Monday, December 27, 2004

Allegedly

This story just came across my desk: GOLD COAST, Australia (AP) -- A man allegedly involved in a 17-hour siege at a hotel on Australia's east coast was armed with an arsenal of bombs, grenades, flame throwers and a gun, police said Monday. OK, if the police, after a 17-hour siege, put their hands on a man armed with an arsenal, I'd say it's safe that he was involved. Not allegedly involved. Was he there or wasn't he? Was he armed or wasn't he? And if he was allegedly involved, shouldn't he also have been allegedly armed? Let's try this in a truly PC way. GOLD COAST, Australia (AP) -- A suspected man allegedly involved in a 17-hour siege at a suspected hotel possibly on Australia's east coast was allegedly armed with a suspected arsenal of bombs, grenades, flame throwers and a gun, police allegedly said Monday. How gutless has the media become when they refuse to pronounce moral judgement on a person who was caught red-handed? I'm going to drop the "allegedly" and see if I can get this story past my liberal editor. Should at least result in an interesting discussion. I once wrote a story about the Chinese general who donated $50K to Clinton's reelection campaign. By the time it got past the alleged editor, the word "alleged" appeared in it four times and Clinton's name wasn't even mentioned. Ninety percent of the power of the press is in what they DON'T report.