When is the media spinning “hook” headline; “General doubts Iran proof,” equivalent in either intent, context and meaning to his actual words?

Which where, [I]“these things made in Iran are being used in Iraq” added to;

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," added to;

“But I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Added to;

When asked, about the administrations reference to the Quds Force (The Iranian Revolutionary Guard) involvement in being the only Iranians who have control of such weapons, he responded;

"The Quds Force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government and, as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions, as you would expect of any sovereign government,"

How, but in a hidden punditry, can anyone, even a Livingston like pundit, manner the headline is equitant in some absoluteness that the General has said he doubts anything. Much less, that he doubts the proof that the weapons the US has presented to the world, are, in any way, NOT made in Iran, not controlled exclusively, in Iran by the Iranian Quds Force a mlitary arm of the Government, not brought from Iran and are not being used in Iraq to kill in Iraq?

When it is not ambiguous and is in fact clear from his very statement, he does not doubt anything at all, including even the Iranians government’s involvement or lack thereof.

In fact in his very words he only knows he does NOT KNOW if the Iranian Government clearly knows or is complicit in how, where and who in Iran maybe involved in getting Iranian made advanced weapons, controlled exclusively by Iranian Special Military units into Iraq and using them to kill Iraqi, American and British persons.

If there were any real effort of fair and honest reporting that does not attempt to confuse the news, by imply the opposite in its headline, as to what is in it text, the headline would have read Top US General unsure Iran is behind weapons proof.

In a world with lessening attention spans and blind predisposition to judge those they would oppose, dishonest slap and trash punditry tabloid hook journalism has become the standard and not, as in the past, the exception.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6360469.stm

A naughty headline agreed. But you have to acknowledge that the story was balanced.

Don't think the practice is that uncommon in journalists worldwide and join you in thinking that it is an unfortunate turn in journalism.

I do find it sad that you think people who use the BBC as a source for news would not be bothered to read the full story, they are probably one institution whose 'readership' could not be accused of that.

An opinion on the BBC's editorial stance in these matters http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/world_tonight/

This story (Iran suplying bombs etc to iraqi insurgents) has been around for ages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4315924.stm and I do think that the BBC have, in the past, shown only a healthy sceptcism that you expect of free journalists.

Whether the headline on this article was as politically motivated as you suggest is debatable, but there is also some debate in the media on both sides of the pond over the timing of this story regaining prominence, as well as the potential strength of the claim. eg the Technology to makes these also exists in Syria, Lebanon etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

I would rather know that our journalists have a healthy sceptecism.

ustrader: The story in question is not a MSM thing; it was what General Peter Pace was quoted on.

Seeing that anyone in the black market can sell anything, it doesn't necessarily mean that Iran did sell those weapons without the proof. (Note: trader: Your theory could still be correct. The Iranians could be using a clever method to cover their tracks.) But still General Pace should not be degraded just because he wishes to show what he knows now.



I think that the BBC reporter should have used 'unsure' too. Looking up the two definitions, one does find that there is a noun and a verb usage. Most definitely a poor choice of word, but I do not feel that it was done intentionally.

But the details of the story should make up more than what is necessary for it's actual meaning.

Grizz, I think that was entirely my point, many take the same story and spin it to a opposite conclusion. Iran makes Weapons, YES, weapons used in Iraq YES. How, who and why they got there UNKNOWN!! yet, the issue is written about "by many Democratic nation's and not so democratic MEDIA reportedy trained with fair checks and balnces to colloberate so as to be objective: on many sides, as otherwise... don't you agree?

Aren't you as tired of these one legged stories of disinformation as I am from all sides with none without sin...Like I said and Huhh noted, in the body of the piece, deep, one, if they even attempt to look for it in our low attention span "I am right" societies, which many will not, can see some balance, though in some reports, it is far more obscure, partcularly the further you get from competitive accounatbility...