The title of your post is misleading in its definitveness. A reading of the first sentence of the linked article:
Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Please, let's not overlook the "Pakistani officials believe" part. Now ask yourself if these conveniently unnamed "officials" have any incentive to either embellish, exaggerate or falsify the value of the people killed in the attack. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
That's why there's the link. So you can read and decide for yourself. The headline is the same as ABC used.
Are you suggesting ABC doesn't check out its stories thoroughly? What about the version of events they gave us last week?
I am suggesting last week's version of the story was also sourced by sources as likely to be dissembling. I am suggesting there is no reason to believe last week's version of the story is more compelling than this story - and that this version will not get the same out of proportion attention.
2 Comments:
The title of your post is misleading in its definitveness. A reading of the first sentence of the linked article:
Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Please, let's not overlook the "Pakistani officials believe" part. Now ask yourself if these conveniently unnamed "officials" have any incentive to either embellish, exaggerate or falsify the value of the people killed in the attack. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
That's why there's the link. So you can read and decide for yourself. The headline is the same as ABC used.
Are you suggesting ABC doesn't check out its stories thoroughly? What about the version of events they gave us last week?
I am suggesting last week's version of the story was also sourced by sources as likely to be dissembling. I am suggesting there is no reason to believe last week's version of the story is more compelling than this story - and that this version will not get the same out of proportion attention.
Post a Comment
<< Home