For (I believe) the first time ever, I just got an “Indeed” from InstaPundit. That’s pretty much the highest compliment you can get from Glenn, possibly tied with a “Read the whole thing” (which I’ve gotten once) and a “Heh” (if you’re trying to be funny).
Anyway, welcome, InstaPundit readers! Keep scrolling down… as it happens, I’ve been blogging a lot, about a lot of different topics, in the last ~20 hours, so hopefully you’ll find something you like!
P.S. Long-time readers, remember when I used to keep count of my “InstaBoosts”? Well, I lost track during Katrina, but I just counted them up, and today link’s from InstaPundit is InstaBoost LIX (that’s 59, for you Arabic numeral types). Woohoo! :)
“TORONTO (Reuters) - Seventeen Canadian residents arrested on terrorism charges were inspired by al Qaeda”
Brendan-
If this is the article you are referring to, Reuters mentions that they were inspired by Al Qaeda, are Canadian citizens and have Arabic names. Not sure what you are getting at. While it can be assumed that the folks are Muslim, with the quick turnaround of the story it is entirely possible that Reuters would have been speculating if it claimed all members were Muslim or Islamist, especially if they don’t know who all the suspects are. This is especially true with the minors, whose names, I’m sure, are not being released. I believe on the surface that Reuters was reporting what it knew at the time.
Brendan - Although “indeed” may be Glenn’s highest compliment, I think in your case he has already done you one better - far fewer people get their birthdays called out on Instapundit than get an “indeed.”
It puts you in company with Dr. Helen, Norman Borlaug, Arthur Conan Doyle, and the United States Marine Corps.
And yes, blogger Jeff Jarvis - but heck, that was his fiftieth.
Max, I would humbly invite you to actually read the post in question before asking what I’m getting at. Reuters changed the article. I addressed this in the post, and explained why my point is still valid.
Anyway, I’m not asking Reuters to say “they’re all Muslim.” I’m asking Reuters not to deliberately leave out the fact of the Al Qaeda connection from the article, as they initially did, in an article “posted” at least an hour after that connection had been announced by the government and was being reported by CNN. How does a known factoid go from “completely left out” to “the lead sentence” of an article? Because an editor rightly corrected a biased reporter’s error, that’s why. And what I want to know is, is that reporter still working for Reuters right now, and if so, why I should I trust Reuters going forward?
Eric: I don’t think Glenn has ever posted about my birthday — I think you’re recalling the post where he noted my wedding day and the formation of Tropical Storm Zeta that day. But you’re right, that was indeed very cool. :)
In terms of “indeeds,” Glenn also gave an “indeed” to Mickey Kaus’s statement, quoted in the New York Times, that my blog coverage of Katrina should be in the Smithsonian, “if you can put a blog in the Smithsonian.” That, too, was pretty cool, and a better compliment than just saying “indeed” to a particular post.
But still, I love “firsts,” and technically speaking, this is a “first.” :)
I did read your original post and I think you jumped the gun.
Reuters chose to have independent confirmation instead of sourcing CNN or Michelle Malkin (who we all know is the paragon of reliable reporting). Reuters didn’t correct its story. It updated it as it was able to verify information. This a very common practice for wire services. When one news outlet starts sourcing others, you end up with every news outlet, except for CBS, confirming that the dead miners in West Virginia were alive.
I don’t buy it that Reuters was being politically correct, biased or sinister. I think they were trying to be accurate.
The Reuters story you cite doesn’t reference Canadian Intelligence head Luc Portelance who is the official who is quoted as using that line. Since the article was probably being posted around the time the official word was coming down from Canadian Intelligence, that could account for the difference.
Personally I’m happy they got the bastards. I don’t think a reporter should lose her job for being 30 minutes behind Brendan Loy’s schedule.
I don’t know whether the reporter should lose her job. It depends. If the reporter left out a piece of information that is obviously newsworthy because of a political bias, for even five minutes, then that reporter should lose her job. My fervor is based on the fact that I can’t imagine how any journalist in his/her right mind could possibly think that that piece of information was anything other than extremely newsworthy — a belief that is confirmed by the later decision to not just include it, but put it in the lede. The point is, I’m having a hard time conjuring a plausible innocent explanation for that fact’s initial absence, and if the explanation isn’t innocent, then the rolling of heads would in all likelihood be appropriate, if Reuters takes itself seriously as a news agency that wants its news consumers to trust it. We can argue about “bias” till we’re blue in the face, but we should all be able to agree that withholding information from the public for personal, political or ideological reasons is never okay. If it’s clearly newsworthy, it should be in the story, period. And this was clearly newsworthy. Anyone who thinks it isn’t newsworthy is an incompetent journalist, and anyone who wilfully failed to include it despite recognizing its newsworthiness is an unethical journalist. You see why it’s hard for me to understand how this particular mistake is excusable? I see two unfriendly options, and no particularly plausible friendly ones.
Leahy, I’m entitled to blog about myself on my blog. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. Considering that 99% of what I blog about is more substantive than this, and considering that you never have anything to say about any of the substantive stuff (not that I’m complaining, given the sorts of things that you historically have said) but you felt the need to rain on my parade here, I don’t think I’m the one whose personality flaws are primarily on display here.
P.S. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a “meme” is defined as “a unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” I’m not entirely sure if I qualify.
You ninny. I was clearly using slang. As in, “look everybody, let’s talk about me, yes me!”
You conjure up an image of a spoiled child strutting around in his footie pajamas at a dinner party. Inappropriate, painful to watch, and, ultimately, pitiable. Well done.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:50:05 pm
“TORONTO (Reuters) - Seventeen Canadian residents arrested on terrorism charges were inspired by al Qaeda”
Brendan-
If this is the article you are referring to, Reuters mentions that they were inspired by Al Qaeda, are Canadian citizens and have Arabic names. Not sure what you are getting at. While it can be assumed that the folks are Muslim, with the quick turnaround of the story it is entirely possible that Reuters would have been speculating if it claimed all members were Muslim or Islamist, especially if they don’t know who all the suspects are. This is especially true with the minors, whose names, I’m sure, are not being released. I believe on the surface that Reuters was reporting what it knew at the time.
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:50:32 pm
Brendan - Although “indeed” may be Glenn’s highest compliment, I think in your case he has already done you one better - far fewer people get their birthdays called out on Instapundit than get an “indeed.”
It puts you in company with Dr. Helen, Norman Borlaug, Arthur Conan Doyle, and the United States Marine Corps.
And yes, blogger Jeff Jarvis - but heck, that was his fiftieth.
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:54:37 pm
Max, I would humbly invite you to actually read the post in question before asking what I’m getting at. Reuters changed the article. I addressed this in the post, and explained why my point is still valid.
Anyway, I’m not asking Reuters to say “they’re all Muslim.” I’m asking Reuters not to deliberately leave out the fact of the Al Qaeda connection from the article, as they initially did, in an article “posted” at least an hour after that connection had been announced by the government and was being reported by CNN. How does a known factoid go from “completely left out” to “the lead sentence” of an article? Because an editor rightly corrected a biased reporter’s error, that’s why. And what I want to know is, is that reporter still working for Reuters right now, and if so, why I should I trust Reuters going forward?
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:59:15 pm
Eric: I don’t think Glenn has ever posted about my birthday — I think you’re recalling the post where he noted my wedding day and the formation of Tropical Storm Zeta that day. But you’re right, that was indeed very cool. :)
In terms of “indeeds,” Glenn also gave an “indeed” to Mickey Kaus’s statement, quoted in the New York Times, that my blog coverage of Katrina should be in the Smithsonian, “if you can put a blog in the Smithsonian.” That, too, was pretty cool, and a better compliment than just saying “indeed” to a particular post.
But still, I love “firsts,” and technically speaking, this is a “first.” :)
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:26:48 pm
Brendan-
I did read your original post and I think you jumped the gun.
Reuters chose to have independent confirmation instead of sourcing CNN or Michelle Malkin (who we all know is the paragon of reliable reporting). Reuters didn’t correct its story. It updated it as it was able to verify information. This a very common practice for wire services. When one news outlet starts sourcing others, you end up with every news outlet, except for CBS, confirming that the dead miners in West Virginia were alive.
I don’t buy it that Reuters was being politically correct, biased or sinister. I think they were trying to be accurate.
June 3rd, 2006 at 4:38:43 pm
Brendan -
Serves me right for mis-remembering; I guess that takes you out of good company like the Marines and back into a class by yourself…
June 3rd, 2006 at 4:45:52 pm
Why would they need “independent confirmation” to quote something that Canadian officials said in announcing the arrests?
June 3rd, 2006 at 5:07:35 pm
The Reuters story you cite doesn’t reference Canadian Intelligence head Luc Portelance who is the official who is quoted as using that line. Since the article was probably being posted around the time the official word was coming down from Canadian Intelligence, that could account for the difference.
Personally I’m happy they got the bastards. I don’t think a reporter should lose her job for being 30 minutes behind Brendan Loy’s schedule.
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:07:05 pm
Jesus, Loy. Can you be less of an insufferable meme?
Your right hand must be huge from all the backpatting. Not to mention the masturbation.
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:36:17 pm
I don’t know whether the reporter should lose her job. It depends. If the reporter left out a piece of information that is obviously newsworthy because of a political bias, for even five minutes, then that reporter should lose her job. My fervor is based on the fact that I can’t imagine how any journalist in his/her right mind could possibly think that that piece of information was anything other than extremely newsworthy — a belief that is confirmed by the later decision to not just include it, but put it in the lede. The point is, I’m having a hard time conjuring a plausible innocent explanation for that fact’s initial absence, and if the explanation isn’t innocent, then the rolling of heads would in all likelihood be appropriate, if Reuters takes itself seriously as a news agency that wants its news consumers to trust it. We can argue about “bias” till we’re blue in the face, but we should all be able to agree that withholding information from the public for personal, political or ideological reasons is never okay. If it’s clearly newsworthy, it should be in the story, period. And this was clearly newsworthy. Anyone who thinks it isn’t newsworthy is an incompetent journalist, and anyone who wilfully failed to include it despite recognizing its newsworthiness is an unethical journalist. You see why it’s hard for me to understand how this particular mistake is excusable? I see two unfriendly options, and no particularly plausible friendly ones.
Leahy, I’m entitled to blog about myself on my blog. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. Considering that 99% of what I blog about is more substantive than this, and considering that you never have anything to say about any of the substantive stuff (not that I’m complaining, given the sorts of things that you historically have said) but you felt the need to rain on my parade here, I don’t think I’m the one whose personality flaws are primarily on display here.
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:38:57 pm
P.S. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a “meme” is defined as “a unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” I’m not entirely sure if I qualify.
June 4th, 2006 at 6:20:50 pm
You ninny. I was clearly using slang. As in, “look everybody, let’s talk about me, yes me!”
You conjure up an image of a spoiled child strutting around in his footie pajamas at a dinner party. Inappropriate, painful to watch, and, ultimately, pitiable. Well done.