«
»

Balanced piece on 9/11 “Conspiracies” in Washington Post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

Go read it

 

 

This entry was posted on Friday, September 8th, 2006 at 2:03 PM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

3 Responses to “Balanced piece on 9/11 “Conspiracies” in Washington Post”

  1. Bill Swiggard said:

    “Balanced”? Hardly. It’s one point of view, written large. The article quotes only people who are already convinced that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission are fabrications. It talks about how many of those people exist out there, and how mistrusting the public is. It makes no attempt to explore any other side of the argument, and offers minimal evidence other than the testimony of those already convinced. No, it’s not balanced. It is written to feed those whose minds are already made up, with no pretense of editorial neutrality. That’s why I decided not to quote it in my coverage of the Post that day. Too biased…BS

    Posted on 09-Sep-06 at 6:20 am | Permalink
  2. Mike Blaxill said:

    for me “balanced” for the mainstream media means reporting honestly on the the 911 Truth movement instead of just highlighting the nutcases. I was very surprised that the WP actually let its readers know about all the ex-cabinet officials from the Bush 1 and Reagan years speaking out – that hardly ever gets reported.

    Alternate opinions were included (the MIT professor), it was pretty snark free for a mainstream publication – it wasn’t really a science article .. of which I’d love to hear your opinions – there’s been a lot of back and forth on that by physics profs (mostly tenured 🙂

    Posted on 09-Sep-06 at 8:00 am | Permalink
  3. Ian Alterman said:

    Well, I must admit that the editorial comments “pooh-pooh” the movement and its beliefs a bit too obviously. However, this article does provide more aspects of the events vis-a-vis the movement’s position than any other mainstream article I have seen, including the fairer Vanity Fair article last month. And as Mike notes, it even references ex-officials.

    And Mike, I hope you were not referring to David Ray Griffin as one of the “nutcases.”

    Peace.

    Posted on 09-Sep-06 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.