Hunka-Hunka Burnin' Sunnis

The AP got at least one part of its story right -- there does exist a person named "Capt. Jamil Hussein.

But as Patterico demonstrates, there is considerable doubt about the rest of it.

I don't want to dismiss my own lack of caution in pronouncing, eventually, that Jamil Hussein probably did not exist. That was a mistake, and I made a false charge against AP. Crow does need to be eaten on that score.

But the leftist MSM apologists -- who fancy themselves MSM critics, so long as "MSM" is taken to mean Rush Limbaugh, rightwing bloggers, and Danny Bondaduce -- continue to assume facts not in evidence about "minor details" about Iraq, including, you know, whether or not reported facts are actually facts at all.

They continue sweeping questions aside about this, dismissing such questions as niggling pettifogging. But I thought it was the MSM's job to report the basic facts accurately, not to get the "overarching narrative" kinda-sorta right, as the leftist MSM apologists have redefined the MSM's role.

Do we need reporters to give us an "overarching narrative" which is in the ballpark of being right? I would imagine that most people can guess fairly accurately as to the "overarching narrative." I thought reporters -- our experts without portfolio -- were supposed to do more than guess at the big picture. I thought they were supposed to actually nail down the "minor details."

It's a much easier job just to get "the basic gist" right, or almsot right, at least. If that's what reporters are redefining their job as, they're not only disburdening themselves of the toughest part of their job, they're ceding the one area in which they claim "expertise" is no longer vital for their duties.

So-- what do we need them for? I can guess the basics of what's going on in Iraq as well as Kathleen Carroll.

Are the MSM now conceding the best they can do is no better than what any of us could do?

posted by Ace at 04:05 PM

| Access Comments