naked capitalism

Richard Kline says:

The fake FARC rescue is a mesmerizing story.

I have followed the FARC, and the political situation in Colombia for decades: absolutely _nothing_ about the intitial story rang true. It was just bizarre, stank. FARC security is outstanding; they have never suffered a serious operational surprise, or high-level penetration. And the timing: right before the July 4th weekend, loads of favorable media coverage not to mention McCain’s so _NOT_ coincidental presence down south. Now we get a trickle-out that it was totally staged, which is so Rovian that it rings true on first hearing, though to be fair we really need more detail here. But the presentation of this as a ‘glorious rescue’ would be scandalous in any times but our own. Any statement by the present US Administration, even of “The sky is blue” variety, I take as a patently lie until and unless confirmed, and we see here again the reason why.

It is a good thing that some of the hostages at least are free. Tactically, it has been a major propaganda loser for the FARC to continue to hold these folks, but they were determined to do a hostage swap which Uribe could afford to block. That the FARC settled for straight payment, if true and it sounds true, is a major concession on their part.

Now, let’s see if the US MSM makes any attempt to follow this up in the coming week. Here’s betting they don’t, not least because it will emphasize how completely and willingly they were conned by the Dubyas.

Lune says:

Here’s a direct link to Dean Baker’s article on low paid journalists (the one in the post leads to Google Reader):

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=07&year=2008&base_name=the_shortage_of_lowpaid_journa

Actually though, Dean Baker is wrong. There are plenty of low paid journalists. They’re called bloggers. And some of them do much better than the highly paid journalists of the print media (TV media is already a basket case).

I’ve always felt that the best journalists are experts in a field who happen to be able to write, rather than expert writers who try to familiarize themselves with a field. I can cut through poor writing and still get the gist of an article. But I can’t cut through mistakes in analysis and still get accurate information. I think that’s why good blogs, written by experts in a field rather than “journalists” per se, can be so much better than the mainstream press.