing from the warzone depict precisely that.

You don't need Hezbollah's cooperation to file written reports on battles-- you can embed with an IDF unit, or at least interview their soldiers after the action.

But to get pictures, you have to be right there when it happens. And to be right there when it happens, you have to appease Hezbollah-- or else you might just be murdered.

We see a lot of stuffed animals and tricycles and Korans and bombed homes.

When do we get to see the gunmen, the rockets, and the killers themselves?

This is not a rhetorical question. Not entirely. I am really curious as to the MSM 's opinion:

If it is impossible due to Hezbollah's thuggery to accurately report on the conflict, is it better to appease them and file a largely untruthful report, which nevertheless does serve to fill airtime, or simply not report at all?

What is worse to a journalist -- reporting what is largely a lie or not reporting at all?

I know economics weigh heavily in favor of reporting the lie. A blank screen can't be used to sell commercial space. But what does journalistic ethics, ignoring economic demands, dictate?

Via Riehl World View, who combines, in one post, my recent passions, attacking the MSM's eagerness to play the mark to foreign stringer hustlers, and Ned Lamont's annoying strain of Limousine Liberalism.

Posted by: Ace at 07:37 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

I will remind again: The normal comments interface often doesn't work, due to killer spam-comments that frag the system.

The "New Comments Thingy" at the bottom of each individual post should work. One hitch-- you always MUST enter an email address, even if it's completely fake, in order for your comment to post. Otherwise, it will just disappear, without the system informing you why.

The good thing, though, is that once you enter that information, the system remembers you.

But I'm Reading By Clicking Through a Blog Reader, And There's No "New Comments Thingy" There: Soxblog just pointed this out.

I didn't realize that.

Okay, when comments go down, for now, if you want to comment anyway, you'll have to click out to the main page, then find the entry you want to comment on, then click the New Comments Thingy there.

Not an elegant solution, I know.

I've written the incomperable Pixy Misa of Ambient Irony (not a chick, but the name sounds like a hot chick's, so feel free to pretend as you browse "her" site, as I do) on how to add a "New Comments Thingy" link at the bottom of the Individual Entry pages.

He -- I mean, She -- will probably tell me "add this thing here and that thing there" in a day or two. So, hopefully, you won't have to kludge it for long.

Posted by: Ace at 06:08 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's an idiot in Time, writing a column filed in the "Arts" section, rather than the "Media" or "Politics" section:

Mainstream media will do itself no favors by downplaying this as a controversy hyped up by opinionated bloggers.

Ah. Sounds good. Let's read on.

[E]very time a straight-news journalist alters a fact—even something as picayune as the color of a bomb blast or the number of flares fired from a plane—it convinces people that the media must lie about big things as well.

1, these are not "picayune" details, though it is nice of you to downplay the importance of this right after writing "we must not downplay the importance of this;" and 2, you do lie about big things.

If these pictures and stories are so "picayune," why did you report them in the first place, Chief?

Is that your practice? To publish unimportant stories and pictures?

It's like how Hollywood tells us their movies cannot influence the culture, and then, at Oscars time, tells us how very much their movies influence the culture (in a good way, though!).

The media tells us it exists to provide the public with important and accurate information upon which great public decisions may be well-founded, but when they're caught lying, or being duped by liars, they claim the reverse-- eh, none of that mattered anyhow.

Okay. Can you guys indicate for us the stories and pictures that do matter for us, so we know which ones to actually bother with and form our opinions on the basis of?

All facts become suspect, all information becomes relative, and you might as well believe whatever your gut tells you, because the news is invariably driven by its own bias, which is, invariably, against you. We become a nation of Stephen Colberts, believing that facts are sketchy and overrated and should never be allowed to get in the way of what we want to believe.

Is he describing the public or the media itself? Since when has the media let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of its much-more-important "narrative" or "context" or (as the cool kids have it) "storytelling"?

We can argue till we pass out over Adnan Hajj's motives—politics? drama? careerism?—and those of the bloggers who pounced on the photos. In the end, they don't matter. What does matter is that every time something like this happens, the winners are the people of every political stripe who believe it's their calling to, to paraphrase another war, destroy the truth in order to save it.

That's what our calling is? To destroy truth?

No, asshole. It's to destroy you. How you have gotten yourself conflated with "the truth" is quite beyond me.

Has there ever been a sentence written that so unwittingly gives away the media's arrogance and narcissism?

Criticism of the specific people working in the media constitutes an attempt to "destroy the truth"?

It's amazing how this imbecile can be so arrogant and condescending as he confesses, on behalf of all the media, "we were wrong and you were right."

Doesn't really matter, though-- mere trivia. The Big Picture is that this asshole from Time was, during a special election I wasn't notified of, was elevated to the position of "The Truth."

Don't talk smack about "The Truth," punks. "The Truth" is here to chew bubble gum and write condescending, self-aggrandizing puff pieces about himself and his Fabulous Friends, and he's all out of bubble gum.

I'm indebted for that Time piece that has me gnawing on furniture to The Dread Pundit Bluto, who dissects it as well, and who originally pointed out the guy says "don't downplay this story" as he proceeds to do very little but downplay the story.

I could have thought of that on my own, though, if I'd wanted to.

And the Dread Pundit Bluto link comes from My Pet Jawa, who, quite frankly, doesn't need any more traffic.

Bastards.

Although, yeah, go there. A lot of good stuff, including a lot of pictures of Lebanese reading their Korans, with the text nicely angled towards the camera so you can see what it is.

These shots look as unrehearsed and natural as the pictures on the cover of every college brochure -- an Asian girl, a black guy who looks like Kadeem Harrison, a Latino girl, and a goofy white guy with a Jewish afro and a unicycle, all gathered together on the steps of the quad to look at a big textbook open in front of them, as the goofy white guy with the unicyle points to somethng hilarious in the textbook and they all share a rich, educational, multicultural laugh.

Posted by: Ace at 05:56 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 799 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember how the media published virtually every rumor flying out of the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? Baby-rapes, murders galore, cops on rampages, etc.?

Remember how they kinda-sorta admitted their excesses and journalistic lapses and kinda-sorta promised to do better?

I guess that promise only applies specifically to hurricanes that hit New Orleans:

The Horiz family told me they walked for two days as Israel shelled their village.

"My three-year-old son didn't have any shoes," said the father.

Abeer Baz walked here, too.

"They bombed my neighbor's house and we had to leave," she said.

Just hours after she gave birth to her baby six days ago, Baz walked 10 miles to get here.

In the emergency room, we found 70-year-old Latifa Nasr. Dr. Nabil Harquosa said an Israeli shell destroyed her house.

Again, MSNBC: Thank you for reporting what people tell you happened.

I notice that you don't actually say what did or did not actually happen-- because you obviosly have not bothered to determine the facts before publishing.

Do you feel any responsibility at all to confirm any of this? You know-- minor things like fact-checking?

If I begin publishing, on my blog, stuff that Israelis, who also have some interest in shaping world opinion, "tell me" is going on without doing any sort of fact-checking or double-sourcing, would that be responsible?

Maybe I'll do that.

Israelis-- send me your biggest horror stories about the Siege of Northern Israel. I promise I will not vet your stories whatsoever, no matter how maudlin, propaganistic, or frankly unbelievable, and I will simply publish them for all the world.

I won't say "this or that did happen," which would require fact-checking for me to say. I'll just write that you said it happened, which requires no fact-checking at all.

Just like MSNBC taught me.

Thanks to Riehl World View.

CONTEST! And yes, there will be winners.

Please feel free to make up self-report your wildest, most macabre, most propagandistic, most maudlin, most sensationalistic stories from the Israel-Hezbollah War. You dedide which side to propagandize for.

I'll take the juiciest, I mean "most newsworthy" entries and do my own reportage from the conflict, enlisting you as stringers for my story.

Don't worry about strict accuracy; I won't check up on you, just as MSNBC doesn't. And don't worry that you're not technically even in Lebanon or Israel; I'm sure that you have wealth of stories that, while not strictly speaking "true," are nevertheless "accurate," or at least "illustrative of a greater truth."

Plus, you watch TV. That's almost as good as being a first-hand witness, right?

So go for it! Use fake names! Once again-- I ain't wastin' my time checkin'.

Fact checking is for nerds, man.

Posted by: Ace at 05:40 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Dead to rights. Clean kill.

The same flattened buildings are pictured multiple times with captions each time suggesting they had only recently been hit by airstrikes.

Three times the propagandistic property damage for the price of one.

Leigh sent me this tip earlier but I wasn't sure whether or not to go with it, because I wasn't sure the pictures were actually misleading. The media has a tendency to break and then re-"break" a story it wants to push, heralding it each time as if it's a new story; but that's not really a major sin, so long as they're not trying to suggest each of the new "scoops" is about a different incident.

He later offered up a lot more evidence but I didn't get around to looking at it until now. You snooze, you lose.

The first picture seems okay. As far as we know. It says the buildings were flattened July 18 (or the night before). Fair enough.

But the captions -- supplied by LGF -- on the last two photograps of the same flattened buildings say the buildings were flattened later:

Journalists are shown by a Hizbollah guerrilla group the damage caused by Israeli attacks on a Hizbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, July 24 2006.

A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on BeirutÂ’s suburbs August 5, 2006.

By the way-- last two photos? Adnan Hajj. Which is, frankly, disappointing. I want to start bringing other stringers down, not the same one.

Now a Clinton-level parser could claim that those captions don't explicitly say the damage occurred the night before the bombing. Like that last caption-- one could say the raid that flattened was "overnight," just as suggested, just not overnight the night before, but rather overnight two weeks ago on July 18.

But of course it is quite dleiberately implied by the pictures that in each case we are looking at fresh, new bomb damage, not the same damn buidlings on just three different dates.

What the hell is the newsvalue of such pictures? Did Reuters imagine it was necessary to show the world that the buildings had not, in fact, self-re-assembled themselves over the course of two and a half weeks? The Despair Of War: Structures Have Simply Given Up Rebuilding Themselves.

This is good evidence of the fundamental unity of interests between the MSM and the hustlers and the Hezbollah propagandists:

Each wants the "juiciest," most dramatic, most graphic, most macabre pictures available... or, if not available, then at least achievable. Each wants as many of these pictures as possible as frequently as possible. Each wants, whether for purposes of salability or political propaganda, pictures demonstrating the most widespread and severe damage.

Is it any wonder that Reuters was "duped" into taking the Hajj's hoax photos? All cons work upon the principle of greed or desire. The mark has to very much want what you're offering him, or else he has no interest at all in participating in your scam.

It doesn't matter if Hajj faked photos for simple salability or for political propaganda against Israel; either way, his faked photos have the same result, which is both to get bought and to propagandize against Israel. Likewise, it hardly matters if Reuters turned off its skepticism to get juicy, buzz-worthy photos or did so because of its institutional hostility towards Israel; either way, it both got buzz-worthy pictures out there and expressed its institutional hostility towards Israel.

If I can admit my own biases, for God's sake, why are the media such goddamn narcissistic children that they cannot admit, and be on patrol for, their own?

Thanks again to Leigh. Wish I'd jumped on this earlier.

Posted by: Ace at 05:29 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

You can ignore me or not, but I wrote this the day after the Reutergate story first broke.

I'm specifically not repeating this because of Gateway Pundit; I think that was a justified story based upon the NYT's absurdly misleading captioning.

I'm not specifically repeating it because of any particular claim. It just seems to me that, as a general matter, we ought to be more cautious. "Sober, deliberate reflection" isn't really blogs' forte, but it would help our credibility vis a vis the MSM to exhibit more of it.

The net effect of dozens of new claims and speculations a day is that they all get kind of tuned out. There is a boy who cried wolf thing that will eventually set in.
It may be setting in already. One commenter at LGF was complaining about the recent spate of vaporscoops, and he's on our side.

Just my two cents.

Let's not ruin LGF's scoop by tossing out wild allegations about every single picture Adnan Hajj and Reuters have snapped in Lebanon. Where there is good reason to suspect further forgery, of course, say so.

But bloggers should be a little circumspect about just offering new claims of fraudulency based on little else but speculation and wishful thinking and just wanting to contribute.

There may be other forged photos out there. An quick look doesn't reveal any obvious candidates. That doesn't mean there aren't; Steven Glass claimed he'd only fabricated the Hack Heaven article when he got caught, but of course he actually had fabricated twenty or more (in whole or in part).

Still, any new allegations should be vetted first with other bloggers and with commenters/readers who are experts in photography and digital manipulation. A blog post is not really the best place to debut a serious allegation, nor the first time the allegation should be subject to outside scrutiny.

LFG scored big on Reuters. Really big.

Let's protect that score and not piss it away by taking wild, wing-and-a-prayer shots on goal that ultimately give the upper hand back to Reuters.

We don't want the Dextrosphere's credibility to sink to the level of Reuters'.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

I prefer the former, even if the Divine Miss M is a proponent of the latter.

Very good piece. Fair, but punishing to Reuters. Which is my kind of "fair."

And they didn't even call up Glenn Greenwald or CAIR to "objectively" evaluate Johnson's work!

Wow!

Johnson rails about foreign stringers' credibility/integrity/bias problems nicely, so that drum is now getting pounded in the MSM.

Well, not the MSM per se. The LA Weekly. A stone's throw away from the MSM, if you're really fucking good at throwing stones.

H/t to Charles Johnson, at his itty bitty website.

Posted by: Ace at 01:30 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.