I would not have written this dispatch, or said much of anything about Pugliese, if not for the documents tabled by Alexander. But the conversation was happening, so I figured I could add some useful information.
I do think, however, that there is a sizeable difference between carrying water for a host…
I would not have written this dispatch, or said much of anything about Pugliese, if not for the documents tabled by Alexander. But the conversation was happening, so I figured I could add some useful information.
I do think, however, that there is a sizeable difference between carrying water for a hostile foreign government and playing scribe for your own government and industry. There's no doubt that the propagandists for America's expeditionary wars were never appropriately tarred and feathered, but at least they were part of a national discourse where the sides were clearly saying what they wanted. It's just a different situation than a journalist happily promoting the bullshit narratives of a hostile foreign government.
To go back to your first point: I don't think Pugliese is guilty of 1, and I think it's reckless that people are confidently alleging he is. But I do think he's guilty of 2. I've got no problem with a journalist criticizing NATO or the war against Ukraine — but when you're doing so by actively borrowing lines from the Russian government, I think that puts you into some very bad territory.
Well, we certainly have an example case to guide us, here and now.
I saw the movie “Shock and Awe”, about the Knight-Ridder journalists who could not find any evidence of Saddam’s nuclear program. They certainly tried to get that message out, were drowned out by larger papers and TV repeating the Bush message.
What they did not do was charge the NYT and WaPo with knowingly repeating lies, knowingly lying to their readers.
In short, Knight-Ridder did not charge fellow journalists with my “(2)”.
I imagine, because they didn’t feel they could prove it, they held themselves to the same standards as a court.
Courts themselves, of course, hold themselves to that standard strictly, not even concluding Fox News had knowingly lied about the election until dispositive proof was presented, of journalists texting just that.
Pugliese is in a much, much more vulnerable position than the NYT and WaPo; those who carry water for governments and military-industrial complexes are held to much lower standards of truth than those who criticize such large institutions.
So, if you’ve got that confidence, that Knight-Ridder lacked; if you can show facts to your readers that Pugliese knowingly lied to his readers, you should present that evidence. It’s a grave charge.
I certainly agree with this, in part.
I would not have written this dispatch, or said much of anything about Pugliese, if not for the documents tabled by Alexander. But the conversation was happening, so I figured I could add some useful information.
I do think, however, that there is a sizeable difference between carrying water for a hostile foreign government and playing scribe for your own government and industry. There's no doubt that the propagandists for America's expeditionary wars were never appropriately tarred and feathered, but at least they were part of a national discourse where the sides were clearly saying what they wanted. It's just a different situation than a journalist happily promoting the bullshit narratives of a hostile foreign government.
To go back to your first point: I don't think Pugliese is guilty of 1, and I think it's reckless that people are confidently alleging he is. But I do think he's guilty of 2. I've got no problem with a journalist criticizing NATO or the war against Ukraine — but when you're doing so by actively borrowing lines from the Russian government, I think that puts you into some very bad territory.
Well, we certainly have an example case to guide us, here and now.
I saw the movie “Shock and Awe”, about the Knight-Ridder journalists who could not find any evidence of Saddam’s nuclear program. They certainly tried to get that message out, were drowned out by larger papers and TV repeating the Bush message.
What they did not do was charge the NYT and WaPo with knowingly repeating lies, knowingly lying to their readers.
In short, Knight-Ridder did not charge fellow journalists with my “(2)”.
I imagine, because they didn’t feel they could prove it, they held themselves to the same standards as a court.
Courts themselves, of course, hold themselves to that standard strictly, not even concluding Fox News had knowingly lied about the election until dispositive proof was presented, of journalists texting just that.
Pugliese is in a much, much more vulnerable position than the NYT and WaPo; those who carry water for governments and military-industrial complexes are held to much lower standards of truth than those who criticize such large institutions.
So, if you’ve got that confidence, that Knight-Ridder lacked; if you can show facts to your readers that Pugliese knowingly lied to his readers, you should present that evidence. It’s a grave charge.