A smart-aleck reader asks if I am afraid to wade into the Haditha incident. Answer: yes, because it's not clear what the facts are at this point, and as regular readers know, a particular bugaboo of mine is the reportorial climate that relies on rumor and innuendo when filing stories. To conclude facts not in evidence is not merely an assault on charity (because it can hurt the reputations of innocent people --and where war is concerned, it can endanger lives and entire missions); it's equally an assualt on reason. Follow the facts where they lead, but let it be facts that we follow, not anonymous sources drawing conclusions from second-hand reports about ongoing investigations into a story from a reporter whose cousin fights for the insurgents (maybe).
But I do have an opinion about the reporting of the Haditha incident so far, and lucky for me, someone's already written it for me. Go here. Curtsy to Commander Salamander, who's post on the topic is also worth a look-see and has other links. And Curtsy for the link to him from QoL.
UPDATE: Hmmm. See what I mean about coverage? Times (UK) crops a photo of people killed by insurgents and says they were killed by our marines (don't look if you're squeamish).
UPDATE 2: At least they've apologized. But scroll through the whole link for more.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
