Another one bites the dust . . .

In Britain another anti-war publicist gets the knife (how eerily like the editor in McEwan's Amsterdam . . . . ). On both occasions a journalistic over-reaching drew attention away from what were arguably correct and highly news-worthy stories. On both occasions the people involved were too ego-gorged to be willing to do the mature thing of taking one step back so as to advance two steps.

Naive Questions: Why is it so hard to concede what should be conceded so as to get back to the truth of the matter? And why so cavalier about the truth of important details in a prosecutorial brief?

Answer?: The only reason I can think of is that the anti-war left have become so convinced that Bush/Blair 'lied' (and got away with it) that in 'fighting back' anything goes, including a like casualness with truth. Problem is, Bush/Blair didn't lie. Lying is a serious business. When and if they do (and experienced politicians are much more adept at 'managed truth'), they will receive the same fate as Gilligan and Morgan.

Bottom Line: A little less reading of the quasi-hysterical works of Moore/Krugman/Franken and a little more reading in manuals of journalistic ethics (or the Nicomachean Ethics for that matter) might be a smart career move for aspiring 'crusading' journalists and editors.

Awesome PS: What a sound-bite this was:

Col David Black, a former commanding officer of the regiment, said: "It is time the ego of an editor is measured against the life of a soldier."

I wonder how long he rehearsed it before going public . . . . [Ed: Do you recall the Foreign Secretery's wife's sound-bite in Amsterdam, which spelled the end for the editor character in that book? - Life imitating art indeed. But they are effective because they are true.]