UPI editor: dissent is like soviet propoganda

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
James A. Donald:
> > For example the viewer sees CBU-15 described as nerve
> > gas. The viewer then sees Moorer and the interviewer
> > talking about a battle in Laos, then there is an editing
> > cut, and then the viewer sees:

On 10 Dec 2001, at 14:53, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I don't think your summary is correct. CNN hired an outside
> reviewer who came up with this report, which recommends
> retraction of the story but accuses the reporters of no
> malice: http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.findings/

"No malice", not "no lies"

The reason he concludes "no malice" is that he concludes the
reporters really believed the US had used nerve gas, not
because he believes the reporters had truthfully reported the
evidence.  The edited Moorer seemingly admits to the use of
nerve gas, and another witness seemingly admits to personally
massacring civilians.  In the unedited versions, they do not.

The reason it was "no malice" is that the reporters actually
had some evidence -- but not evidence persuasive enough to
report on television.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     LU0N6i897F7dj1cMd1Rd3z4T8cvfH/3QdF6Yx98j
     4B2ygdObW0RForD1jMTcV2PBVSHc8W09z7xvkq3y9