"100 Iranians Tried for Disputing Election: Prosecutor Says U.S. Abetted Them," by Thomas Erdbrink. (Washington Post Foreign Service. August 2, 2009.)

What evidence do they have besides confessions? The reporting has been very poor or the prosecutor(s) have presented nothing but alleged confessions. The reporting hasn't said how long such trials in Iran take, what's usually covered, what the threshold is for convictions in terms of evidence, etc. Why is the reporting so utterly poor?

These news agencies have millions and millions to spend. They have supposedly trained, college-educated journalists from major journalism schools (majored in journalism, holding degrees in journalism). Are the reporters that bad; or are the editors or others trimming the articles? Is it something else? Are the reports being censored/edited by the CIA?

As the trial progresses, will the mainstream media do a better job?

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.