Friday, October 08, 2004

Reuters Headlines

In this story, the headline reads:

Report: U.S. Strike Kills 11 at Iraqi Wedding

We find out later in the story that claim is from a source inside Fallujah. The "reporter" wasn't even there.

Further into the story we get the "other side":
The U.S. military said the "precision strike" had hit a safe-house being used by the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at 1:15 a.m. Friday.

"Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike," a statement said.
So, let's even assume we take both reports as equally likely to be true.

Why does the headline -- which is all most people will see -- pick one side and not even imply there's any question?

I mean, if it were just bad editing, at random half the time they'd lead with the coalition side and half the time with the terrorist point of view, no? But it's always the enemy report taken at face value, as if it were of equal if not greater validity.

To lead with the source in Fallujah is to be nothing but a mouthpiece for enemy propaganda.

Reuters is a hostile entity!


Post a Comment

<< Home