Remember the 7,500-word New York Times “examination” of military television analysts and their involvement with the Pentagon? The Huffington Post’s Rachel Sklar spends 3,000 words examining the NYT’s examination.
Her findings — “They proved their case against the Pentagon, hands down. But they did not prove their case against the generals and other military men whom they name-dropped in that story. Which means they did not necessarily prove their case against the networks.”
• The Pentagon case was proven by, “forcing the Pentagon to (finally) release the 8,000 pages of transcript.”
• The case against the military men themselves was not, because, “he painted with way too broad a brush.”
• The network argument was not proven either, Sklar writes, because, even though the, “networks fumbled this ball by not addressing the story head on,” the story made, “sweeping statements about network culpability.”
That’s the crux of the argument — check the full piece for far more detail.
• Related: Media Matters breaks down the 4,500 appearances by the military analyst’s named.