Is this acceptable journalism?

Here is a quote for an editorial in the Quad City Times.

Charlie Dean by many accounts was a renegade, an anti-war activist who didn't scream objections and wave signs. He worked for George McGovern, and in 1974, began a world journey. The news stories called him a "tourist," but his activism would indicate the trip was much more than that.

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1022060&t=Opinion&c=22,1022060

end of quote

Note what isn't here. Not a single source to look up. A man, dead for close to 30 years, is called a renegade and not one source is given. Not one word is offered as to what activities he may or may not have engaged in, in Laos. This was despicable and uncalled for. And, for those who think Oh goody they did it to Dean, did you sleep through the Clinton years? Were you AWOL for the war on Gore? Make no mistake about this, if Dean isn't the nominee these slimy, gross, despicable tactics will be used on whomever the nominee is. You can make book on it.

There are many accounts of Charlie Dean. For some reason, Mrs. Dean believes and Mr. Dean believed that Charlie was working for the CIA. For whatever reason, Dr. Dean doesn't. I don't pretend to know if the press acounts which hint that he was are accurate or not. But I do know, that this journalist owed his readers some sources for what he wrote and at least a mention of the other side. Neither were provided. No where in a several paragraph editorial did this person see fit to type the sentence "several people think Charlie Dean worked for the CIA". And again, don't think this slimy tactic won't be used on your candidate. In point of fact I could easily find places where it has been for every candidate if I were so inclined. I am not.

Finally on the issue that is supposedly at hand here. It should be noted that under a strict reading of the question several candidates took liberies in their answers. Several of them mentioned people who had served when he asked for people who were still serving. (Kucinich, Graham, and without naming them Kerry). But that doesn't excuse Dean who left a false impression by giving the answer he gave. He should have directly mentioned why that made him feel close to the military at the time he gave it. He didn't and that was not smart. But that doesn't give iicence for a reporter to trash the dead and to refuse to provide any sources while doing so. And it isn't the lie this reporter is pretending it is. If Dean loses and your candidate wins this journalist will do it to him or her to. Don't you dare think he won't.

of what constitutes worthwhile journalism, how can the American public at large?
I have lost all respect for so-called "journalists" with a few notable exceptions such as Pete Brewton. The turning point for me was when the local "newspaper" shamelessly exploited the suicide of an acquaintance and fellow student back when I was in college. American "journalists" should be car salesmen and Walmart associates - that's all they're good for, as far as I'm concerned.

The author seems to be saying that most people against the Vietnam War waved signs,
and because Charlie Dean didn't, he's a "renegade."

More of a poor choice of words and a strange assumption than anything else.

Anyway, you can send a letter to the editor.

to say the least. And even if that is what he meant that doesn't make up for both a lack of balance and a lack of sources.

"his activism would indicate the trip was much more than that."

is also a bit of a reach without more backup...

the rest of it about being an anti war activist is ok and pretty common knowledge.

Dean is smart in trying to change the subject and has every right to defend Charlie...but the main impact of the article is that Dean tried to give a false impression....and that is what people will remember.

:kick:

So the writer is allowed a wide use of adjectives, and not bound to be fair or objective.

Tough beans for the Deans. :-)

I will remember that when your candidate is attacked you can count on it.

So fire away. :P

One thing about the dead is that they don't care what you say about them. Dead people are reliably indifferent to our opinions. ;-)

Why yes...yes you did! So I guess you DO care about the dead, invalidating your post to the contrary.

To the Editor:
I just emailed this brief letter to the editor of the Quad City Times:
=======================================
Re: "Dean's answer reveals more than intended"
(December 23, 2003)

Your paper has taken some effort to disclose an inconsistency in Howard Dean's account of his brother. Your intent is to persuade your readers that Dr. Dean is untruthful.

The same effort has not been made in your paper's pages over the last three years to disclose the multiple untruths committed by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. Their lies are large and many.

One is forced to conclude that your paper is quick to find fault in progressive Democrats but somehow willing to look the other way when right-wing conservative members of the Bush administration repeatedly deceive the public.

Shame on you.

============

Dean might have handled the interview better, but the Bush administration is ot held to the same standard.