Who Can't Handle the Truth?

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi viciously but deservingly lampoons 9/11 conspiracy kooks in an essay rather undiplomatically entitled “The Idiocy Behind the ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement.” Taibbi humorously examines how these persistent loudmouths undermine their own cause by making it easy for Bush defenders to dismiss credible analysts who rely on evidence that really is irrefutable, as opposed to what passes for conclusive with the 9/11 nuts.

In stark contrast to Taibbi's brilliance, Carrie Antlfinger falls flat in her gratuitous AP article about controversial university instructor Kevin Barrett. Antlfinger lamely attempts to marginalize Barrett, who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and is known for accusing the Bush gang of having planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. In her zeal to smear Barrett with innuendo, Antlfinger sees news - or pretends to see it - where there is none, and ignores her obligation to identify sources or explain why anonymity is required.

Antlfinger treats as scandalous an unedited and unpublished essay that Barrett wrote for a forthcoming compilation called “Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11.” A staffer at Barrett’s potential publisher told Antlfinger the “essay may not be in the book” when it is released to the public, but that little bit of uncertainty didn't dissuade our intrepid reporter from forging ahead with her alarmist piece of nothingness.

Antlfinger is convinced she’s onto something big, because in the preprint she mysteriously “obtained,” Barrett compares George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. But as Barrett told me on the phone, scores of famous and not so famous people have previously made the same comparison. So why do AP readers need to know Barrett might or might not get his parroting of a consensus published?

I called Antlfinger’s editor, Roger Schneider, and he claimed the work in progress is a matter of public interest since “Kevin Barrett is newsworthy” in general. Schneider didn't say what Barrett's notoriety has to do with the unremarkable material Antlfinger approaches as if she were uncovering a dirty secret, nor did he explain why Antlfinger writes in her article that the “unedited copy [was] first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press."

Why is it relevant that another news organization also acquired the transitory collection of essays, but unimportant who provided it? Schneider insisted that Antlfinger is not in violation of any journalistic or company rule, but according to the Associated Press Statement of Ethical Principles: “News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.” -- Jeff Norman