Article

2004-08-19 Iraq-Jordan

Lone Woman Testifies To Sadaam's Order of Terror (graphic)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-08-19 02:54|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yes, by all means read the story. It is a genuine rarity. A WaPo story with named sources.

Posted by badanov 2004-08-19 3:32:37 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-19 3:32:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2
Badanov, if this woman had asked The Washington Post not to name her, then do you think that The Washington Post should have refused to publish this story? Would that satisfy your principles better?

Please name a major newspaper that doesn't publish stories based on unnamed sources.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-19 8:09:59 AM|| 2004-08-19 8:09:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Okay, I'll bite.

I was kinda half joking when I posted that, but I will admit that a few 'major' newspapers do use unnamed sources to publish stories, but you have to admit when an unnamed source is used, there is an agenda in the story.

But not the Times and the Wapo. There is an agenda with these folks no matter what garbage they sell in their rag.

You never see in a NY Times/WaPo a story that says something like, an unnamed source in the administration has said that Rumsfeld refuses to alllow the US Navy to bomb baby ducks and kittens because they are so cute.

However, you will see a story that says something like Rumsfeld refuses to allow the US Navy to bomb kittens and baby ducks because we could kill more jaihadis and he is secretly working against Bush to help them... etc. you get the picute (I hope)

I would hope it gained your attention that the NY Times/WaPo was all too happy to use this woman's face and name; the only they left out was her street addfress her home phone number and email address for this story.

Inasmuch as thewriter did these things, there is still an agenda with the WaPo. WaPo writers think nothing of using an unnamed source to preserve that source's job within the administration, using press shield laws in a political manner, to press an agenda, just as they don't even blink when using a poor women's tragedy including detailed information on her personally, to endanger her in a land and culture that hates women and freedom.

Now, you see what you made me do? A little comment meant to be humorous has been explained in a non-humorous manner to someone who either can't take a joke, or wouldn't recognize one if the WaPo had published it as a lead page one story...

with unnamed sources, of course. ;o)

Posted by badanov 2004-08-19 9:03:26 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-19 9:03:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#4
I suppose all reporters slant articles, consciously or unconsciously. I don't think the phenomenon is peculiar to The New York Times or The Washington Post.

When the subject is controversial, some readers will always be annoyed that their particular opinion is not fully expounded.

Journalists quote unnamed sources because the sources themselves request anonymity, not because the journalist promotes his own agenda through the anonymity. Sources request anonymity usually because they will be punished by their superiors where they work for revealing facts or expressing their opinions.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-19 9:26:44 AM|| 2004-08-19 9:26:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm sure the Alphabet-soup networks will be more then eager to talk to her and do interviews about her ordeal...

... once she mentions the panties they placed on her head.

Stories like this should be on every newspaper and every news-show. But the farking MSM will completely ignore it because muslims are doing it and it cannot be blamed (yet) on Bush...

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-08-19 9:45:48 AM|| 2004-08-19 9:45:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#6
the farking MSM will completely ignore it

This article was published in The Washington Post.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-19 10:12:14 AM|| 2004-08-19 10:12:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sources request anonymity usually because they will be punished by their superiors where they work for revealing facts or expressing their opinions.

Or, more often in recent days, they're lying out their asses and don't want to be caught.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-19 10:25:58 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-08-19 10:25:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Or, more often in recent days, they're lying out their asses and don't want to be caught.

Or even more likely, the sources themselves have an agenda and know the press shield law will protect them, their agenda and their jobs, and the WaPO and NYTimes is only too happy to accomodate them.

Posted by badanov 2004-08-19 11:18:55 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-19 11:18:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I've seen this story before. It's genuinely moving and I'm very happy to see the Post has printed it. I don't see an "agenda" on this one.

Posted by Steve White 2004-08-19 9:42:42 PM|| 2004-08-19 9:42:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 This article was published in The Washington Post.
Good for them. Sorry I was talking about the TV MSM networks (ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/ETC....). You won't see any interviews (or even a mention) in 'We Hate America' or the 'Toadie show'...

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-08-19 10:08:35 PM|| 2004-08-19 10:08:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Steve, Check my remarks. My original post was actually a quip that Mikey took umbrage from.

I never said there was an agenda in this story In fact I quipped that this story is a departure from the usual agenda peddling for the WaPo in that they used named sources; But I also pointed out apparently WaPo writers love to protect the identities of unnamed sources whom oftentimes do have an agenda to push, yet here is a poor unfortunate woman who has a great deal to lose by stepping forward, so we get a photo, and everything but her home address and her cell phone number.

So if the Moose Limbs in Iraq decide to go after her for violating Sharia, as she has and as could conceivably happen, can the writer say his craft was any better served than if he had protected a unnamed bureaucrat in Washington, who has little to lose, than if he decided to protect this partcular source?

My answer is of course not.

And I believe that is the type of sense of proportion we are dealing with with liberal news sources such as the Post and the NY Times, and such a sense of proportion leads to the type of journalism they crank out on a regular basis. Unnamed sources, and unattributed facts and passages in stories which barely deserve to go on a socialist website as editorial, let alone the front page of a national newspaper which is still trying to convince the rest of the country they are actually selling news rather than an agenda

Posted by badanov 2004-08-19 10:26:43 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-19 10:26:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 badanov, it's been my experience that just about every story in the WaPo promotes their Leftist agenda; it's gotta to be editorial policy.
The only real journo there is Krauthammer, since Michael Kelly got killed in Iraq (RIP).
Ditto the NYSlimes on promoting the anti-Bush, anti-American agenda with the exception of William Safire.
They are both dedicated to bringing down the Bush Administration and what it stands for, which is America itself.
Just because Mike Sylwester refuses to acknowledge that it's true doesn't make it any less true.
And it's not that all newspapers publish stories from time to time with unnamed sources--this is SOP for the WaPo.
That's the problem and what makes this story remarkable.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-19 10:34:58 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-19 10:34:58 PM|| Front Page Top

07:21 Shipman
02:31 FlameBait93268
02:17 Kentucky Beef
01:10 Zhang Fei
01:10 Phil Fraering
00:57 Super Hose
00:55 Super Hose
00:47 Old Patriot
00:47 Super Hose
00:42 spiffo
00:39 Super Hose
00:35 Lucky
00:31 Lucky
00:13 lex
00:07 Anonymous6124
00:03 Lucky
00:01 Alaska Paul
23:59 Zenster
23:57 Chris W.
23:56 Chris W.
23:33 True German Ally
23:30 tu3031
23:28 Zenster
23:24 tu3031