From the “Oh, please” files: Evil media strikes again

So the Washington Post publishes an article, “Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War,” in which it talks about how the military, unhappy about the way the Iraq war is being portrayed in the press, has invited people friendlier to its point of view.

The article mentions in particular one Bill Roggio, a conservative blogger, who was embedded there.

Roggio, pro-war and anti-media, wasn’t happy. He posted a response to the Post’s article on his blog.

In that response, he seems to point out a good number of errors in the Post’s story; he’s full, it seems, of rightous indignation.

Except, that is, when you actually read the article to see what he’s talking about. If there’s misinformation, I’m inclined to think it comes from Roggio.

I am not a “retired soldier”, as that would have required me to serve in the military for twenty plus years. I spent four years on active duty and two years in the National Guard.

Perhaps the Post is in error, but it’s certainly a nitpicky one, relying on the military’s official definition of “retired.”

The article also indicates that I am currently in Iraq and embedded with the Marines in Western Anbar. I am not. I returned home on December 20th.

He returned home a week ago. The article was published the day before yesterday. Unless you believe that the reporters put this story together in a day or two, it’s pretty obvious that, when they wrote it, Roggio was still in Iraq. Should the Post have checked to see if he had returned? Possibly. But to call that an “error” is a stretch.

I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization.

The Post story makes it pretty clear where it got that information:

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation according to an entry on Roggio’s blog.

The Post is right. On Oct. 31, Roggio wrote, “I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute.”

Seems clear to me. But Roggio now says that he was “unable to work out an agreement” with the American Enterprise Magazine, and ended up getting his credentials from The Weekly Standard. So the Post gets information from his own blog, and he complains that the information isn’t accurate. Neat trick, that.

Then Roggio attacks the Post’s description of the embed process.

Finally, The Washington Post astonishingly misrepresents the entire embed process. Captain Jeffery Pool, the Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division is quoted as saying “A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed.” Perhaps my work was reviewed before extending the invite to embed, of this I have no knowledge. However, the military has absolutely no authority to “authorize the embed” that I am aware of.

Assuming Roggio is accurate, the Post was wrong. He wasn’t “authorized,” he was “invited.” Is that an “astonishing” error? Not even close. Should the Post have gotten it right? Yep, but it’s hardly worth the handwringing Roggio gives it.

Then he suddenly jumps off track — he had been attacking the Post, but then decides to complain about “left-of-center” bloggers:

Any suggestion the trip was funded by a single entity, such as those being hurled by the left-of-center bloggers, is both laughable and easily disproved as I kept meticulous records of those who kindly donated to assist in defraying the costs. This could have been easily confirmed by the reactionary pundits by a mere inquiry. Instead, it is easier to hurls insults, innuendo and rumor about my means and motivations to go to Iraq than to get to the truth.

Who are all these “left-of-center” bloggers, attacking Mr. Roggio? There’s, um, one. A blogger named “feleg” wrote this: “Who is donating? We don’t and won’t know. Any right wing person or corporation could dump money there to support the president and Republican members of Congress.”

Hardly a “suggestion the trip was funded by a single entity.”

Oh, and why did Roggio jump off topic and shift from attacking the Post? Perhaps because in the third paragraph of the story, the Post was pretty clear and accurate: “He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor.” (Feleg was questioning who those donors were.)

So far, Roggio strikes me as a guy more interested in twisting words, inflating claims, and exaggerating information than in reporting the truth.

For example, there’s this attack on the evil mainstream media:

In the past, the established media has paid Iraqi stringers that have turned out to be insurgent or al-Qaeda operatives.

Roggio links to a single instance (count that: one) in which a CBS cameraman was arrested as a suspected insurgent. Amazing how one instance of a suspected criminal working for one network becomes an implication that it happens all the time.

There are lots of people linking to Roggio’s story, all repeating the same thing: That he was clearly, obviously, and horribly wronged. It’s just too bad these fans let their admiration of the guy’s politics prevent them from checking to see whether what he said was true.

It wasn’t. Real journalists would see that.

Update/addition: It’s amusing to me to see so many bloggers jumping in to comment on Roggio’s post, taking what he says as gospel without bothering to check it. Even Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit, a smart guy and thoughtful blogger, buys in, writing, “I hope the Post will run a response and correct the errors.”

It’s a perfect example. Reynolds and others are simply assuming Roggio is correct — that there are errors in the Post piece significant enough to require correction. But to be a journalist you need to verify that; you can’t call shenanigans without first verifying that there really are mistakes. You don’t take a guy’s word for it simply because you support his point of view.

Other bloggers, perhaps realizing that there are not, in fact, a host of factual errors in the Post piece, are instead focusing on what they claim to be a hidden agenda of the Post’s.

L’Ombre de l’Olivier, to whom others are linking, calls the Post article a “hit piece” and then proceeds to ascribe all sorts of evil intentions on the writers. In l’Olivier’s case, he claims the Post is spreading FUD — fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

It’s funny to see people share what they “know” about someone’s intentions as if it was fact. For example, in the Post article was this about Roggio’s fundraising: “He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor.”

Seems pretty straightforward to me. But l’Olivier sees evil intent:

Makes it look like the shoestring budget doesn’t it? like it’s a one off? you see the unspoken subtext? “$30,000″ was a bit of a struggle to raise so isn’t it good that us “real journalists” have secure budgets to ensure we always have the feet on the street.

Huh? I didn’t read that at all. Hey, if you’re trying to find malice you can — “That guy looked at me funny!” But the best these folks can do is spin. You need to be wearing the right colored glasses to see “unspoken subtext” in that sentence.

This stuff goes on and on. If you like Roggio, you accept what he says as fact, or at least find all sorts of “unspoken subtext” in the piece — kind of like The Bible Code, I guess. Hey, that’s an idea: Has anyone tried to anagram the Post story? Maybe you can find hidden meaning that way.