from MS SLATE's summary of top US newspapers:
The Washington Post's top non-local story is a huge revisionist
piece on Pfc. Jessica Lynch's saga and concludes that the story
of her capture and rescue "is far more complex and different"
than has been portrayed by the ocean of People-like coverage....
The Post's piece on Lynch is, to the paper's credit, largely a
corrective on the Post's own anonymously sourced initial take on
her capture and rescue. She wasn't stabbed or shot as first
reported. And contrary to the original reporting, Lynch probably
did not put up a big fight; she might not have even fired. Her
M-16 jammed. Today's piece, unfortunately still citing anonymous
sources, also says up high that Lynch was "mistreated by her
captors," then waits another 65 paragraphs (really) before
mentioning that Iraqi doctors dispute that. The doctors also
dispute an Iraqi lawyer's recollection that he saw Lynch slapped.
"That's some Hollywood crap you'd tell the Americans," said one.
As for her rescue, the Post reiterates what the paper itself, in
a little noticed dispatch, reported a few months ago: Iraqi
troops had abandoned the hospital the day before and the special
ops troops weren't fired upon, didn't fire themselves, and
contrary to a mad suggestion in the British press, they weren't
shooting blanks.
One beef: Today's WP piece downplays the Post's own role in
creating the Lynch Media Myth. The WP says "initial news reports,
including those in The Washington Post" were misleading. The
reality is that the WP was the prime mover of much of that bogus
info. Consider the WP's "scoop" that landed on Page One two days
after Lynch's rescue, "'SHE WAS FIGHTING TO THE DEATH'; Details
Emerging of W. Va. Soldier's Capture and Rescue.'" Most other
media outlets just riffed off that report.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
