Today marks four days since Iran's Revolutionary Guard captured 15 British servicemen in what they claim are Iranian territorial waters. A similar incident in 2004 lasted just three days.
Yet the Washington Post, which has never hesitated to front-page negative developments in the war in Iraq, gave just 51 words on page A8 to the ongoing detention of 15 British servicemen.
By contrast, the March 27 New York Times devoted a full story to hostage-taking while the March 27 Los Angeles Times ran a 12-paragraph Reuters story on Iraq's government pressing the Iranians to release the captured sailors and Royal Marines. [continued...]
The Washington Post Web site did run an Associated Press article at 10:46 EDT today.
The AP story this morning centered on Iran's contention that its treating the British servicemen humanely.
The AP failed to explore when, if ever, the Iranians plan to allow the Red Cross to visit the detained sailors and marines. What's more, the reporter Nasser Karimi waited until the third-from-last paragraph to tell readers that Iran is refusing the detained servicemen access to British diplomats until after its "investigation" is concluded.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I think there's a lot not bei
March 27, 2007 - 10:40 ET by BruzillaI think there's a lot not being said about this incident. For example, nobody's mentioning how Ahmadinejad's associated with the taking of US hostages in 1979, so this is a common practice for him. No one is talking about how his rejection by the Russians, who refuse to sell him nuclear fuel, is making him look weak. Speaking of Russians... anyone else find their reason for not selling nuclear fuel to Iran due to non-payment of bills rathery incredulous? I think Putin finally realized that if Ahmadinejad does sell nuclear weapons to terrorists, the first buyers in line will be Muslims from Chechnya who have proven time and again that there's no road too low or brutal for them to take to get what they want. Lastly, and speaking of Putin, they're not mentioning the reporting coming from Moscow of how Putin has ordered his Special Services teams to "track down and kill" those who were responsible for abducting and killing several Russians in Iraq recently.
When Putin says he's not going to negotiate with terrorists, he means he's going to kill them, not worry about bringing them to justice. When his Special Services teams complete their mission, and you can bet the farm they will, anyone care to bet when the next Russian will be messed with in Iraq? Too bad Tony Blair is more like Nancy Pilosi than Vladimir Putin. If he was those sailors and marines would never have been touched.
Very cogent points. What is
March 27, 2007 - 15:05 ET by kathleenirishVery cogent points. What is it about the Iranian dictator brute that has the MSM so cowered? Please explain your duplictious conduct, yellow journalists.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
No News is Good News - for the WaPo
March 27, 2007 - 11:33 ET by acumenThe result of the WaPo painting themselves into the US-war-on-terrorism-is-wrong corner coupled with the recent congressman obey(me) harangue?
Whatever, this is the awkward position the WaPo and similar ideologically driven news(?) sources now find themselves. The end result of long-term replacing of reporting the news with injecting personal opinions based on favoring one political party over another.
Thankfully, the world doesn't have to rely on the WaPo and peer organizations any longer. We now have dedicated journalists true to their profession that can give us the news directly from the scene which explains exactly what Iran is up to. Like this. ..... And this.
The AP story this morning c
March 27, 2007 - 13:51 ET by motherbeltThe AP story this morning centered on Iran's contention that its treating the British servicemen humanely.
The WaPo apparently doesn't even have enough interest to check with other sources (maybe some British ones?) and write their own story; they just regurgitate the AP line. How's that for a hunger to report the news?
Thanks for link to Pat Dollards's website. I have just added it to my folder of blogsites.
Gee, they can talk to the Ame
March 27, 2007 - 14:25 ET by BDGee, they can talk to the American Hostages for 444 days and ask how well they were treated.
THen they can talk to the Brits from the last time the Iranians grabbed hostages two years ago and ask them.
Instead, they will write that WE are abusing prisoners, but that the Iranians CLAIM to be treating them well....
DISCONNECT??????
Where are all the people cryi
March 27, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Where are all the people crying about the Geneva Convention being violated. Uniformed military when apprehended by another countries military is supposed to be treated in a certain way. They are to be accessable and not mistreated or coreced confessions. Where is the outcry?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Acumen, thanks for the link
March 27, 2007 - 20:06 ET by WolfremAcumen, thanks for the links. Another good blogsite added to my bookmarks.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
To get the WashPost to give i
March 27, 2007 - 12:22 ET by taznarTo get the WashPost to give it more space we need to start the rumor that one of the abducted sailors once used the word "macaca". I'm sure that would garner at least 51 words just on the historical use of the word. Furthermore, if its implied the word was used in reference to an Iranian then the Post can explain to us how the whole abduction was completely the sailors' fault -the Iranian government really had no choice.
Unless they can somehow blame it on the sailors, the UK or the US, its a non-story to them.