Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5208-1029761801-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22555 invoked by uid 510); 19 Aug 2002 13:01:41 -0000 Received: from n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.108) by all.net with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:01:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5208-1029761801-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.94] by n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Aug 2002 12:56:42 -0000 X-Sender: fc@red.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 12:56:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24167 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 12:56:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 12:56:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 12:56:40 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7JCvpB07898 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:57:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200208191257.g7JCvpB07898@red.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [iwar] [fc:Inside.the.Beltway,.Out.of.the.Loop,.Ahead.of.the.Curve] Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ,MAILTO_LINK,DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: UNDERNEWS Aug 16, 2002 From the Progressive Review: Inside the Beltway, Out of the Loop, Ahead of the Curve Edited by Sam Smith Since 1964, Washington's most unofficial source 1312 18th St. NW #502, Washington DC 20036 202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779 REVIEW E-MAIL: mailto:<a href="mailto:news@prorev.com?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20The%20Open%20Source%20Dilemma:%20Debka%20Reports%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;p0500190ab982c74b00df@[66.44.44.121]">news@prorev.com</a> REVIEW INDEX: http://www.prorev.com/ UNDERnews: http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm SUBSCRIBE: mailto:<a href="mailto:prorev-subscribe@topica.com?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20The%20Open%20Source%20Dilemma:%20Debka%20Reports%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;p0500190ab982c74b00df@[66.44.44.121]">prorev-subscribe@topica.com</a> PROGRESSIVE LINKS: http://prorev.com/links.htm LATEST POLLS: http://prorev.com/amline2.htm A NOTE ON OUR COVERAGE JOURNALIST ALEX COCKBURN, whom I hold in high regard, dropped me a note warning about Debka, an Israeli news service I sometimes quote. Specifically he questioned the accuracy of the Debka account concerning alleged US special operations within Iraq. I have been aware of Debka's purported ties to Israeli intelligence. In fact, I even ran a note - unfortunately too far removed from the article in question - saying that "Readers should be aware that some war stories may be the result of official disinformation. While this is probably happening, it is difficult to identify." The problem has several aspects: - Many news organizations have had - or have - probable ties to intelligence agencies. These include Debka, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and Stratfor Intelligence. Thus to eliminate a news sources simply because of its spook connections were also eliminate a good bit of news. - Many White House and Pentagon correspondents - who are well situated to separate fact from propaganda - instead serve as pliable enablers of agitprop. - Some stories emanating from intelligence sources are actually true. I have tried to deal with this problem by running stories from a variety of different sources. For example, the Review has run many contradictory stories on the location of Osama bin Laden under the head "Where's Bin Been?" By reading these stories in series it becomes quickly clear that the bin Laden's location is very much in doubt. I had hoped something similar would be the case of invasion warm-up stories concerning Iraq. It certainly seems clear to me that various people are playing games with these stories, even if for purposes that still remain unclear. But perhaps I misjudge the effect on readers. If a news service tied to the Israelis is reporting US special ops in Iraq, do you wish to hear about it even though it is possibly a special op itself? How does one fairly judge the accuracy of such stories? Do we drop Debka? Or do we hope that by bringing conflicting accounts, the reader will understand and be wary? Should we provide some clue - perhaps the symbol ??? - to suggest a story should be taken with a grain of salt? This is a problem we are all going to live with as a growing percentage of your tax dollars are being spent in lying to you. The Review's underlying approach is to try to show life in its complexities, even if this produces contradictory information. Your advice is welcome - SAM SMITH ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT