PressEthic

This is a badly-written article. I clicked onto it because I wanted to know more about what was going on with the Hariri investigation. Now I’m just more confused. I think what the reporter is trying to say is that the investigation isn’t going as swimmingly as it should. But what he says is that Syria is undercutting witnesses by refuting their testimony – or killing them. Well paint me blue and call me a Smurf. Syria’s defending itself and denying the allegations of the witnesses against it? Wowee! That sure is conclusive evidence that the investigation is falling apart.

OK, maybe I’m being a bit harsh, but in all honesty, this is a very badly written article. Not only that, what the reporter is trying to do is take something that’s happened in the course of the investigation and try to make it sound really dramatic – and doing it badly. The article would have been very strong and very persuasive if the reporter had focused on the one really fishy element in the whole thing – the witness, Hussam. If he had written an article about this guy, and let the facts speak for themselves, I would have found this to be a very persuasive article. There’s enough weird material there that he really doesn’t need to pump it up with odd phrases like “Soviet-style intimidation tactics.” Soviet-style? Um, someone’s been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.