National Post: why it published the Iranian badge story (TRUTHINESS!)

[Harper_is_Bush]

Wednesday 24 May 2006
National Post explains why it published the Iranian badge story

The National Post explains it had four sources confirming the truthfulness of Amir Taheri’s allegations and that the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to invalidate the story.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=1560

Translation: we were wrong, but it wasn't our fault. The Iranian Embassy never TOLD us we were wrong!

Check this commentary from this neo-con zionist website:
"This unfortunate incident should not, however, distract from the fact that Iranian law systematically discriminates against non-Muslims."

[Kagemusha]

1. Marc Ash's partial apology was more convincing.

The National Post explains it had four sources confirming the truthiness of the allegations. (i.e. this is what four sources believed, or wanted to believe, or at least wanted to be SEEN to believe, is true.)

Even TruthOut sounded better.

...Okay, actually it didn't. But I wanted to believe that it did. My apologies.

[Igel]

2. There's been a rather severe outbreak of this particular

virulent strain--it's apparently quite infectious, and can be communicated bit by bit.

At least in Taheri's case you can see how the screw-up happened, in a game of telephone: (a) There is a dress code, of sorts, pushing clothing that is oddly described as "Islamic" (and which seems to mean "of domestic production and compatible with the most blunted-edge conservative stylistic trends of 1123 CE); (b) The kind of legislation it was assumed to entail wouldn't be novel, either in Iran or in shari'a. The same is true for the Leopoldering of DU.

The lurid tale of deceit and subterfuge known as Macbeth, however ... that's a completely different kettle of crap.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Given Taheri's background ,I don't think it was a screw up

He's a supporter of the Shah's son, and a member of 'Benador Associates', a PR firm used for putting out Middle Eastern propaganda on behalf of the Bush admin - see eg

Also shocking is the case of Benador Associates, "a high-powered media relations company that acted as a sort of booking agent" for Middle East "experts" affiliated with neoconservative think tanks. The agency helps clients secure interviews on TV news programs, schedule speaking appearances and place op-ed pieces in major newspapers. Benador's clients received an extraordinary amount of publicity in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Rampton and Stauber note that this "was all the more striking in comparison with the slight attention that media and policymakers paid to the 1, 400 full-time faculty members who specialize in Middle East studies at American universities."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/27/RV155399.DTL

Here's a list of Taheri articles: http://www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php

Note that he doesn't often write for the National Post; but it's a Canadian paper, so it is regarded as somewhere the White House or Pentagon is allowed to plant false stories.

[Kagemusha]

4. Shocking academic experts ignored in favor of paid propagandists?

Gee, someone real naive writing there that this is "shocking" somehow. Real naive indeed.

Anyway, yeah, I have a hard time seeing how this is a bug and not a feature.

[Igel]

7. Eh.

The same could be said of Leopold, and the willingness of so many that pushed Macbeth's tale. They have clear agendas. That always makes them (all) suspect, but that's about all it does.

They're all wrong, even though they're all standing by their stories with the resolve of hyenas. Why they're wrong is either a matter of facts or truthiness. Since we don't know the facts that allow us to reach the truth (or something that's close to the truth), we're left with speculation. If we reach something we consider to be the truth without the facts, we've abandoned the need for facts (at least at present), and reach for a bottle of Big T.

The rest is ad hominem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. No, someone was making things up

Someone had to have originated the lie about "yellow stripes" and "red stripes". Taheri is a prime suspect - he used to edit a newspaper, so it's not as if he's unused to the idea of checking a fact before it's published. Even if it was one of the 2 Canadian expats who came up with the story, why was it never checked with a reporter in Iran? Taheri was either a willing accomplice, or he made it up himself.

[Igel]

12. Yes, somebody made things up.

That's the essence of 'telephone', people introduce innovations into what the original text was. Do they lie? That is, do they know what they're saying is false, and still want the person they're talking to to believe them? Dunno. Not every misreported story is known to be false by the sources or the reporter. Some surely are, but which ones are false due to telephone-style embellishing and which ones are false because of willful dishonesty, I usually can't tell. I can suspect, but there's been quite enough of taking suspicions and beliefs to be facts, I don't want to add to it unless I have to.

It may well be that Leopold and/or Taheri lied, making up their stories; it may be that their sources lied, making up *their* stories; it may be that they consciously embellished their stories and added details that they knew they didn't remember. But that's different from saying that it was the same as in 'telephone', where there's abundant falsehood but nothing usually called lying. At least in the version we played when I was a kid. Both are adults and should have known better; both should have checked their sources, and operated within the confines of what they could confirm. It appears neither did.

The same could be said for the people publicizing Macbeth's version of reality. Much of what's been said here and elsewhere is fairly easy to verify, and his story bristles with details begging for validation. But nobody could be bothered; in fact, instead of subjecting Macbeth's story to a sound critiquing, people went along with it, and many want to defend it because it confirms just what they've known right along. Is Macbeth lying? Is he delusional? Dunno. They know there's rampant war crimes on the ground, and Haditha by itself isn't enough to qualify as 'rampant'.

There's no excuse for either Taheri, Leopold, or the Macbeth videographer--or those consuming their product--to not have sat back and said, "You know, I just don't know about these so-called facts. I want to believe they're true, but they don't check out. I'm just going to sit on this until there aren't so many inconsistencies. Now, where's the beer?"

[Supersedeas]

5. what was the WH's excuse

[Spazito]

6. I can't find this "explanation" on the National Post's site

I may be just missing it but I checked the front page, the editorials and the columnists links and nada. It is interesting that this explanation of the NP explanation is only, as far as I can find, in a publication other than the NP itself.

[Bossy Monkey]

8. If you follow the link in the OP (you'll have to shower afterwards;

the site is repulsive) you'll find another link at the bottom of the National Post item. This leads to the National Post's retraction, or anyway the first paragraph thereof. Unfortunately, you have to register and pay to see any more of it.

[Spazito]

10. Thank you for this, it is VERY interesting the NP will only let

it's readers know how their egregious error happened if they pony up money, that is beyond disgusting but not surprising.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. Reuters: National Post apologizes for anti-Iran story

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-24T162927Z_01_N24288458_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-PAPER-CA-COL.XML

I haven't read it yet, I'm going to go read a free copy at the coffee shop.

It's long, apparently, so I expect there will be a dose of "we were wrong BUT..." bullshit in there.