Couldn't the same be said of the media's reliance on the comments of less than a dozen retired generals who have criticized Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? There are more than 4,700 retired generals in the US, and given that many are now coming forward to defend Rumsfeld's actions, what does that say about the original media coverage? The show is in the outsized and out-of-proportion reliance on the words of a few generals who have multiple reasons not to like Rumsfeld - many of them personal and professional conflicts because Rumsfeld stepped on their toes. That aspect has largely been unexplored by the media.
Actually, the headline says more about the New York Times editorial position than it does about Rumsfeld, his defenders, or even Rumsfeld's detractors. An individual who stands for all that the New York Times opposes is mocked because his supporters have come forward in response to comments and criticism by a few other generals.
Post a Comment