Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke sharply disputes the Robert Scheer/BBC allegations about the so-called "staging" of the Jessica Lynch rescue.
I take strong exception to the accusations in Robert Scheer's tirade on the Jessica Lynch rescue (Commentary, May 20). Scheer's claims are outrageous, patently false and unsupported by the facts. He cites an anonymous source in a Washington Post story and questions the credibility of the Iraqi lawyer who provided details about Lynch's whereabouts yet takes at face value the allegations made by other Iraqis to the BBC. That he relies on third-party sources for the information upon which he draws his conclusions is no excuse.Indeed. Scheer's fantasy disguised as journalism confirms what a noted media pundit recently wrote:
...
That Scheer would simply repeat the BBC's claims without talking to the Defense Department or independently verifying them makes it clear he is more interested in spurious charges than in the facts.
Once-revered practices of journalism--avoiding not-for-attribution quotes and never printing information from only one source--are often overlooked by editors in today's overheated competitive market. Being briefed "on background" or "off the record" once meant that you were provided a lead that had to be reliably confirmed before printing; now it is a license for fantasy.Who was the media pundit who wrote the above quote? Robert Scheer, June 25, 1998 in a column titled "When the news proves to be fiction"
UPDATE The L.A. Examiner weighs in on the hometown Scheer scandal.
UPDATE 2 Cathy Seipp doesn't seem to like Scheer very much. (But her mother was something of a fan).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 27, 2003 07:52 AMThe Chicago Tribune(Tribune company owns the LATimes as well) has weighed in on the Jessica Lynch story with plenty of quotes from Iraqis who assure us that Private Lynch was well-treated and there were no Iraqi soldiers in the area. I do not believe that the Tribune has mentioned anything about the Scheer controversy and the Pentagon response
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0305260210may26,1,777895.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305250442may25,1,1975182.story
Posted by: Andrew on May 27, 2003 08:05 AMActually, the Trib piece includes some illuminating facts that cast further doubt on the Toronto Star/BBC version of the rescue.
For instance, the reporter actually talked to the ambulance driver who had allegedly attempted to take Lynch to the Americans, who flatly denied that the ambulance had come under fire by American troops, as had been alleged in the BBC story Scheer relied on for his hatchet job.
The same sources used by the BBC and Star told the Trib that they feared for Lynch's life, and the ambulance driver even claims that Iraqi soldiers wanted her killed.
Posted by: Bill Herbert on May 28, 2003 05:55 AMRobert Scheer is a pathological liar and hater of all authority except his own Marxist fantasies. He lied repeatedly about Vietnam but was credited with being a hero because some of his lies had the effect of spading up policy lies by the McNamara/Johnson leadership team, who were elected as liberal democrats. Scheer is not well educated enough to make an intelligent case for Marxism, and, in any event, he dodges around ideology, pretending to be a champion of true democratic liberty. If he had to live in the intolerant world of his own fantasies, he would be among the first to be led out to the firing squad. His only hero worship element comes from a sub-culture of persons who hate the country that gives them their freedom, mostly in San Francisco, plus ridiculous college professors who cannot achieve any legitimate intellectual attainment and so posture and fawn over the radical left, which they believe to be liberating and sacred. Scheer is a very appropriate apostle for this element, and none of them deserves the benefits of living in a political democracy. Their existence, largely unimpeded in any way, with more freedom of speech and action than any other democracy would even allow, is proof that democracy in the USA is extremely tolerant, despite their constant and puerile assertions to the contrary. For the sake of reference, I am ideologically neutral and vote Democrat or Republican based upon the merits and program of the candidate. The radical left and the radical right, based on my 47 years of teaching US history, are not part of the American mainstream, but rather mud spots on the political windshield.
Russell W. Ramsey, Ph.D., D. Min.
Professor, Troy State U. and Norwich U.
Ordained Pastor
Retired Army Officer (combat veteran)