What's wrong with this picture?

Today while doing research I ran across "NewsTrust," a website intended to help separate wheat from chaff in the world of journalism.  NewsTrust develops ratings on a scale from 0.0 to 5.0 to help users determine the level of trust for various news sources.

If you haven't examined the picture yet, it's time.

Notice the trend that has left-leaning agenda journalism exhibiting higher level of trust than (mainstream and left-leaning) news organizations like NPR and the New York Times?  FactCheck is probably the only independent in the group that deserves its high rating.

NewsTrust uses its membership as a giant review panel to rate news stories.  The members evidently pick the stories as they please.

Here's a sample review of a PolitiFact story I panned last year:

PolitiFact shows in this story how the Death Panel lie started and how it spread like wildfire via all forms of media; how it became part of the congressional record on 40 occassions.

Reviewers have the option of providing material that contradicts the finding of a story.  The reviewer in this case found nothing so objectionable about the story and the information she fed the system resulted in a 4.1 rating for the story.

Survey says:  NewsTrust further institutionalizes institutional media bias.  The journalists involved in the ratings will carry, as usual, their leftward tilt and that tilt is probably magnified by a membership pool with an even more pronounced port list.

It's a good idea, but badly flawed in its execution.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio's alleged You're either with me or leave the country

This is another strange fact check from PolitiFact.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Amy Hollyfield:  editor

Analysis:

Sometimes PolitiFact fact checks a strange fact.  Other times PolitiFact checks a fact strangely.  This item falls in the latter category.

To wit:

On Oct. 24, 2010, in their fifth debate of the campaign, Crist strove to paint Rubio as a rigid idealogue who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and didn’t support stem cell research. Then he turned it up a notch, saying Rubio had said that folks who didn’t agree with him ought to leave the country.

"You know, these are extreme views that I am not comfortable with," Crist said. "(Rubio) took it to a point so much so that (he) said that, you know, people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country, like Keith Olbermann."

The quotation features editorial helps (parenthetical material) prominently.  What were Crist's words in context?

MEEK: Let me just say this. Let me just say this. All right, we know why the governor is running as an independent, because he couldn't beat Marco Rubio. OK? Let's just put it that way.

(CROSSTALK)

MEEK: No, that's OK. No, no, no, no, no, wait a minute.

CROWLEY: One second, let me just ask the audience--

MEEK: Let me finish.

CROWLEY: You're going to cut into our time and they want to talk. So--

MEEK: Let me finish -- let me--

CRIST: I want to speak for myself on this point, if I can.

MEEK: You just spoke, Governor. Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Why don't you go ahead and finish your time. I promise you--

CRIST: The reason I'm running as an independent is because it's what the people want and it's what's right with my own heart. I have got to be honest with myself. The Republican Party and the right wing of that party went so far right, it's exactly why Marco Rubio stayed there, it's exactly the same reason that I left. He wants to overturn -- listen to me, women watching -- overturn Roe versus Wade. He does not support stem cell research. You know, these are extreme views that I am not comfortable with. He took it to a point so much so that said that, you know, people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country, like Keith Olbermann.

(CNN)

Crist's statement is a tad on the vague side.  He goes from two concrete examples of supposedly "extreme views" to saying that Rubio "took it to a point so much ... that people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country ..."  Took what to that point?  The two concrete examples?  Or extremism generally, so that we should understand the latter as just another example of Rubio's supposed extremism?

PolitiFact gives no attention to the details.  After quoting Crist author Bowers simply asks "Could it be true?" and passes on the justification provided by the Crist campaign:

Then, he closed the speech with a thought he said originated from Glenn Beck, FOX News' popular conservative talk show host,.

"There are millions of people in America that hate our country, so why can't we just do a trade?" Rubio said. "We'll send you Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann, and you can send us people that actually love this country and want to help us build it."

(The Palm Beach Post)

At first blush, this glove doesn't fit.  It is unlikely that a trade could be arranged where millions of people are traded for other millions.  This suggests the possibility that Rubio was making a joke.  Even a joke can have an underlying argument, of course.  But is it reasonable to suggest that the underlying argument is that those who don't agree with Rubio ought to leave the country?

This reed is a bit too thin to support the argument, and Bowers came up with little else:

Spokesman Alex Burgos offered this quick response from his BlackBerry after the debate: "It's true what Marco said, and we appreciate the governor bringing it up."

Given that Rubio's statement was about making a trade based on love of country rather than a deportation program based on agreement with Rubio, Burgos' response makes little sense.

Hoping to make some sense of Burgos' message, I asked PolitiFact writer Becky Bowers about it.  Bowers promptly responded to my email message and said she sent Burgos Crist's statement along with material from the Post and asked for the campaign's response.

That didn't do much to help me understand the reply from Burgos.  It was enough for Bowers, however:

Given the evidence, and both sides’ endorsement of it, we rate Crist’s statement True.

The evidence doesn't do much at all to support Crist's presentation, for the reasons noted above.  And the endorsement of both sides is effectively irrelevant.  If A says X is black and white and then A and B agree that A said X is not black and white it remains true that A said X is black and white.  A and B are thus incorrect in the later reports.

Bowers appears to have placed the opinions of Crist and Burgos over the facts, and Bowers did precious little to check facts other than to seek Burgos' opinion.  Minus a complete account of Rubio's speech, there was too much doubt about his message, based on the words he used, to judge Crist's version "True."  A tape of the speech would likely have helped demonstrate that Rubio spoke in jest about the proposed trade.

The grades:

Becky Bowers:  F
Amy Hollyfield:  F

Failure to note the incongruity between the Crist claim and the Crist campaign's supposed supporting evidence results in the failing grade.  This was a fact check without any real fact checking.  Doing a little research isn't always enough to support a determination, and in this case the PolitiFact team was obliged to largely ignore what primary source evidence there was in making the ruling.

Afters:

I still don't know what Alex Burgos was thinking when he gave the campaign's response to this issue.  Did he really believe that Rubio was saying that those who disagree with him ought to leave the country?  That seems doubtful, and if we were to suppose it true then it requires some explanation beyond the facts at hand.

Perhaps Burgos meant merely to affirm Rubio's message as, roughly:  "America:  Love it or leave it."  If that's what he meant then his attempt to express it pretty much counts as incompetent.

Why was Juan Williams fired? Pt. 2

Alicia Shepard, ombudsman (-person?) for NPR has weighed in on the firing of Juan Williams.

Shepard chose a missive from Mohamed Khodr, a Winchester, VA. doctor, to exemplify the objection to Williams:

"NPR must and should take a stand against this bigotry and tell Williams' he must choose NPR's code of ethics or be let go to join the racist bigoted fearmongerers of FOX,” continued Khodr. “NPR can't have it both ways."

NPR's management acted. In a statement released at 12:27 a.m. Thursday, NPR said Williams' remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

If concern existed that NPR bowed to pressure from Muslims in firing Williams, the two paragraphs above do little to help ease that concern.

Shepard tried to provide specifics missing from the official announcement:

“News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation,” said Schiller in an email to NPR member stations, some of which are upset about Williams' firing.

It's a personal public position on a controversial issue to feel nervous around persons who are obviously Muslim when the planet is experiencing an ongoing rash of Islam-linked violent extremism?

There's NPR's problem right there:  It shouldn't be controversial.  Williams' claims to the contrary notwithstanding, it is rational to experience nervousness around obvious Muslims in the current context.  It simply isn't rational to think that every obvious Muslim is a terrorist.

Lottery tickets serve to illustrate.  Suppose you see an intact lottery ticket on the ground.  It is rational to experience some hope that it is the winning lottery ticket, recognizing that the probability is low.  It is not rational to assume that the ticket is for sure the winning ticket, given the low probability.

But let's examine this ethical issue more closely.  NPR's stance is that journalists may not take public positions on controversial issues because it undermines their credibility.

Think about that for a moment.  If I hold to controversial position C and announce it publicly, I lose credibility.  On the other hand, if I hold to controversial position C and keep it secret, I have credibility.  By this measure, the deceitful journalist who hides his controversial opinions is more ethical than the journalist who is honest about the same.

What kind of code of ethics is that?

I'll tell you what kind of code of ethics it is:  It is a code of ethics designed first and foremost to give the company more control of its brand.  Regardless of the truth, NPR wants to foster the impression that its journalists do not hold controversial opinions.  NPR is lying to you.  Implicitly, that is.  For the greater good.  The greater good of NPR, that is.  Supposedly.

The firing of Williams is all about maintaining a particular image at NPR.  That is manifest as Shepard adds to the supposed justification for sacking Williams:

The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.

 And the precise wording on that portion of the NPR ethics code is:

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

I think Shepard is stretching it on this one.  The stipulation about TV (and other media) appearances occurs under the heading "Outside work, freelancing, speaking engagements."  The enumerated portions of the code follow that general order.  Williams' arrangement with NPR stipulated that he was not identified in association with NPR when appearing on Fox.

Shepard continues:

NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America.

 Sorry, but what a crock.  How does suppressing the truth that some of us feel nervous around Muslims contribute positively to the debate about the role of Muslims in America?  On the contrary, it muzzles debate regarding aspects of that role.  Don't Muslims who count as good and decent American citizens deserve the truth?

Muslims need to face the fact that their brand is tarnished, whether deservedly so or not.  The ethical response is not to suppress that truth.


Oct 29, 2010:  Paragraph 14 updated to correct an omission, with the following change:   "The greater of NPR, that is."=>"The greater good of NPR, that is."

PolitiFact is "an independent, nonpartisan journalism organization"

I had in mind to post on a particular line appearing at PolitiFact.com.  A blog I admire, Hoystory, beat me to it chronologically, and surely bested my stillborn effort in terms of brevity and wit:

Politifact.com, which is routinely an object of scorn here, has this interesting bit in its latest mailbag feature.

There are the e-mailers who criticize us generally for perceived liberal bias. (For the record, we are an independent, nonpartisan journalism organization.)

For the record, I’m often mistaken for Brad Pitt and have women throwing themselves at me dozens of times a day, begging to have my baby and showering me with expensive gifts.

Keep visiting Hoystory for more pithy ruminations on the state of journalism.

What if interviewers asked Obama about striking Iranian nuclear facilities?

Interviewers have asked Obama questions somewhat similar to that Charles Gibson posed to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. But it hasn't occurred often, and a collective memory hole seems to have eradicated the recollection that Obama's answers haven't been much different from Palin's in substance.

Here's a rundown on many of the Obama interviews, along with portions relevant to the Iranian problem.

Melissa Block greets Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention with softballs on behalf of NPR (July 27, 2004). No mention of Iran; not much reason for it in 2004.

Larry King interviews Barack Obama on CNN (Mar 19, 2007). No questions about Iran at all.

Newsweek interviews Barack Obama (July 8, 2007). No mention of Iran at all.

Charles Gibson interviews Barack Obama for ABC (Nov 1, 2007). No mention of Iran at all.

Jeff Zeleny interviews Barack Obama for The New York Times (Nov 1, 2007). No question about backing Israel, but this pair of questions end up in the ballpark:

Q. When Vice President Cheney said we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, do you agree with that?

A. What I believe is that we should do everything in our power to prevent that in the broader context of our long-term security interests.

Q. And if we fail to prevent it?

A. I’m not going to speculate on whether we’re going to fail.

How about speculating on your reaction to Israel doing everything in its power to prevent that? No? Credit to Obama on this one. With the second question his savvy was comparable to Palin's.

Linda Douglass interviews Barack Obama for National Journal (Nov 6, 2007). No questions about Iran at all.

Tim Russert interviews Barack Obama on NBC's "Meet the Pres" (Nov 11, 2007). Russert asks about Iran, and Obama reiterates that he favors diplomacy and will not take military action off the table.

George Stephanopoulos interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (Jan 27, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Politico interviews Barack Obama (Feb 12, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

The Chicago Sun Times editorial board interviews Barack Obama (Mar 15, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Gwen Ifill interviews Barack Obama for PBS (Mar 17, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

Terry Moran interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (Mar 19, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Maria Bartiromo interviews Barack Obama for CNBC (Mar 27, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

James O'Toole interviews Barack Obama for the Pittsburg Post-Gazette (Mar 31, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Chris Wallace interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (April 27, 2008). No questions about Iran.

Wolf Blitzer interviews Barack Obama for CNN (May 8, 2008). No questions about Iran.

Jake Tapper interviews Barack Obama for ABC News (June 16, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Alexis Glick interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (June 26, 2008). The mention of Iran is brief.

GLICK: Iran.

OBAMA: Threat.

Katie Couric gets the goods during her interview with Obama (July 22, 2008).

Couric: If they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

Obama: I will not hypothesize on that. I think Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on … the difficult judgment that they would have to make in a whole host of possible scenarios.

C'mon, Katie! Do a follow up! Repeat the question until he answers it!

David Horovitz interviews Barack Obama for the The Jerusalem Post (July 24, 2008), and asks a question very like the one asked of Palin.

You told AIPAC that the Israeli strike on Syria last year was "entirely justified to end that threat." Would you support an Israeli strike at Iranian facilities in the coming months if Israel felt it had no choice but to act?

My goal is to avoid being confronted with that hypothetical. I've said in the past and I will repeat that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security. But the grave consequences of either doing nothing or initiating a potential war with Iran are such that we want to do everything we can, to exhaust every avenue to avoid that option.

Sounds almost like Obama wouldn't second guess the Israelis if they felt they needed to take out Iran's nuclear sites, doesn't it?

Candy Crowley interviews Barack Obama for CNN (July 25, 2008). No questions about Iran at all.

Stars and Stripes interviews Barack Obama (Aug 11, 2008). Iran comes up, but nothing specific about striking Iranian nuclear facilities.

Q: The other big issue in the region is Iran. You spoke about that earlier today. Is there a military role in that that you see, or is it all a diplomatic role?

I think, I’ve said before that we never take military options off the table. And Iran poses a grave threat to the region. One of the constant refrains during my travels in the Middle East, not just from the Israelis but from a number of Arab observers as well, is that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would be a game-changer. It would probably trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. At the very least, it would change the balance of power so significantly that Iran would be much more aggressive in some of its activities like supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.

So we need to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon. I believe our strongest tools at the outset have to be strong diplomacy, big carrots and big sticks that can change their calculus. We’ve tended to have vague carrots and inadequate sticks in dealing with them. So they just keep on blowing through red lines that this administration has set. If we’re serious, then we’re going to have to mobilize the international community, and I think reaching out to Russia and China more than we’re doing is going to be real important.

Q: How effective do you think that will be? There have been efforts to reach out to them that have been unsuccessful.

Part of what we have to do is look at our broad, strategic relationship with the Russians and the Chinese and prioritize what are the issues that are most important in our relations with those two countries. I think that Iran ranks as high as anything. We have to listen carefully to determine what are their interests in order to secure their support.

Keith Olbermann interviews Barack Obama for MSNBC (Sept 8, 2008). No mention of Iran at all.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barack Obama for Fox News (Sept 10, 2008).

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

Another prop for Obama--he's starting to learn from his mistakes. Now he keeps his mouth zipped when there's a downside to talking specifics. Too bad he didn't do that with respect to Pakistan or Israel's intentions toward Iran.

Palin has demonstrated the better application of judicious silence, on balance.



Sept 22, 2008: Fixed a handful of typos where I substituted "Iraq" for "Iran."

Michael J. Totten in praise of Michael Yon

Is it just because their first names are the same?

Iraq is where ideologies go to die. Arab nationalism, Baathism, anti-Americanism, al-Qaidism, Donald Rumsfeldism, and Moqtada al-Sadrism have either died there or are dying. Conventional liberal opinion, more or less correct about the foundering American war effort from 2004 to 2006, has been severely bloodied—along with Iraq’s worst insurgent groups and militias—by General David Petraeus’s leadership of the American troop surge. Even post-9/11 fear of Islam has proven unsustainable for those who regularly interact with ordinary Iraqis. Independent journalist Michael Yon, who has spent more time embedded with combat soldiers in Iraq than any other reporter, is a refreshingly unideological analyst of the war. His self-published dispatches have earned him a loyal following around the world, and he has set out to reach even more people with the publication of a terrific new book, Moment of Truth in Iraq.
(michaeltotten.com)

More likely Totten respects Yon because both are independent journalists providing reports from areas that most journalists do not wish to visit.

Once Mr. Totten gets his direct link logo fixed so that I can figure out how to use it, I'll put his right under Michael Yon's under "Essential Links."

IEDs in the news

Agence France-Presse came through with a pretty good story on the armor-vs.-ied arms race, albeit with more emphasis on the latter than the former.

PARIS (AFP) — On the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and southern Lebanon no weapon poses as big a threat to Western armies' armoured convoys as the simple roadside bomb.

For more than half a decade US and European forces have been locked in an arms race with insurgent engineers, who try to build ever more sophisticated booby-traps to defeat ever stronger armour and defensive tactics.

(AFP)

For me, the thing that sets this story above much that I see is the emphasis on the precision required to design a working EFP. Last year my local paper published a piece that made it sound as easy as running to a machine shop and spending a few minutes modifying an existing bomb with a screwdriver.

*****

How long do we have to wait for Sean Penn's report on Venezuela?

It's been a few weeks since Sean Penn took his journalist's tour of Venezuela. So how long before he writes something about it?

It will be interesting to see if Penn ends up addressing President/dictator Hugo Chavez's decision to crack down on vices such as smoking and drinking--vices that I believe that Penn favors as features of his personal life. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember something about Penn seeking out a watering hole in Venezuela during his visit.

I can't remember where I read the watering hole bit, but this YouTube video touches on Venezuela as well as Penn's affinity for adult beverages:




*****

Local view of Iraqi death toll

Baghdad, Sept 2, (VOI) – The number of victims of "terrorist" explosions during the month of August 2007 reached 1,011, said the Iraqi interior ministry's national command center, discrediting as "inaccurate and exaggerated" reports that spoke of 1,773 people.
(Aswat Aliraq)

This report, though sketchy on details, seems to underscore the odd nature of the "civil war." The insurgents primarily target civilians. The technique gains them some local control of the population through fear and helps foment continued unrest, but there is no faction making any serious grab for land or political power.


I've enjoyed getting a better look at Pakistan's politics and view on the world through The News, so I'm auditioning an Iraqi newspaper, now.

Here's the mission statement, in part, for Aswat Aliraq (the Voice of Iraq):

Aswat al-Iraq will strive to be a centre for training young Iraqi journalists and media technicians, as well as instilling professional skills, accuracy and impartiality in its own reporters and editors.

The agency is managed by a Board of Directors, all of them Iraqi, and an Editorial Committee composed of:

Editor in Chief: Zuhair al-Jezairy

Editorial Secretary: Husain Mohammed Ajeel

We open our doors to all the media, dedicating ourselves to the idea that criticism is the best way to develop.

(Aswat Aliraq)

May they pursue their mission safely and successfully.

TNR makes a statement on Scott Beauchamp

The New Republic surprised me by updating their examination of Scott Thomas' Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" story.

Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
(The New Republic)

I am slightly surprised that TNR calls it an "important discrepancy." It's true that it's an important discrepancy, because of how it works into the time line of events. As Spree at Wake up America noted, the Kuwait location puts the incident prior to Beauchamp's participation in hostilities, and just a short period of weeks (or even days) after leaving Germany. The digression of character, at least in the case of Beauchamp, preceded his involvement in armed hostilities. Perhaps his friend had previous service in a war zone.
The friend's report contains an additional and more subtle discrepancy. Where Beauchamp describes an "unusually crowded" dining area, the anonymous supporting witness says "I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right." That seems like an unusual detail if the hall were unusually crowded.

TNR claimed a degree of corroboration for the graveyard tale:

More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: "I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations." On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: "It fit like a yarmulke," he said.

I wonder how the second witness contributed to the corroboration?

My problem with this story has always been the problem of having a child's skull fragment fit an adult's skull "like a yarmulke." The skulls of children, at least in my experience, tend to be smaller than those of adults. I need more than anonymous verification to accept that detail. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen, but I'm certainly skeptical. Maybe the adult had a tiny head, and the fragment came from a child with a great big skull. Not likely, but conceivable.

Spree also rightly noted that it was a stretch at best for TNR to claim that the Beauchamp account was consistent with a report of a "children's cemetary" appearing in The Weekly Standard. The anonymous witness improved on the Beauchamp account by refraining from placing the origin of the burial in the Hussein era. TNR, nonetheless, double-checked with a forensic pathologist the possibility of tufts of hair clinging to a "long-buried" skull. It seems to me that the "rotting flesh" was a bigger problem than the tufts of hair. I wonder what the forensic pathologist had to say about that?

He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut--since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

It's possible that the "joker and troublemaker" made the statement attributed to him by Beauchamp even if there were no bits of rotting flesh left on the skull. Or Beauchamp could have embellished his account.

TNR did a nice job clarifying the maneuverability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle--but I still have a problem with that account, also.

The Bradley has tracks, like a tank.

If I'm an editor for this story, I'm wondering how an animal can be "dragged" by a track vehicle by having its extremity caught in the tracks.

He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

Run the video and try to imagine it.

If the dog is caught in the tracks, the only dragging that will happen is when the body is pulled from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle with the top portion of the track. That type of dragging would be worthy of some description in an account with the type of theme that Beauchamp apparently intended.
Could the dog be caught other than in the tracks? I don't see how (and Beauchamp doesn't describe it other than being caught in the tracks), but perhaps a veteran with Bradley experience can shed some light on that point.

This one reads to me like the type of embellishment a mechanically disinclined person might imagine (when he's not thinking that people commit suicide by sticking their heads in the oven via the heat of the oven).

The doubts about this story are too substantial to be treated with anonymous and incomplete corroboration.

Journalist Kaleem Omar

In a recent post I was taken aback by the tone of a Pakistani journalist, Kaleem Omar.

According to Answers.com/Wikipedia, Omar is a poet turned journalist. Apparently his emotional approach to writing hasn't entirely eroded with the change in jobs.

Omar has an interesting approach to journalism. In the story I talked about earlier, he referred to comments by "one American Red Indian skeptic," leading me to think he may have tracked down comments by resume-enhancing former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.

No such luck. Omar seems to have culled the quotation from the commentary section of the liberal Web site Common Dreams, in response to a story borrowed from Agence France Presse:

ontheres July 16th, 2007 5:18 pm

“equitably distributing Iraq’s oil proceeds” to whom???
Let’s cut through the bull, our government is saying, “If you don’t turn over your oil, we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.
How I love the fostering of American democracy. Out on this reservation, where I live, there’s a saying: “White man talk with forked tongue.” No bigger fork than the one in Bush/Cheney tongues. Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

(Common Dreams)

Way to dig into the story, there, Omar!

How does Omar know the poster is really an American Indian?
What makes this anonymous source worth quoting, other than it may suit Omar's agenda?

I have no problem with dropping the pretense of objectivity in journalism, but responsible journalism--whatever the underlying bias--at least attempts to make a reasonable case for its editorial position.

Kaleem Omar offers us a scatterbrained polemic, not responsible journalism.