Joint Chiefs shakedown?

[Liza Featherstone]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> Liza Featherstone wrote:
> 
> >Sure, but "was leaked" is a particularly weasely way to present information.
> >CH's use of the passive voice makes it really unclear whether it was even
> >leaked to *him* -- maybe it's 4th or 5th hand info, or pure conjecture
> >based on
> >something leaked to someone else.  It's not like it's attributed to "a
> >high-ranking
> >official who was at the meeting" -- any implication that he talked to a live
> >person who was there would be a lot better.  Not only does he leave it up
> >to us to
> >trust his source -- he makes it v. difficult to believe he even had a source.
> 
> Must be that British training. Brit journalists love to say things like,
> "...it emerged last night." They rarely say from whence it emerged, or who
> was pushing.
> 
> Doug

That's true. In conversations with British journalists, I've always noticed they 
seem amused by  American journalists (admittedly relative) obsession with 
accuracy and facts. They seem to think it's sort of nerdy and quaint, why would 
you let such minutia get in the way of a good story? ANd they're incredibly 
lazy. Those assigned to the U.S. frequently don't even show up to the events they 
cover, hence they probably dont even know from whence it emerged. No wonder 
their newspapers are so much more fun to read than ours.

Liza