Here's a specific example of what I wrote about yesterday. Today, Instapundit starts out a post with the sentence "MORE ON LOOTING" with an excerpt from an uncredited source that says that press reports are "hysterical", they don't mention that a lot of the looting is on institutions linked to the regime, and ends with
It's not clear if this whale of an omission reflects disingenuousness or genuine ignorance.
The Instapundit then adds "Probably healthy portions of both." He includes a link to the article, and if you bother to click it, you find that it points to the New York Post. There is no mention in the entry that the quote comes from the Post, so if you just skim the Instapundit, you might believe that it's from a credible source, not just another Murdoch run rag.
So what did Glenn actually add to the debate? Certainly not a fact. Here is an article on CBSNews.com
Opportunists have seized whatever they can - looking for an easy windfall, revenge against the regime or even battlefield mementos.
Here's one from CNN
"Imagine the frustration of people after 25 years of repression by an evil regime," he told reporters on Tuesday. "They are only letting off steam, they are only really attacking Baath Party buildings and symbols of the regime."NY Times
For the second day, bands of looters had the free run of wide areas on both banks of the Tigris, breaking into at least six government ministries and setting several afire, as well as attacking the luxurious mansions of Mr. Hussein's two sons and other members of his ruling coterie.
The main differences between these articles and the one the Instapundit points are: (a) They come from reliable news sources and (b) they are from balanced reports that actually mention that eye-witnesses in Iraq have seen indiscriminate looting.
So, the Instapundit has just dumbed down the debate. Unlike Glenn and the New York Post, I don't have to wonder whether this is from "disingenuousness or genuine ignorance", because I believe that he is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. I spent about five minutes in Google to find rebuttals to the argument, and I expect Glenn to do the same. Before you post and agree with an outrageous claim, wouldn't it make sense to see if it's correct, considering how easy it is to do so? Guess not.
Here is the link to the Instapundit post
that I am referring to.