some atrocious reporting from the usually responsible UK Guardian
Just an example of bad conclusions from little information. The sensationalist title of this story, reprinted from the Observer, is, "Anthrax attacks' 'work of neo-Nazis,'" (which seems like bad grammar to boot - why the apostrophe after "attacks"?) and then it begins, "Neo-Nazi extremists within the US are behind the deadly wave of anthrax attacks against America, according to latest briefings from the security services and Justice Department."
But if you read the actual article, here's the closest thing they have to a quote or face supporting this:
'We've been zeroing in on a number of hate groups, especially one on the West Coast,' a source at the Justice Department told The Observer yesterday. 'We've certainly not discounted the possibility that they may be involved.'
Is it just me, or is this drawing a lot out of a little, and just confusing the situation?
posted by moth
on Oct 29, 2001 -