Plausible Deniability AP Style

Sir Humphrey Appleby: But if you knew they were crooks

Sir Desmond Glasebrook: We didn’t

Sir Humphrey Appleby: But you could have made enquiries..

Sir Desmond Glasebrook: You don’t make enquiries of that sort in the city. They seemed like decent chaps and decent chaps don’t check up on decent chaps to see if they are behaving like decent chaps.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: And ignorance is worth paying 14 million pounds for?

Sir Desmond Glasebrook: Ignorance is safety it’s not a crime to be deceived and it’s not our own money is it.

Yes Prime Minster A conflict of interest 1987

The More I think about this tweet from the AP concerning the building they shared with Hamas that Israel leveled…

…and think of the last ten years that I’ve seen reporters and journalists up close both via the blog and via being credentialed press, I must say that if AP is making the argument that in ten years they were not able to see facts staring at them right in the face every single day that they did not find convenient . I must admit that it’s the most plausible explanation that could have given.

The ability of the modern press to be oblivious to facts they don’t wish to know or might prove harmful to their narrative is so well established and the ignorance of modern journalists is so obvious that the idea that terrorists could operate with impunity right under their noses for a decade is as believable as it gets.

Update: It’s been a while since I’ve gotten an Instalanche. Thanks Ed and may I state for the record that while I think pleading ignorance is the best argument they can make as they are as ignorant as you can get, in this case I presume they are lying.

Of course I’ve reached a point these days where I always start from the presumption the media is lying.

Leave a Reply