Later, after noting that Priest had been subject to past criticism for “jeopardizing national security”—but not substantiating that bold characterization, either—the piece notes that Arkin has “been a source of controversy, such as the time he called the U.S.’s volunteer Army “mercenary” in a column, drawing the ire of Bill O’Reilly….” But Hagey provides no further context to Arkin’s views, which are more complex than what her piece makes them out to be. And the “controversy” seems only to exist among right-leaning pundits known for taking things out of context.
The Post’s series is a serious and substantial piece of political journalism. That William Arkin has worked as a blogger for the newspaper does not, in itself, call into question the quality or veracity of his most current work. More importantly, criticisms lobbed at him by a single partisan Web site which has a reputation for skirting the truth are far too thin to form the basis of serious criticisms of “Top Secret America.”
Unfortunately, Hagey’s piece seems geared to manufacture controversy rather than actually report on it.
Well, if that's the best that the targets' PR folk can do as "damage control", it'd seem to be a pretty strong story, or set thereof.
#1 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Wed 21 Jul 2010 at 06:21 PM
When nearly one million people have Top Secret clearances you really have to wonder if we have too much needed material classified. That, or it could be that because anyone in the armed forces above the grade of 01 or E-4 have Top Secret clearances skews this raw number a bit.
Speaking of out armed forces, Arkin nearly cost one of the most competent warriors our Army had, General Jerry Boykin, his career based on allegations of controversial remarks Boykin supposedly made at a religious function in order to damage an administration he despised. I say “allegations” because Arkin refused to release either the transcripts or the audio from the event.
Sounds a little like the whole hubabalo around Shirley Sherrod. Oh, I know, that’s somehow “different”.
Couple that with Arkins comments that our armed forces are “mercenaries” and that they should be glad we aren’t spitting on them and calling them baby killers.
More importantly, criticisms lobbed at him by a single partisan Web site which has a reputation for skirting the truth are far too thin to form the basis of serious criticisms of “Top Secret America.”
I’ll remember that the next time CJR bases an article largely off of a link from Media Matters for America.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 21 Jul 2010 at 08:03 PM