7 ms·

An org thats concerned about democracy should not let ads which lie and opinion pieces without fact checking not allowed. That's what I expect but You may have

An org thats concerned about democracy should not let ads which lie and opinion pieces without fact checking not allowed. That's what I expect but You may have diff standards

happymellon 4y ago
Was there a specific instance you can point out where the Post got its facts wrong, and didn't correct it?
- snehk 4y ago
  Yes, they printed the lies about WMDs and put out loads and loads of articles in support of the war.
  - speleding 4y ago
    At that point in time as Sadam had just used WMDs against the Kurds and many observes thought it likely he had not all of a sudden stopped having them. That no one found any WMDs later on does not make reporting what intelligence agencies said at the time “lying”. Do you have any information that the Washington Post was reporting something they knew to be untrue _at the time_?
    - cmmeur01 4y ago
      Taking what intelligence agency’s say at face value isn’t reporting, you’re just a state mouthpiece.
      - speleding 4y ago
        At the time it was very reasonable to assume Saddam had (more) WMDs. Stating otherwise is suffering from hindsight bias, there is really no reason to assume malice here.
        snehk 4y ago
        That's just not true. The "source" for US intelligence was called Curveball and the information came from Germany. The German intelligence service, BND, warned the US multiple times that the information was made up. Even the CIA's head of the European division Tyler Drumheller said that he warned George Tenet that the information was unreliable[2]. Tyler Drumheller also said that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening"[3]. The informant was called: - "crazy … out of control" (by German Intelligence) - "congenital liar" (by Friends) - "an alcoholic" (by US physician) [4] UN weapons inspectors said at the time that the US is deliberately ignoring their information. They KNEW for a fact that the information was false. It's not like they then found out that the information was bogus and that hindsight is 20/20 or something. It was known at the time. It was also public knowledge in countries like Germany. Do you really think The Washington Post and other outlets don't check what the Germans had to say about all of this considering the information came from Germany? Not suspicious that the country where the information supposedly comes from doesn't want to support the war at all? Nope. The Washington Post and others didn't care. They wanted that war and supported it. [1]: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13569264/USA-haben-BND-fuer-Irak-Krieg-missbraucht.html https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13569264/USA-habe... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-cia-europe-chief-vindicate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-cia-... [3]: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/02/nation/na-intel2 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/02/nation/na-intel2 [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.html https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.htm...
        speleding 4y ago
        That's one source of information about WDMs being false, and that may indeed have been knowable at that time. But lack of proof does not prove the opposite, it does not prove that Saddam did not have WDMs. Saddam had used WDMs on multiple occasions in the past and it was not unreasonable to think he would use them again, even without any proof he had any more. It's not all that hard to hide those weapons if you are a dictator. The US made the mistake of presenting this incorrect piece of information. But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar" or a "state mouthpiece", as the grand parent claimed.

An org thats concerned about democracy should not let ads which lie and opinion pieces without fact checking not allowed. That's what I expect but You may have diff standards

happymellon 4y ago

Was there a specific instance you can point out where the Post got its facts wrong, and didn't correct it?

snehk 4y ago
Yes, they printed the lies about WMDs and put out loads and loads of articles in support of the war.
- speleding 4y ago
  At that point in time as Sadam had just used WMDs against the Kurds and many observes thought it likely he had not all of a sudden stopped having them. That no one found any WMDs later on does not make reporting what intelligence agencies said at the time “lying”. Do you have any information that the Washington Post was reporting something they knew to be untrue _at the time_?
  - cmmeur01 4y ago
    Taking what intelligence agency’s say at face value isn’t reporting, you’re just a state mouthpiece.
    - speleding 4y ago
      At the time it was very reasonable to assume Saddam had (more) WMDs. Stating otherwise is suffering from hindsight bias, there is really no reason to assume malice here.
      - snehk 4y ago
        That's just not true. The "source" for US intelligence was called Curveball and the information came from Germany. The German intelligence service, BND, warned the US multiple times that the information was made up. Even the CIA's head of the European division Tyler Drumheller said that he warned George Tenet that the information was unreliable[2]. Tyler Drumheller also said that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening"[3]. The informant was called: - "crazy … out of control" (by German Intelligence) - "congenital liar" (by Friends) - "an alcoholic" (by US physician) [4] UN weapons inspectors said at the time that the US is deliberately ignoring their information. They KNEW for a fact that the information was false. It's not like they then found out that the information was bogus and that hindsight is 20/20 or something. It was known at the time. It was also public knowledge in countries like Germany. Do you really think The Washington Post and other outlets don't check what the Germans had to say about all of this considering the information came from Germany? Not suspicious that the country where the information supposedly comes from doesn't want to support the war at all? Nope. The Washington Post and others didn't care. They wanted that war and supported it. [1]: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13569264/USA-haben-BND-fuer-Irak-Krieg-missbraucht.html https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13569264/USA-habe... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-cia-europe-chief-vindicate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-cia-... [3]: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/02/nation/na-intel2 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/02/nation/na-intel2 [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.html https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.htm...
        speleding 4y ago
        That's one source of information about WDMs being false, and that may indeed have been knowable at that time. But lack of proof does not prove the opposite, it does not prove that Saddam did not have WDMs. Saddam had used WDMs on multiple occasions in the past and it was not unreasonable to think he would use them again, even without any proof he had any more. It's not all that hard to hide those weapons if you are a dictator. The US made the mistake of presenting this incorrect piece of information. But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar" or a "state mouthpiece", as the grand parent claimed.