Did Al-Newsweek Even Have One Source For Its Firebomb?

I thought the multiple layers of painstaking editorial fact-checking of the MSM required two sources to confirm a story.

Did Al-Newsweek even have one?

Al-Newsweek's original anti-American incitment referred to "sources," but now, having had their asses fact-checked, they refer only to a single source.

And that single source, of course, didn't even actually confirm the story. His "confirmation" was based on his reading an account and not specificially objecting to the the Koran-flushing part.

This is now the MSM's idea of a "confirmation"? A lack of a specific denial by a single source?

And based on that, they run with this sort of incindiary story?

Is there anything, anything at all that can account for this willingness to bend the rules in the appropriate case other than a general and powerful anti-American animus?*

* Or at least anti-American when the wrong party is running the country.

I'm sure there were horror stories that could have been reported regarding Clinton's renditions of terrorists to torture-using states... but, oddly enough, Al-Newsweek, the New York Times, and the rest of the gang had no problem with the practice then, and certainly did not lower its journalistic standards to rush damaging stories about Clinton's renditions into print.

posted by Ace at 08:48 AM

| Access Comments