Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Bill Roggio attaccato dal Washington Post

Se non si viene attaccati da nessuno, non si è importanti.
Ma se ti attacca il Washington Post allora qualche cosa vali.
L'attacco
Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500659.html
Il contrattacco
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/roggio200601031233.asp
January 03, 2006, 12:33 p.m.
Embedded Bias?
Why doesn’t the Washington Post correct some simple facts?
By Bill Roggio
Guilt by association. It is a common tool used to discredit those deemed 
a threat to the established order. Recently, I've found myself on the 
receiving end of such a tactic courtesy of a piece by Jonathan Finer and 
Douglas Struck in the Washington Post.
On the day after Christmas, the Washington Post featured an article 
titled "Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War — U.S. Recruits 
Advocates to the Front, Pays Iraqi TV Stations for Coverage," of which 
my recent embed in Iraq was the subject of scrutiny as a 
military-information operation. It is a fact-challenged article that 
manages to cast an unfair shadow on my reporting from Iraq.
The piece claims that I had retired from the military, when in fact it 
requires 20 years of service to retire. I served four years on active 
duty and two years in the National Guard. The authors report that I was 
credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute, when in fact this is 
impossible, as a think tank cannot provide media credentials — this must 
be done by a recognized news organization. I was credentialed by The 
Weekly Standard and the Canadian talk-radio show The World Tonight. And 
finally, contrary to the report, I was not in Iraq when the article was 
published. I had been home for nearly a week. Each of these items could 
have been easily confirmed by a simple inquiry.
The incorrect facts on their own can easily be discounted as trivial, 
but the suggestion that I was credentialed by the American Enterprise 
Institute certainly implies I was part of some kind of orchestrated 
right-wing ploy (there go those neocon war hawks again!). But couple the 
Post's fake "facts" with the misrepresentation of the 
embed-credentialing process and the blending of my story with 
military-information operations, and the groundwork has been laid to 
label me as a tool of the military.
The misrepresentation of the embed process is perhaps the most egregious 
error made by an organization that routinely embeds reporters in Iraq. 
First, the Washington Post reports my invite to embed with the Marines 
in Iraq as some type of special or preferential treatment. In fact, 
reporters are often invited to embed.
I questioned Captain Jeffery Pool, a public-affairs officer for the 2nd 
Marine Division about this issue. He assured me reporters often are 
invited to embed with units. In fact, Mr. Finer was invited to embed 
with the Marines just prior to Operation Steel Curtain in November, an 
offer Mr. Finer declined. Under these circumstances, my invite is far 
from extraordinary or newsworthy.
Second, the article insinuates that I needed some kind of special 
"authorization" to embed. Again, I questioned Captain Pool on this 
issue. The public-affairs office does indeed have the power to approve 
or disapprove an embed, and every reporter that embedss goes through the 
same authorization process. When Mr. Finer embedded during the invasion 
of Iraq in the spring of 2003, he received authorization just as I did.
Again, this is a routine procedure, and I was given no special 
consideration. But you would not know any of this by reading the article.
It's bad enough that the facts of the story are mangled and 
misrepresented, but Finer and Struck go even further to slight my 
character. The title and subheading of the article, "Bloggers, Money Now 
Weapons in Information War — U.S. Recruits Advocates to the Front, Pays 
Iraqi TV Stations for Coverage" clearly implies I am a tool of the 
military. And sandwiched between the mention of my embed and coverage 
from Iraq is a completely unrelated story on military-information 
operations, the Lincoln Group's activities in paying for positive 
articles to be published in Iraqi publications, and the military funding 
Iraqi radio stations.
I have had a private conversation with Mr. Finer. He can dissemble to me 
about how there was no intention to equate my embed with a 
military-information operation, or the Lincoln Group's dealings with the 
Iraqi media. But the fact is that intelligent people from varying 
political persuasions viewed the article this way.
I have been repeatedly asked what would motivate the Washington Post to 
write such an inaccurate and obviously antagonistic article. I can only 
speculate on the causes. I am a mere blogger, a citizen who is 
interested in the situation in Iraq and has focused on the subject for 
well over a year. My analysis and predictions have proved to be accurate 
over time, and this drew the attention of the Marines, who subsequently 
invited me to come to Iraq to witness the results of recent operations 
for myself, to go there for myself and report. And what I am most 
interested in right now is clearing the good name of my work.
In less than three weeks I organized a trip to Iraq and raised well over 
$33,000 as well as thousands in equipment and services. I had to be 
creative and sought out alternative media organizations to provide 
credentials, as I knew the established media would have little interest 
in sponsoring me. I took a leave of absence from my job, and traveled to 
Iraq.
I then did what many reporters in Iraq admitted to me they do not do: 
Embedded with frontline units to tell the stories of those serving. I 
saw, and reported great success, in the once-troubled areas of Western 
Iraq. I suppose that's a threat to the mainstream media — a challenge to 
their traditional monopoly on war reporting. An upstart blogger and 
amateur has exceeded his pajama-clad place and done what much of the 
media in Iraq will not do.
One week ago, I published my initial response to the Washington Post 
article, which detailed the factual errors and logical fallacies of the 
piece. The Washington Post has yet to clarify their errors and 
misrepresentations.
Consider this one more reason to read alternatives to the Washington 
Post, where we report about the misleading little details, and let you 
decide.
— Bill Roggio is an independent civilian military blogger. He served in 
the Army from 1991 to 1995, and now writes for his blog The Fourth Rail. 
He blogged from Iraq at 
threatswatch.org
.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500659.html
dicono quello che tutti sostenevamo cioè che è pagato dal pentagono...

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500659.html

Dire e sostenere è differente da provare.
Le opinioni sono tante quante i culi, ogniuno ne ha una e valgono 
altrettanto se non adeguatamente dimostrate.
Interessante che non hai tenuto il link all'articolo dove Bill Roggio 
risponde alle accuse e espone gli errori (non chiamiamoli bugie) del 
Washington Post.
Ancora più interessante il fatto che il Washington Post, quando messo al 
corrente degli errori dell'articolo non lo abbia mai rettificato.
In pratica, esiste una stampa che pensa di essere come il Corano: giusta 
e immodificabile per principio, anche se scrive delle cazzate.
Mirco