Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Let's admit it: McClatchy correspondents in Baghdad are Bush haters

Monday I noted a McClatchy correspondent in Baghdad had blogged about the McClatchy employees in Baghdad who were cheering the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush. Here are some excerpts posted by "Laith":

When I arrived the office... Some of our guys started making jokes about the incident...

Some of the guys were happy and they were talking about the bravery of the journalist who threw his shoes at the American president. When I tried to explain my opinion, I was trying to tell the guys that I don't agree with the way the journalist behaved, but I was attacked by them. One of them said "come on Laith, Bush destroyed Iraq". Another said"he deserves more" while a third one said "he is an occupier." I tried to tell to tell they guys that this is an insult for Maliki.

Notice Laith has no problem with a journalist assaulting the President of the United States; his only concern is al-Maliki was embarrassed as the host. If you think that is bad, get a load of Laith's twisted idea of "journalism":
As a journalist who believes that his job is to find truth and defend it, I can't blame the journalist for hating the U.S. president because I agree with all the Iraqis...

This McClatchy "journalist" sees a natural connection between telling the truth and hating President Bush?!? No wonder the "Truth to Power" organization is so jacked up. A pox on McClatchy's house.

Oh, another thing. I got an email from McClatchy with a statement the post would be edited because the comments about hating Bush were from non-McClatchy employees. Yeah, right. Since it was first posted there has been no editing or clarification. The post stands as written, and my follow-up emails have not been answered. My conclusion: the people at McClatchy's Baghdad bureau are toxic Bush-haters.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps, since they are in Baghdad, they have better things to do.

Anonymous said...


-- Have you seen the president's approval rating? Who isn't a toxic Bush hater?

-- If you don't like McClatchy's Iraq coverage, feel free to report your own. Journalism's not hard, is it?

Anonymous said...

Bush is an idiot. Let's report more on that.

How come this blog isn't as good as the Gannett Blog?

Are you just not as good?

Anonymous said...

There isn't any surprise here. This is the company that has a Washington Bureau Chief who they created an award for, so he could announce that his "key to success" was to side with Saddam and Al Qaeda.

It isn't all bad news. They're stuck with these morons now and said morons are doing all that they can to drive the company out of business. A fitting end for such a group of enlightened, intelligent, and educated people as evidenced by the three above.

We need people like this. Let them rant. Their newspapers have an even lower approval than their surrogates have assigned to Bush.

McClatchy Watch said...

Anonymous 7:47 -- You make a good point -- McClatchy has allowed these Bozos to make the entire organization look bad.

Archer05 said...

Almost any honest journalist could have written more accurate information about the war from a bunker in New Jersey, than the corrupt McClatchy reporters wrote from the bars in Baghdad.

Anonymous said...

Bars in Baghdad? Seriously?

But you make an interesting assertion, and I challenge you to prove it.

Take 48 hours and post here a 500-word news story on Iraq. The story can be on any topic you like, thrust in any direction, and test any hypothesis. But it has to bring out new facts or describe a spot news event. Attribute your facts in the article and -- this is important -- use three named sources.

These are the basic parameters for a rookie reporter writing 15 inches of copy, though such a story would generally take only a shift or less to assemble.

You say 'go' and we'll start the clock running.

Archer05 said...

The challenge: (Broken down into itty bitty pieces for the boys in the backroom)

-Use three named sources-

‘According to Anonymous‘-‘unnamed’ - ‘Some say‘ and the famous Dan Rather source, ‘Unimpeachable’ Is four extra credit?

This is too easy-

Next, I am going to interview 100 troops for firsthand war quotes. It may take hours to find the six that say what I want to hear. I will ignore the other 94 opinions. Do I have the template correct so far?

Anonymous said...

I'm totally serious. Do a story on a school reconstruction project. Do a story on the success of the surge.

500 words, three named sources.

Let's see you bring it.