I've been having a rather interesting "chat" with Peter David, some hack at over at the Economist, about the quality of their Iran coverage. David is acting all upset that I've dared to call the Economist a "mouthpiece" - which they most obviously are.
Proof? Heck you don't have to look too hard. Here's the latest example of the Economist's bias:
"Mr Ahmadinejad's fiery talk goes down well at home, and the stand-off with the United Nations, and in particular with the United States, over Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme continues." SOURCE: A winter of Iran’s discontent? Economist, UK, Jan 18, 2008
Which "nuclear weapons programme" would that be, David? Lets see now...after 5 years, the IAEA has said that they still haven't found a nuclear weapons program in Iran. In fact, quite recently, 16 American intelligence agencies supposedly agreed that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration doesn't even claim that Iran has a nuclear weapons program (only that Iran is seeking a "nuclear capability") ... and yet here's the Economist talking about the "Iran's nuclear weapons programme" as if its existence is an established fact.
And you call that accurate journalism? Is it my fault the Economist is so obviously promoting bullshit, David?
Mind you, that's just the latest embarrassment by the Economist. They've published worse before.
Comments