Pravda Prize

From USA TODAY, in an article entitled, "Ridge on defensive after terror alert"

But three days later, Ridge once again found himself on the defensive amid questions about whether he had needlessly panicked the public, using a terrorism alert based on outdated intelligence to shift attention back to President Bush after the Democratic National Convention.

It's a slimey tactic, throwing out accusations and then reporting the response as "Ridge Defends..." or "Ridge on defensive..." It's rich coming from the New York Times and USA Today both papers having employed reporters who, between them, faked hundreds of quotes and stories. Jack Kelley was a star at USA Today for twenty-one years. USA Today nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize five times. USA Today proudly reported Kelley was a finalist for a Pulitizer Prize in 2002 "for his "wide-ranging and prescient reporting on centers of foreign terrorism, often conducted at personal risk."

The risk was one of discovery. When finally forced to confront it, USA Today investigated. Kelly,they noted in their final report of his journalist fraud, accused the government so often they didn't even bother to complain. When he was caught, USA Today investigated and prepared an report. They produced a wordsy 10-part series on the investigation and their findings. A sample of their findings includes:

Pg 5 A high-ranking Treasury Department official advised a USA Today staff member that U.S. government officials were skeptical of Kelly's reporting of a money-laundering sheme. The government official warned that Kelley was embarrassing the paper. The complaint was passed to an editor and ignored.

Pg 5 A ranking Defense Department official described Kelley's reportage with an expletive. He found them harmless. (But crap.)

Pg 6 A national security analyst wrote to USA Today to describe how he had repeatedly complained about accuracy in Mr. Kelley's reporting. The analyst was insulted. And ignored.

Pg 6 A ranking intelligence official asked by the USA Team whether he had problems with Kelley's reporting declined to cooperate. He later denounced Kelley's reporting with an expletive.

Pg 6 A formal, written complaint from a foreign source, "bluntly and specifically challenging the accuracy of Kelley's work, was not responded to by anyone at USA TODAY for more than two years. We were told that the letter "somehow had been lost."

They admit Kelley "acted duplictously for years in the way he handled unnamed sources -- and his editors let him get away with it." They also let him get away without being investigated for years.

Had the information concerned government officials or corporate executives, rather than their "star" reporter, the information well might have been the basis of investigative news stories and gone into the newspaper.

Unnamed Sources
The use of unnamed sources was of particular concern to USA Today.

In light of that background, this is today's story.
-------------------
From today's article:

Ever since Tom Ridge developed the color-coded terrorist threat advisory system and first put the nation at orange alert on Sept. 10, 2002, he has faced questions and criticism about the warnings he's issued.

Did Tom Ridge develop this color-coded terrorist threat advisory system on his own?
Doesn't that imply a personal criticism?
What specific criticisms? From who?
. . .

Some have called them too vague; others have said they require too many expensive security upgrades in too many places unlikely to be targets of an attack.

Who is "some?"
Who is "others?"
What places specifically?
. . .

But three days later, Ridge once again found himself on the defensive amid questions about whether he had needlessly panicked the public, using a terrorism alert based on outdated intelligence to shift attention back to President Bush after the Democratic National Convention

Answering critism isn't being defensive. It is giving his side of the story.
He is responding. To state otherwise is to assume guilt.
Who is in a better position to determine whether warnings are justifed?
Was the public panicked?
And who determines if it was alert was "needless"?
Needless panic implies that Tom Ridge deliberately set out to frighten people without any cause except personal publicity.
. . .

The last time he said that, he was standing on the Boston waterfront, just days before Kerry's political convention, answering charges he was hyping the possibility of terrorism around the convention to grab attention from Kerry.

Answering charges from who?
What charges?
How credible are those who charged him?
Hyping the possibility of terrorism to grab attention is a serious charge. USA Today ought to be certain of their sources and share them with the public so we can assess Tom Ridge's fitness for the office.
. . .

But some questioned the timing and tone of Ridge's Sunday news conference. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean suggested it might have been an effort to bump Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry from the headlines after a convention in Boston that focused heavily on his credentials to be commander in chief.

Who specifically?
Someone other than Dean or just Howard Dean?
. . .

But other Democrats have been quietly grumbling. And that prompted Ridge to proclaim Tuesday, for the second time in less than a month, that "we don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

What are their names?
Are you implying he is a serial liar or he is just always accused of it?
. . .
USA Today was particularly incensed by the so-called plagarism of Doris Goodwin and even then dying Stephen Ambrose.

All of the blame shifting, excuse making and half-apologizing disserve readers in the same way the initial offense does. They're denied the truth. That means returning the author's credibility to its original state will be difficult.

What hypocrisy.
***************************************
We live in a serious world with dangerous people who threaten our lives. The people we have elected to government take their jobs seriously, more seriously than I expect the staff of USA Today do. The endless harping, criticism, nitpicking and backstabbing by our Vichy Media serves to demoralize those upon whom we depend for our safety and assurances for our well being. It's time to quit playing "gotcha" with our future, the safety of our children, our military, our very lives. It's time for us to get mad as hell.