McClatchy's credibility took another hit Saturday with a published Internet article accusing McClatchy reporters of distorting quotes and printing unattributed gossip.
Nibras Kazimi is a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. He also writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine.
He blogs at Talisman Gate. Saturday Kazimi published a stunning piece accusing McClatchy's Cairo bureau chief Hannah Allam, plus two other reporters, of serious journalistic violations. Kazimi's article: "McClatchy News Agency Purposely Distorts Quotes, Publishes Unattributed Gossip".
Kazimi focuses on McClatchy's "exclusive" story from April 29 claiming General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, has become most influential man in Iraq. The piece was written by Hannah Allam, Warren Strobel, and Jonathan Landay. Kazimi's research finds the McClatchy piece is full of hyperbole, anonymous sources, moving sentences around to change meaning, and confusing speculation with fact.
As another matter, Kazimi says Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel are "two activist reporters with a strong bias against the Iraq war." Uh, yeah.
Can you say "tabloid newspaper"?
Previous related:
Showing posts with label Hannah Allam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hannah Allam. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The dishonesty of McClatchy's Hannah Allam
Hannah Allam, Cairo Bureau chief for McClatchy newspapers, has a problem with honesty, evidenced by a January 16 article she wrote entitled "Bush departs Mideast with few apparent gains, experts say."
The first sentence in Allam's piece caught my eye: "President Bush wraps up a week long tour of the Middle East Wednesday, leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit."
Pardon me for being skeptical. Who are these "mystified observers"? Allam never identifies them.
I did some quick research to see if Bush's purpose was some kind of hidden secret. Maybe the Bush administration was trying to keep the "political observers" in the dark.
A little research shows the purpose of Bush's trip was widely reported. Reuters interviewed Bush 1/3/08 and Bush explained 3-fold purpose of the trip. President Bush gave an interview to foreign print media at the White House on 1/4. (Transcript here.) Prior to leaving on his trip, Bush gave 3 interviews to TV media in the Middle East. You can read the transcripts here, here, and here. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave interviews to BBC Arabic Television (transcript here) as well as Israel's Channel 10 (transcript here). Rice also spoke to the press aboard Air Force One enroute to Kuwait on 1/11 (transcript here). BBC wrote about the purpose of Bush's trip on 1/7.
Hey, even Al Jazeera explained to their readers the purpose of Bush's trip. Here is an excerpt from Al Jazeera's 1/9 piece on the Bush trip:
How embarrassing that Al Jazeera's readers get better information than McClatchy's readers.
No wonder Hannah Allam never identified the "mystified observers" in her article - they don't exist. It's dishonesty like this that explains why the media's credibility is tanking.
Update: A CNN reporter was able to understand the purpose of Bush's trip: "One of the stated goals of Bush's trip was to garner support for the Mideast peace process from Arab allies."
The first sentence in Allam's piece caught my eye: "President Bush wraps up a week long tour of the Middle East Wednesday, leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit."
Pardon me for being skeptical. Who are these "mystified observers"? Allam never identifies them.
I did some quick research to see if Bush's purpose was some kind of hidden secret. Maybe the Bush administration was trying to keep the "political observers" in the dark.
A little research shows the purpose of Bush's trip was widely reported. Reuters interviewed Bush 1/3/08 and Bush explained 3-fold purpose of the trip. President Bush gave an interview to foreign print media at the White House on 1/4. (Transcript here.) Prior to leaving on his trip, Bush gave 3 interviews to TV media in the Middle East. You can read the transcripts here, here, and here. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave interviews to BBC Arabic Television (transcript here) as well as Israel's Channel 10 (transcript here). Rice also spoke to the press aboard Air Force One enroute to Kuwait on 1/11 (transcript here). BBC wrote about the purpose of Bush's trip on 1/7.
Hey, even Al Jazeera explained to their readers the purpose of Bush's trip. Here is an excerpt from Al Jazeera's 1/9 piece on the Bush trip:
However, Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said Iran "is certainly not the main reason for the trip". "The main reason for the trip is to advance these negotiations and make sure that those are on the right track, as well as to talk about the president's commitment to the region."
How embarrassing that Al Jazeera's readers get better information than McClatchy's readers.
No wonder Hannah Allam never identified the "mystified observers" in her article - they don't exist. It's dishonesty like this that explains why the media's credibility is tanking.
Update: A CNN reporter was able to understand the purpose of Bush's trip: "One of the stated goals of Bush's trip was to garner support for the Mideast peace process from Arab allies."
Related:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Baffled McClatchy reporter proclaims Bush's trip a "failure," also says "experts" can't explain the purpose of Bush's trip
Hannah Allam is probably the most openly anti-Bush reporter in McClatchy's stable of anti-Bush activists. (And that is quite an achievment.) Today's McClatchy article on President Bush's Middle East trip places Allam squarely in KOS territory.
Her article is titled "Bush departs Mideast with few apparent gains, experts say. "
Check out the first paragraph:
(Really? Many Mideast political observers are mystified as to the purpose of Bush's visit? That is an astonishing claim.)
Then this paragraph:
Hmmm. I wonder how many other news outlets were as confused as Hannah Allam. I checked CNN; the CNN reporter seems to understand the purpose of Bush's trip: "One of the stated goals of Bush's trip was to garner support for the Mideast peace process from Arab allies." Oh, and Mubark told reporters he has signed on to President Bush's goal of achieving a mideast peace deal before Bush leaves office. That's in the CNN article, but Allam left it out.
More on Hannah Allam's distortions later.
Her article is titled "Bush departs Mideast with few apparent gains, experts say. "
Check out the first paragraph:
President Bush wraps up a weeklong tour of the Middle East Wednesday, leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit and doubtful that the president made inroads on his twin campaigns for Arab-Israeli peace and isolation for Iran.
(Really? Many Mideast political observers are mystified as to the purpose of Bush's visit? That is an astonishing claim.)
Then this paragraph:
President Bush wraps up a weeklong tour of the Middle East Wednesday, leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit and doubtful that the president made inroads on his twin campaigns for Arab-Israeli peace and isolation for Iran.
Hmmm. I wonder how many other news outlets were as confused as Hannah Allam. I checked CNN; the CNN reporter seems to understand the purpose of Bush's trip: "One of the stated goals of Bush's trip was to garner support for the Mideast peace process from Arab allies." Oh, and Mubark told reporters he has signed on to President Bush's goal of achieving a mideast peace deal before Bush leaves office. That's in the CNN article, but Allam left it out.
More on Hannah Allam's distortions later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)