The Jim Ball prize for media dupes is shaping up as a very tight contest.
We note The Australian’s Mark Steyn has renewed his run for the prize today.
But we don’t have room to deal with him here.
So until next week goodnight.
Australian taxes paid for every word of that. Meanwhile, Andrew Richards writes:
I will give $2,000.00 to the Salvation Army when Media Watch admits they were wrong on any major matter (other than, for example, screwing up an expose of the Wangaratta Courier for getting the footy score wrong again), i.e. on something important (like Steyn).
Or even if they expose the cutting and pasting or other journalistic shabbiness that is carried out by their lefty mates (such as Teflon Phillip), i.e. something serious.
Unfortunately (for the Sallies) I think my money is safe.
Andrew will provide copy receipt of payment upon loss of his bet.
UPDATE. Tim Lambert thinks “Abel Danger” is a person:
Abel Danger did not find that Atta was in Brooklyn before June 2000. In fact he stated that they had no firm evidence that he was in Brooklyn.
UPDATE II. Former Canberra Times staffer Steve Crispin writes to Media Watch:
The picture you showed of Jack Waterford, editor in chief of Canberra Times, on your show on Monday the 29th August 2005 was not Jack Waterford at all. Having worked at CT until recently, I can say I have no idea who that was as it was no one I recognise, but it certainly wasnt Jack. Perhaps you should update your library file pics. Its not like they dont print his pic every week in their newspaper.
And MW moderator (and executive producer) Peter McEvoy replies:
I’m afraid your right – apologies to Jack.
MW can’t even run the correct picture of a local media identity (or spell you’re) yet they presume to lecture Steyn on the possible movements of terrorists within the US five years ago. Sweet.
(Via Nora in comments)
UPDATE III. Tim Lambert thinks it’s terrific fun to rip off someone’s site (and then dodge phone calls and emails requesting an explanation). But mock his clumsy writing and Lamby wails with indignation:
If Blair’s reading comprehension skills were any good he would have noticed that I consistently referred to the Able Danger team as “they”. The word “he” in the sentence Blair quotes refers to the official who was talking to Jehl about Able Danger. Blair’s response is characteristic of the unserious and superficial nature of his blog. He has no substantive comments on Bryant or Able Danger, just repeated assertions that Steyn is somehow correct and a lame attempt at point-scoring with an out-of-context quote.
UPDATE IV. Now he’s even whinier:
Blair has added another update—now his story is that he understood what I meant and all he was doing was mocking my “clumsy writing”. Even if this is true, it means that the sum total of his contribution to the discussion in five posts on Steyn and Bryant has been to discover a typo in the Media Watch transcript and some “clumsy writing” in one of my posts. Look up “superficial” in the dictionary and you’ll see a picture of Blair.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.