More Shoddy Journalism
Now if the media wants to run articles on conspiracy theorists, that is fine, controversy sells papers. But it is just bad journalism to promote their causes without even asking the most basic questions. In this case the Arizona Republic runs another puff piece promoting the Chandler conference. It included this gem:
Marrs, who has written about the Kennedy assassination and other topics, said there are problems with the official story of Sept. 11.
"No one has offered up any proof of who these hijackers actually were," he said. "According to the European media, half (of the alleged hijackers) are still alive in the Middle East, meaning their identities were stolen."
It is now up to half? Jim Fetzer insists it was 5,6 or 7. You would think the fact that they can't even agree on a number would indicate the credibility of their claims.
Update: The Feathered one takes on this story too. He calls up the reporter and gets an interesting response, err... non-response:
If Scott or any of her editors at the Repugnant had bothered to use the Google search engine on their ‘puters, they might have discovered information on the conference’s anti-Semitic ties, the controversy over Eric Williams being involved, and the origins of some of the fables being peddled by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. But both Scott and her editors are LAZY JOURNALISTS! I called Scott, and all she could muster in response was “I don’t like to comment on my work.” Don’t like to comment? What sort of pathetic excuse for a reporter are you? How can you be a member of the fourth estate and not be prepared to defend your reporting, or lack thereof? What a joke.
Labels: 9-11 Accountability