How is it journalism is supposed to go: "Who, What, Where, When"?
Isn't that the purported standard for "reporting" on a story? So, should that be true, the just-the-facts-ma'am style of reporting, informing the reader so that he may decide, is obviously as rare as a white Unicorn appearing every 13th month on a blue moon in the newsroom of the Washington Post -- or the Washington comPost as it is lovingly referred to by so many.
Today's ridiculously biased and overly emotive "report" took two people to pen, apparently. Robin Wright and Peter Baker held each other's hands and cried their way through their latest Bush slapping they titled "Bush gropes for new Iraq plan".
Even the headline screams girly "feelings" as opposed to just the facts. Who likes to be groaped, anyway, Robin? Kicking off the report we are treated to overly emotive phrases fit only for an editorial page as opposed to a reporting of facts that one should expect in the news section... and need we say that all the emotions are negative? Since the report is talking about Bush's Iraq policy, could it be any other way for good little robotic denizens of the MSM enclave in Washington?
Wright and Baker did yeoman's work making Bush seem harried, pushed, unsure and unable. George Sorros must be cutting the pair a nice fat check.
Let us review some of their novelist's flourish. (I will helpfully place the fun in bold type)
-As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas...
-As President Bush and his advisers rush to complete their crash review and craft a new formula in the next two weeks...
-The White House denied trying to brush off the study group's report and said those recommendations are being considered alongside internal reviews.
So far, a lot of suppositions and this is just the first few paragraphs. Surely no "report" of the facts could contain "groping", "rushing", and "brushing off"? These are not "facts" but emotions, not real occurrences but the writer's guess on how Administration officials are approaching their work on the policies to be unveiled.
Next we get those old fashioned "unnamed sources" to assure us that everything is falling apart inside the White House.
Sources familiar with the deliberations describe fatigue, frustration and a growing desire to disengage from Iraq. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the deliberations.
"Too sensitive", eh? Not so "sensitive" that they couldn't run to a hostile press to leak it, I see. Hence why we shouldn't believe it.
Anyway, after the first half of the story poisoned with the "reporter's" feelings, they finally get to a few of the facts. But, they end with a sly, but telling tidbit...
But the stature of commission members means that the White House will have to justify any deviations from their plan. "The onus will be on us to explain why we are doing something they recommended or why not," the official said. "They can't just be jettisoned. They have to be dealt with."
The "stature of the commission"? Who has more stature than a president when setting a president's policy? The Iraq Surrender Group has no more "stature" than the president except in the minds of the MSM who NEVER considered him "legitimate" in the beginning.
So, I have decided to adopt the Wright/Baker style to "report" on their "report". Let's see if we can be as professional as our journalistic dynamic duo? Who knows, maybe we might find ourselves hired by a Pulitzer winning Paper someday… or the Washington Post might have an opening, too.
Wright, Baker Struggle to Understand Iraq
By Warner Todd Huston
Washington Post reporters Robin Wright and Peter Baker struggled to understand president Bush's deliberations on his new policies in Iraq today. Sources say that, as the two rushed to confer on their report to meet their deadline, that they were found groping for a way to sound informed while also edgy and relevant.
While they underwent a crash study of the situation in Iraq, learning all sorts of hard to pronounce Muslim names, the two found it easier to ignore Iraq entirely and report only on what the ISG report says. The Washington Post reporters denied trying to brush off any deeper understanding of what is really happening in Iraq to focus only on the domestic concerns of getting rid of president Bush.
The stature of the Washington Post, however, means that readers will have a harder time justifying any criticism of their reporting. "They can't just scoff at us", an unnamed reporter said. "We go to important cocktail parties, after all."
Maybe Robin Wright and Peter Baker of the Washington Post are right? It's so rewarding to be a "reporter".
Very, very rewarding.