The Thomas Chronicles

I just watched the Wright speech at the National Press Club. If anyone had any doubts about this man, those doubts should be swept aside by now.

America knows that Wright stands shoulder to shoulder with Louis Farrakan and the radical Nation of Islam. Indeed, the Nation of Islam is providing his personal security at the moment. We know that Farrakan is anti-Semitic. We know he has an extremist view of America and is not above inciting hatred with his speech.

So the question becomes simply this: What about the “Reverend” Wright don’t people get?

Perhaps Bill Moyers, the Black ministers cheering in the crowd and the journalists clapping at the National Press Club might re-read what Wright said this morning. His statements should have incited outrage, not standing ovations.

If anything, Wright confirmed the negative things said of him.

***Update***

Why complain about the New York Times leaking vital information to the public when you have the Drudge Report leaking important information as well?

“I never thought I’d find myself saying thank God for Drudge. The infamous US blogger has broken the best kept editorial secret of recent times. Editors have been sworn to secrecy over Prince Harry being sent to fight in Afghanistan three months ago. “

Editors have been sworn to secrecy over Prince Harry being sent to fight in Afghanistan three months ago.

Drudge has blown their cover. One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again. Or perhaps this was a courageous editorial decision to protect this fine young man?

And one wonders too what extra lengths British squaddies have had to go to make absolutely certain he doesn’t get shot in Helmand province. A gorgeously contentious issue on at 7 at 4. And how often can you say that about members of the Royal family?

I don’t share this reporter’s opinion extolling Matt Drudge from breaking the secrecy. Thanks to him, every jihidist in the Mideast will be gunning for him now. Unlike many leaders in the Western world, who has lived pillow-cushioned lives without the inconvenience of suffering a bloody nose, I would like leaders who have “real world” experiences.

I’m not British so I don’t have a dog in the fight vis a vie Prince Harry. But I do care very much about Drudge now jeopardizing Prince Harry’s life for the sake of a headline. This kind of reporting got a lot of flak when the NYT and the Boston Globe does it, and it deserves some here.

Plenty of people, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign, loves to leak stuff to Drudge, and he publishes them regularly. I hope he has a bit more discernment in reporting material that could endanger people’s lives.

***Update***

Well, it seems that the Drudge Report wasn’t the one who first leaked this story to the public. An Australian magazine called the New Idea first reported it, and it was the Drudge that widely disseminated the story through his site.

Still, I echo Sir Richard’s remarks and the remarks of a anonymous Aussie soldier below:

“I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us,” said Sir Richard.

“This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations.

“After a lengthy period of discussion between the MoD and the editors of regional, national and international media, the editors took the commendable attitude to restrain their coverage.

“I would like to thank them for that and I do appreciate that once the story was in the public domain, they had no choice but to follow suit.”

Only a close circle of family and friends and as few as 15 Ministry of Defence officials were told in advance, to avoid making Prince Harry or those around him more of a target. Among those kept informed was the Queen.

…

An Australian soldier called rmpdavid, who serves in the British Army, wrote: “Well done. You broke a world embargo on this and as a result it’s most likely that a young officer (who happens to be a Royal) will now have to return from operations due to the increased risk to himself and fellow British soldiers.

“As an Aussie in the British Army I’m disgusted. Poor journalism.”

Again, Drudge may not have been the origin of this story, but he certainly made the fact of Prince Harry’s deployment well known and that’s just plain irresponsible.

Others blogging about Drudge:

Inside Charm City
Michelle Malkin
Below the Beltway

The quick, down and dirty answer is: it doesn’t. Not even for liberals.

Their latest debacle concerns a Senator McCain and his supposed romantic liaison with a lobbyist. I won’t go into the details of the story since I got disgusted with all the innuendos a third of the way through. You can read it here.

However, I will publish the response from the once respected NY Times:

NEW YORK In the wake of denials by Sen. John McCain of certain claims in The New York Times’ bombshell story on his links to a female lobbyist, the paper’s Executive Editor Bill Keller released this statement today received by E&P:

“On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.

“‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.

“This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.”

This kind of “journalism” is right up there with the “Elvis Returns” rack and the celebrity gossip columns but not as entertaining.

In light of all the scandals from the NY Times these past few years, scandals which can only be generously called “misrepresented”, their reference to “nailing down” “facts” is laughable since it is abundantly clear that they are inept at best and deliberately mendacious at worst.

It is no accident that they’ve laid off 100 members of their newsroom staff in addition to the 500 they laid off back in 2005.

I think it strange that a paper with credibility issues is defending its positions on presumed credibility. If they want to restore their credibility, the “trust me” line from them is probably not the way to go.