A glimpse into the process by which young reporters are indoctinated from the lowest levels in the food chain to conform to formulaic “if it bleeds, it leads” news coverage. The problem is, when you’re at the bottom of the food chain, you tend get bottom of the food chain assignments. There’s not a lot of blood to be found in dry, boring government press releases. Solution? Reach for the ketchup.
Case in point – this evening on the CTV local news (Saskatoon affiliate), reporter Shannon Spring began her segment by revisiting two particularly tragic multi-fatality crashes that occured in the province in 2004. The first involved a carload of pre-driving age teens, the second a horrific crash in which 6 died, caused by a multiple-offender drunk driver with a revoked license.
What was the story?
Transport Canada had announced a 24% decrease in highway fatalities in Saskatchewan over the past 5 years, attributing the improvement to a road safety program and increased police surveillance of rural highways. We also learned that Britain leads all countries in terms of lowest highway fatalities, while Canada is fifth, and that more emphasis is needed on preventing car-pedestrian fatalities….
Of course, just holding up a pamphlet and talking about that is pretty mundane stuff. What’s a reporter to do?
The story needs a “hook”, something to make it more palatable to an audience …. what better than a little hemoglobin on the plate? So, off to the film archives, dig up some corpses, arrange the wrecks to create a pleasing backdrop and voila! Your Transport Canada release is taking on life!
To hell with agony revisited by friends and family who may be watching, and to hell with the dignity of those who lost their lives – the scenes now reduced to a few images to be employed in lieu of your own creativity. Its all part of the hard “reality” of professional journalism.
Nice work. Shannon Spring. You’ll go far.

Events of this past week remind me of the first time I drove to Los Angeles.
I was 19, just out of college and living in northern Alberta on my own, trying to grab a piece of the first tar sands exploration boom. My younger brothers and sister were still at home, and our parents decided that a last “family vacation” was in order. Disneyland would be the destination. For the sake of comfort, we took two cars – the family Plymouth and my new Ford Pinto, complete with rather gaudy trick paint.
The journey was not undertaken lightly. Saskatchewan drivers are well equipped mentally for long distance driving – crossing the vast open spaces of the Dakotas, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada was a breeze. I can still recite verbatim most of the Steve Martin comedy tape Cruel Shoes. �(“Put them on me.”)
However, like everyone else, we knew that the infamous Los Angeles freeways were among the most dangerous places on earth. We knew that merely touching a brake pedal at the wrong time could transform 8 lanes of racing Detroit metal into a screeching, twisted, burning mass of death. The cars travelled “bumper to bumper” at high speed, only inches from one another in a death defying race, only moments from chaos. One blown tire and many dozens could die – and God help you if it rained. Carnage. Pure carnage.
We knew this to be fact, because every week or so we saw news reports and grisly film footage of multi-car pileups on smog obstructed, rain-soaked California freeways on CBC news.
California “hundred car pileups” were a favoured bleed-lead of the 1970’s, like the role played by giant snowstorms, floods and hurricanes on the networks today. Plenty of death, destruction and distraught onlookers. In fact, much like coverage in Iraq over the past two years.
We were determined to make the journey and set our concerns aside until that bridge had to be crossed. The plan didn’t include much LA driving, anyway – Disneyland, Marineland, Capistrano, San Diego, a day trip by bus to Tijuana.
After a couple of days doing the sights as a family from our small motel in Anaheim, my younger sister and I struck out on our own in my Pinto. We bought a simple freeway map, and headed to Long Beach, downtown LA and Hollywood. We went window shopping on Rodeo Drive, discovered (by chance) the mansion where the exterior shots of the “Beverly Hillbillies” were filmed, cruised around in the Hollywood hills, marvelling at the homes.

It was when we decided to return to the motel that we reailzed our timing was not so good. Deep in the evening “rush hour” and to make matters worse, the unthinkable – it started to rain. We were facing the most dangerous stretch of California freeway destruction of all; the Santa Ana.

To our relief and amazement, we discovered that the drivers on LA freeways were actually quite sensible. Contrary to what we had been led to believe, they did not plow into the cars before them at the first touch of a brake – they slowed down in an orderly fashion. The clogged lanes were capable of slowing to a full stop, then accelerating, which we did on multiple instances without so much as a dent to show for it.
It was nothing like we had been led to believe.
We returned to the motel safe and sound, with a newfound confidence in our driving competence – and a newly planted seed of skepticism about the CBC news.
Today, after an election in “war-torn” Iraq that will be forever remembered for confounding the dire predictions, defying the threat of violence, and exceeding popular expectations, as the anti-war left and Bush critics begin to concede (however grudgingly) that liberating the Iraqi people may have been the right thing to do – I’m taken back to that news footage we used to see of freeway pileups in California on the CBC.
The difference today is that some of us – a minority, admittedly – were not relying on the CBC, CNN, or CBS to get our information about the Iraq war and their prospects for democracy. We read Chrenkoff and 2Slick and Healing Iraq and knew that for all the horrific pictures and body counts on the nightly news, that there was a chance – even a good chance – that things were not quite as bad as our televisions would have us believe.
Just as California freeways of the 70’s weren’t one long demolition derby, most cars in Iraq were not full of explosives, most ordinary Iraqis, military and security forces left for work and arrived at their destinations, and returned home for dinner after an uneventful day.
I wonder how many of those who are seeing for the first time a larger picture of Iraq that suggests under-reported success and stablity, are reviewing what they were told in the days leading up to the election and considering the credibility of those who did the telling.
Despite the frustration of watching positive news being supressed by a media that was not so secretly hoping for a “Republican failure”, in the final analysis the mainstream media may have done the Bush administration, the Iraqi people and most importantly – the western world – a huge, unintended favour.
They oversold their case.
In days to come, there will be return to partisan business as usual, to bad news and negative spin. The glow of a successful election will wane and the Media Left will again try to bury progress under failure, to forecast grave outcomes, to second guess, to challenge the motives and intelligence of those leading the war against Islamofascism. They are, after all, slow learners. I suspect it’s just not going to matter as much as it used to. They threw everything they had at Iraq – and failed. Bush did not flinch, the American people held firm, and the Iraqi people threw it all back at them.
Like Dan Rather writ large, the credibility and influence of the mainstream media over public opinion has been dealt a crippling blow in Iraq. That it was self-inflicted just makes it all the more satisfying.

Roger L. Simon;

In the midst of live-blogging the Iraq election the other night, I received an email that got my attention. It was from the State Department situation room and, aside from the ego-flattering surprise that people so highly placed were reading this blog in the midst of such an event, it contained some disappointing (although not horribly surprising) information about CNN correspondent Jane Arraf.
Many of us had just watched Ms. Arraf waiting with what “seemed” like great dismay in front of an empty polling station in Mosul. The Iraqis were not turning out to vote. Then, an hour or so later, she popped up at another polling place in the same city that was crowded with voters, explaining that she had “switched polling places.” But she hadn’t. According to my situation room correspondent, her first venue was not a polling place at all. For whatever reasons (embarrassment? bias? both?), Ms. Arraf omitted this important fact.

Despite the “security situation”, the streets of Bagdad are fairly crawling with photographers.
Youd wonder why more of them don’t get killed, the way they loiter around in groups and all.
Via Instapundit.

Today, we bring you a glimpse into the Canadian political/media establishment;

Not surprisingly, neither of these lusers[1] have permalinks.
The realization that these twits once had a role in “running the country” goes a long way towards explaining a few things.
Footnote:
[1] correct spelling.

Rachel Marsden;

The CBC is freaking out with the arrival of Fox. So much so that they’re frantically working on a documentary about the Fox News Canadian invasion, in which they will tell Canadians what to think. Given that Fox News is now in direct competition with the CBC for whatever remnants of an audience the CBC has left, this has about as much credibility as Ford doing a documentary about General Motors, telling you that GM cars suck.

True to form, CBC was busy getting their ducks in a row before interviewing Marsden for the “documentary”.

The crack journalistic staff at the CBC is apparently fond of conducting its esteemed “research” on Internet chat boards. Just this week, I was forwarded an e-mail sent behind my back, by the CBC, to United Press International – for whom I write – asking them about some “research” that the CBC correspondent happened to come across on the prestigious Internet.
After refuting the claim and having a good laugh about it, I tried my hand at “researching” the way a CBC reporter would: Just for kicks, I randomly typed the CBC journalist’s name, John Kerry’s name, and the word “naked” into a Google search and came up with some rather interesting hits on chat boards. Maybe I should e-mail his employer to enquire about my “research,” too?

Sounds about right.

It’s little wonder that “pajama” bloggers respond with a reflexive sneer when “professional journalism” criticizes our work as “irresponsible”, “lacking accountablity” – when no less than The New York Times publishes crap with the potential of causing the deaths of innocents.
Jeff Jarvis;

Sarah Boxer’s story on IraqTheModel in today’s New York Times Arts section is irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and — worst of all – – dangerous, putting the lives of its subjects at risk. . . .
So here is a reporter from The New York Times — let’s repeat that, The New York Times — speculating in print on whether an Iraqi citizen, whose only apparent weirdness and sin in her eyes is (a) publishing and (b) supporting America, is a CIA or Defense Department plant or an American.
Ms. Boxer, don’t you think you could be putting the life of that person at risk with that kind of speculation? In your own story, you quote Ali — one of the three blogging brothers who started IraqTheModel — saying that “here some people would kill you for just writing to an American.” And yet you go so much farther — blithely, glibly speculating about this same man working for the CIA or the DoD — to sex up your lead and get your story atop the front of the Arts section (I’m in the biz, Boxer, I know how the game is played).
How dare you? Have you no sense of responsibility? Have you no shame?

Has she no editor?
Times article here. (Registration may be required.)
American Digest has been googling, and has more on Sarah Boxer.

It isn’t a mystery to me how Boxer was assigned to, or pumped for, this “Blogging” article in the Times. Having been in and around the editorial types at New York newspapers and magazines for decades, I can well imagine the editor’s mindset when confronted with either Boxer’s desire to write about this or the need of the Times’ “Arts” section to get with it on ‘the blogging thing.’ Boxer is young, Boxer is “hip,” Boxer must “get it.” Except, of course, she doesn’t, but the editors at the Times have no way of knowing that, because they get it even less. In fact, none of them have to get it. They are, after all, The New York Times. Who would better know later what they don’t know now?
[…]
Will the Times issue a “correction” if Ms. Boxer’s article leads to the death of the brothers at IraqTheModel? Doubtful. Will Ms. Boxer be given the blog beat at the “Arts?” Much more likely. After all, she’s given every indication that she doesn’t understand what she is writing about, is willing to push liberal bias, knows who to contact, and, more importantly, who not to contact. All without being told. In short — a good soldier, “one of us.” That’s grounds for promotion at The New York Times. In addition, having cut her eye-teeth on “arts criticism,” she’s an unusually bad writer. That’s golden.

Another installment (#19) of Arthur Chrenkoff’s roundup of good news from Iraq. Give it a read – if only as a reality check as to the woefully inadequate and one sided coverage we recieve from our mainstream broadcasters. An example – remember the seige of Sadr City?

Brig. Gen. Jeffery Hammond of the 1st Cavalry Division, says Sadr City is the safest place in or around Baghdad. About 18,000 people have reconstruction jobs, he says, earning about $6 a day. “Sadr City is what the future of Iraq can look like,” he says. Those who were once taking up arms are now talking democracy. ‘Before, the men were buying black cloth for their (martyrs’) banners. Now for the election, we are buying white cloths’ for posters, says candidate Fatah al-Sheikh.

The Dinocrat reports that CEO Summer Redstone sold $12 million in CBS stock in the midst of the Rathergate cover-up, and asks;

Where are the lawyers? For that matter, where are the journalists?
Viacom’s and CBS’s lawyers should have been involved in vetting the stock sale taking place almost a week into the Rathergate scandal, and following the elite media’s extensive discussion of the document fraud, not to mention the non-public CBS News ratings issues, and the big problems with the network’s affiliates. Yet none of this apparently happened, at least that we know about.
Curiously, or perhaps we should say incuriously, the TIME Magazine report by Neil Gough did not mention the stock sale at all. Can you imagine an interview of Ken Lay or Martha Stewart or virtually any CEO who sold some stock at a questionable moment, wherein the reporter does not even bother to ask about it? Suppose it had been Rupert Murdoch.

Good question.
(hat tip – Powerline)

Peggy Noonan ;

The Rathergate Report is a watershed event in American journalism not because it changes things on its own but because it makes unavoidably clear a change that has already occurred. And that is that the mainstream media’s monopoly on information is over. That is, the monopoly enjoyed by three big networks, a half dozen big newspapers and a handful of weekly magazines from roughly 1950 to 2000 is done and gone, and something else is taking its place. That would be a media cacophony. But a cacophony in which the truth has a greater chance of making itself clearly heard.
[…]
In one of his “Making of the President” books the liberal but ingenuous Teddy White famously said of 57th Street in Manhattan that when he stood there he was within a stone’s throw of all the offices in which all of American media was busily churning out its vision of The News. Churning it out were a relatively small group of a few hundred liberals who worked and mostly lived on an island off the continent; they told that continent not only what it should be thinking about but how it should be thinking of it. (I think the New York Times unconsciously echoes this old assumption in their television commercials in which an earnest, graying, upscale dunderhead says the New York Times surrounds a story and gives him new ways to think about it. Doesn’t it just?)
But in the past decade the liberals lost their monopoly. What broke it? We all know. Rush Limbaugh did, cable news did, the antimonolith journalists who rose with Reagan did, the internet did, technology did, talk radio did, Fox News did, the Washington Times did. When the people of America got options, they took them. Conservative arguments rose, and liberal hegemony fell.
All this has been said before but this can’t be said enough: The biggest improvement in the flow of information in America in our lifetimes is that no single group controls the news anymore.
[…]
Now anyone can take to the parapet and announce the news. This will make for a certain amount of confusion. But better that than one-party rule and one-party thought. Only 20 years ago, when you were enraged at what you felt was the unfairness of a story, or a bias on the part of the storyteller, you could do this about it: nothing. You could write a letter.
When I worked at CBS a generation ago I used to receive those letters. Sometimes we read them, and sometimes we answered them, but not always. Now if you see such a report and are enraged you can do something about it: You can argue in public on a blog or on TV, you can put forth information that counters the information in the report. You can have a voice. You can change the story. You can bring down a news division. Is this improvement? Oh yes it is.

Read the whole thing.

via Powerline, who have much more.
update – CBS seems to have altered the PDF’s of the report to resist cutting and pasting (and thus hinder bloggers). As usual, Kevin is one step ahead. For you newer bloggers, it’s a good policy to follow – when you find something, download or screenshot it and save it – as a hedge against airbrushing or outright disappearance. The original, unlocked CBS Rathergate reports can be accessed here.
update – Charles Krauthammer – The investigation was “clueless, uncomprehending and in its own innocent way disgraceful .”

The best overview yet of the demise of the mainstream media as we know it. By Howard Fineman;

A political party is dying before our eyes – and I don’t mean the Democrats. I’m talking about the “mainstream media,” which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush’s Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox’s canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying� journalistic standards. At the height of its power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party) helped validate the civil rights movement, end a war and oust a power-mad president. But all that is ancient history.

Nicely done.

This lengthy piece by Melanie Phillips has been recieving a lot of buzz;

How has Middle Britain come to applaud the view – hitherto confined to the most extreme left-wing circles — that the President of the United States is more of a danger than an unbalanced dictator with a terrorist history? How have such solid citizens come to view a democracy – Israel – that has been under attack since its foundation as the greatest threat to world peace? And how has the ancient libel of sinister global Jewish power been allowed to rear its head so openly once again?
Britain is gripped by an unprecedented degree of irrationality, prejudice and hysteria over the issues of Iraq, the terrorist jihad and Israel. All three are intimately linked; all three, however, are thought by public opinion to be linked in precisely the wrong way. This is because all three have been systematically misreported, distorted and misrepresented through a lethal combination of profound ignorance, political malice and ancient prejudices.
This systematic abuse by the media is having a devastating impact in weakening the ability of the west to defend itself against the unprecedented mortal threat that it faces from the Islamic jihad. People cannot and will not fight if they don�t understand the nature or gravity of the threat that they face, so much so that they vilify their own leaders while sanitising those who would harm them.
Yet that is what is happening. Public debate in Britain is now marked by a collapse of objectivity, truth, fairness and balance. Logic and morality have been stood on their heads. Victims are portrayed as oppressors, while mass murderers have to be understood and sympathised with. The outcome is an ugly and dangerous climate in which prejudice and lies have achieved the status of unchallengeable fact; a climate which is now being eagerly manipulated by terrorists who know that if they ratchet up their barbarism and distribute the video the result will merely be an ever greater public clamour for Tony Blair to split away from President Bush and shatter the coalition in defence of the free world.

Rightfully so.
(Crossposted to the Shotgun)

“Bloggers have no checks and balances . . . [it’s] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.” – Jonathon Klein – president, CNN*

Judge upholds CBC firing of reporter who sent candy rubbed in chicken to critic.
Keating broadcast a story in 2000 about a health-care lobby group called Save Our Services abandoning a lawsuit against the provincial government.
Keating told the arbitrator he understood that Earl Hamilton, head of the lobby group, had referred to him as a “toady of the government; he was not to be trusted,” Allan’s ruling stated.
The reporter had spoken to a CBC lawyer about taking defamation action against Hamilton but was talked out of it.
So, on Jan. 29, 2003, Keating “purchased a box of chocolates with a view to spitting on them and sending them anonymously to Mr. Hamilton,” Allan wrote.
Instead, he took two of the chocolates, rubbed them in thawed, raw chicken and sent the box to Hamilton with a note that said “keep up the good work.”

To be fair, Keating did endure a “pang of conscience” and informed the recipient before any harm could be done, and the followup mea culpa cost him his career.

“I did something beyond stupid and it cost me a career. I think the CBC was justified in firing me.”

However, it’s equally fair to ask how tainted the reporting of this “professional journalist” had become before this final excess and resulting epiphany.
via Nealenews There’s no sign at all of the story on CBC.ca.

The countdown to the utter disintegration of the credibility of mainstream journalism approaches zero.
update – the countdown continues…(one…)
Jack Kelly says it’s a free fall

Jack Stokes, director of media relations, Associated Press, responds to contraversy over the presence of a AP photographer on the scene of an ambush and murder of Iraqi election workers;

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It’s important to note, though, that the photographers are not “embedded” with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

It’s too bad they missed the boat with Robert Picton, during his (alleged) murder spree of Vancouver area prostitutes. Perhaps he would like to have his story told? The Hells Angels must feel shortchanged – they’ve had to resort to buying billboard space to get their message out.
Unsurprisingly, there are a few others who remain unimpressed.
Wretchard: at what point did the “brave Iraqi” photographer become aware that the story of the day was going to be the live execution of two Iraqi election workers?
Just asking.
Roger Simon: It sounds as if the “Insurgents” were calling a press conference to express their campaign positions. But they weren’t. What they were doing was brutally murdering innocent people in the street and they wanted the press there to record the event. The Associated Press, like good poodles of fascism, came along for that most necessary of tasks for terrorists in asymetrical war–publicity.
Powerline: Am I missing something, or has the AP now admitted everything it was charged with by Wretchard?

This must read from Wretchard.

Even with today’s proliferation of compact photographic equipment, a legitimate photojournalist rarely gets the opportunity to capture an execution. Apart from the beheadings which are purposely recorded on video by the jihadis and from gun camera film, most footage of people actually being shot are taken by photographers in company with combatants who are ready to film an ambush. Those individuals are combat cameramen for their armies or embedded reporters. The most famous analogue to the Associated Press sequence of photographs is probably the Eddie Adams photo of the execution of Vietcong Captain Bay Lop by South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Adams owed that opportunity to General Loan himself, who brought Adams along to cover what he believed to be a justifiable summary execution. Adams depressed the shutter at exactly the moment Loan fired and photo analysis actually shows the impact of the bullet on Bay Lop’s skull.
It may have been pure luck, but it was surely the longest of odds that would have brought an Associated Press cameraman to the site of a surprise attack on two Iraqi electoral workers. As it was, the AP photograph was unable to capture the actual execution, only the moments shortly before and after the Iraqis were killed. Although the Eddie Adams photograph was widely used to illustrate the ‘brutality’ of the Saigon government, the photos taken by the Associated Press
are unlikely to reflect badly on the electoral worker’s killers. Press reports highlight the confidence and boldness of the insurgents. “Both of the victims shown in the sequence wore traditional Arab headscarfs. In contrast, the attackers were bareheaded and apparently unafraid to show their faces”, suggesting that ‘collaborators’ must conceal their faces while the Ba’athists stride with impunity through the light of day. It was fortunate for the AP that their photographer was accidentally there.

A similar thing happened during the murder and desecration of the 4 contract workers in Fallujah. Though it was an Arab news outlet, the cameras were there and rolling. The “ambush” was carefully set up for media consumption.
They learned from the best. I don’t know what was more outrageous – the admission by Eason Jordan that CNN had been functioning as the Western propoganda wing of Saddam Hussein’s information ministry – or the mild mumble of disapproval that the rest of the MSM reacted with.
How long are we going to tolerate media outlets who accept invitations from terorist regimes and organizations, in order to capture a few drops of bloody propoganda on film? At what point do their actions cross the line from observer to participant? I can honestly say that I’d sleep better tonight knowing the AP photographer who panted along behind these thugs like an adrenaline-intoxicated puppy was behind bars under terrorist conspiracy or accessory to murder charges.
It’s bad enough that news consumers have to do their own fact checking, and bring in their own document experts to verify the information being presented as “truth”. Now we have to worry that the RPG triggerman who has selected our restaurant, our bus, our airplane for random anhilation has a goddamn AP cameraman in tow.

Honest Reporting hosts their “fourth annual recognition of the most skewed and biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

Incessant Rant;

This is what happens when you search GOOGLE using the phrase “condition of anonymity” and a desired publication (and a few blogs). What does it mean? Probably nothing. I just found it interesting that the two most left leaning print media publications out pace their nearest competition by an average of about 500%.

Surely a coincidence.

Steve Verdon demonstrates today at Outside The Beltway why googling transcripts is becoming one of the blogosphere’s most productive techniques. A quote from Donald Rumsfeld is presented in falsified context by Spencer Ackerman at the New Republic, whereupon Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly decides it makes a fine springboard for his own purposes.
Drum:

But go read Spencer Ackerman’s summary of Rumsfeld’s performance. Sure, we ought to have more armor for our Humvees by now, but this isn’t really a question of armor, it’s a question of respect:

Today, he came face to face with pissed-off frontline soldiers. And he treated them with the same arrogance and condescension that their superior officers have come to expect. To the question about unequal retirement benefits for equal service, Secretary Marie Antoinette replied, “I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. Good grief.”

Indeed. Hard to imagine an average joe worrying about retirement. Who does this grunt think he is?

Well, Kevin – maybe he thinks he’s a grunt in a room with a Secretary of Defense who’s comfortable enough to share a mildly self-effacing joke with his troops? Here is Rumsfeld’s actual answer:

SEC. RUMSFELD: [Laughter] I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. [Laughter] Good grief. It’s the last thing I want to do is retire. The pay and benefits for the Guard and the Reserve relative to the active force have been going up unevenly at a rate faster than the active force. If you go back over four years – matter of fact, I just went over this with the senior person in the department who looks at pay and benefits. And apparently, what’s happened is that for a variety of reasons, the incremental changes that are made each year, in terms of pay and benefits and health care and retirement and what have you, have brought the Guard and Reserve up at a faster level than the active force. And what one has to do in managing the total force and the total force is critically important. We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active force. And we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way that we can attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the country. At the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and retaining the people we need. And if anything, I think the data suggests that the Guard and Reserve forces had been advantaged relatively compared to the active force over the past four years. Question.

Keep in mind that these aren’t two neophyte amateur bloggers. Drum and Ackerman are paid to write this crap. You’d think fact checking before writing would be part of the job description, unless of course – the job is crafting dishonest, politically-motivated hit pieces.
Oh… wait….