« David Brooks’ Column on John Stott | Ridge, Ashcroft and Reno »

November 30th 2004     

UN Congo Sex Scandal: LA Times Responds

Posted by: Laer at 04:25 pm

In my post of Nov. 27 post, LA Times Squelches U.N. Congo Sex Story (scroll down), I speculated about why reference to the rape of 150 12-15 year old girls had been dropped so quickly from their coverage. Reporter Maggie Farley answered the question, e-mailing me:

Much more is coming on the Congo exploitation story. You are wrong to try to read anything into it not being mentioned in the story about attempts to maintain a Central African peace agreement. We kept the focus narrow because of space constraints.



I sometimes feel as cynical as the reporters and editors I used to work with … I can’t help but think that other stories on other subjects would have included a reference — you know, Abu Ghraib references in Guantanamo stories, that kind of thing.

But undeniably, Maggie is to be commended for breaking this story. It’s a shame so many other MSM have not yet given it the coverage it deserves.

Share this Logic Bomb with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • bodytext
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • De.lirio.us
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • Technorati
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
No tags for this post.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » | Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Recent Posts:

Trackbacks/Pings

    Comments

  1. die4-peace

    January 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
    blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
    Hey son, you need to check out my cash advance now blog!

    Reply - Quote

Post URITrackback URI

Leave a Reply

[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]

Tags:
Separate individual tags by commas

« David Brooks’ Column on John Stott | Ridge, Ashcroft and Reno »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here