BBC world affairs editor John Simpson adds his thoughts on the Newsweek debacle.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, May 17th, 2005 at 2:25 am and is filed under Media and Journalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Well, I don’t have much respect for Juan Cole, but Simpson’s overall point is fair enough. If not for the picutres in Abu Ghraib then it’s possible that Newsweek would have been more interested in confirming the story before it went to print.
I have no time for this “leading White House Adviser” stuff. Tell us his name. There should be no secrets of this nature in the White House. Who is advising the President and also referring to Al Jazeerah as “the enemy”. Simpson’s not going to be sued or anything like that if he names this individual. Why doesn’t he reveal who it is?
I find Simpson’s normally has a good considered opinion on things…not sure revealing the source would be a good idea, how would Simpson get a steady stream of information from the White House otherwise?
I take your point. In fact, it hadn’t occurred to me that the person who revealed this to Simpson was in the very same “leading White House Adviser”. But, how can we adjudge whether this is a “leading White House Adviser” or a blow-hard who likes to think the White House takes his advice. I advise the White House fairly regularly myself, but I don’t imagine that they pay much heed to my advice.
“Leading White House Adviser” sounds like someone “in the know”, essentially a member of the “court”. Yet, we have to take Simpson’s word on faith that this person is taken seriously by the Bush Administration (& on related matters).
Gavin's Blog is proudly powered by
and Comments (RSS).