Bullet Point Journalism

Just as interesting as what my local paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, does report as "news" is how they ignore other stories. For example, other than in letters to the editor, the AJC has never referred to President Putin warning the Bush Administration in 2002 that Hussein was planning terrorists attacks against the U.S. both here and overseas. This week, two confessed Iranian intelligence agents were caught by Iraqi and U.S. forces:

WASHINGTON — American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed.

These stories have two things in common: They reinforce the positions of the Bush Administration. The first shows that Saddam, as some believe, was not a harmless old man we should leave alone. The second shows that the Iranians are so concerned stopping the establishement of democracy in Iraq that they will commit acts of war to attempt to defeat the process.

Another way the AJC spins the news is to reduce important stories to simple bullet points. There are two examples in today’s' paper. The first (from page A4 of today's AJC):

The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog last month when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and radioactive items that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs" U.N. officials say.

That was the entire item. Was there any mention that the uranium was partially enriched? No. Was there any mention that the U.S. did inform the U.N. that it was moving the material well before we did it? No. Also unanswered the definition of a "so-called 'dirty-bomb'". How does that differ from an actual dirty bomb?

In the same list of bullet points is this:

Iraq said it was holding 29 foreign fighters in the Abu Ghraib prison. The number raised questions about repeated claims by Iraqi and U.S. officials that foreigners are leading the insurgency.

First off, this is a disingenuous item because it ignores the capture of the Iranian intelligence agents. Second, you have to question their logic. I don't know how the AJC thinks an organization, particularly militants ones, work. But, typically there are substantially fewer leaders than followers. Also, leaders usually don't do the most fighting, their focus is on organization and planning, so leaders are much less likely to be caught. Also left unsaid is that it's much tougher to catch a terrorist in one piece as opposed to a less fanatic insurgent.

With these examples, it's clear to see that the AJC has picked sides in the War on Terror and filters their "news" accordingly.