« | Main | "Perfect Killing Method" »

Patterico investigates the L.A. Times' coverage of a supposed airstrike in Ramadi, coverage that uncritically cited witnesses claiming large civilian casualties. His post is an eminently fair look at the flaws in the Times' reporting:

In the end, I was unable to determine whether the e-mailing soldier was correct when he claimed that the L.A. Times is relying on propaganda supplied by a stringer with ties to insurgents.

However, I can say this: the journalists at the L.A. Times 1) have utterly failed to report the full extent of the military's side of the story; 2) very likely got some basic facts about the incident wrong; and 3) have done an extremely poor job of explaining the possible limitations on their knowledge - what I like to call "telling the reader what you don't know as well as what you do know."

Posted by Bill at November 24, 2006 01:16 PM | TrackBack (11)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2844

Comments