Armed Liberal's Paging Mel Brooks... was a darkly funny look at some pretty unfunny media malfeasance and stupidity. Lots of bloggers piling on here, and deservedly so. Of all the regimes to shill for, North Korea's has a vileness that almost beggars description. Great Duranty's ghost!
Anyway, Hugh Hewitt compiles all the blogger links and leads the charge. He isn't a real blogger because he has no permalinks, just temporary ones (Hugh, buddy, fix that!). This is his best piece, noting the LA Times' stonewalling, advancing the 'South Africa test', and pointing out that the reporter has a history of writings that raise further questions about her. Ms. Demick then sends Hugh a letter, which he mercilessly fisks.
As he should. Hugh writes:
"Demick's is a wholly contrived response, one that does not answer why a front-page story carried verbatim the propaganda of the North Korean "businessman"/"official"/intelligence agent. Given that Demick found it necessary - in her March 3, 2004 article on the scientist alleging the use of chemicals on prisoners and her February 10, 2004 article on the same subject - to include disclaimers about the ability to "prove" the allegations being made, why were no such disclaimers found in yesterday's piece? (It would be useful if the Times would make Demick's articles on North Korea available free of charge for the many interested parties to review first hand.)
But there is a bigger flaw in her argument. That Demick wrote a February 12, 2004 article on chronic malnutrition in North Korea tells us nothing about her record, and that article, as detailed as it is about the effects of hunger, never assigns responsibility for the conditions in the country, and there is nothing in the last two years by Demick that can fairly be characterized as a comprehensive or even moderately comprehensive review of the human rights record of the despot."
Yup. Here's the best test:
"Read the [annual Human Rights] report and ask yourself if Ms. Demich has fairly conveyed the gist of the State Department's report."
Implied: "...or soft-pedaled it." It's a very legitimate point. Moral clarity matters, and so does credibility and judgment.
In the past, the Times' refusal to print any of the negative letters or criticisms it has received would have ended the matter, and their disgraceful shilling for the world's most evil regime would have remained a non-issue. I'm encouraged by the accountability change that's beginning to hold reporters and editors to account for behaviour like this.