Check it out, I'm blogging about news! Valerie Plame is testifying on the Hill today, so I'm pointing you to this front-page article in today's Washington Post, which totally explains the whole thing about whether or not she was technically a covert agent at the time they revealed her name. (They get into this on the second page of the web version.) I learned, among other things, that at the CIA there is no such entity as a "covert agent" and that the CIA was pissed about her name being revealed, whether or not it was technically illegal.
This story reminded me how important it is to explain background in stories. Reporters who cover the Plame/Wilson stuff have all that stuff straight in their heads, of course, the same way I think it's completely obvious where embryonic stem cells come from. But they actually took the time to go through it in this morning's paper, and it was a great service to the reader who doesn't pay attention to these things (me).
3 comments:
I had managed to keep abreast of the Plame situation somehow but I totally agree with you - it's almost impossible to pick up a paper and understand what is going on in the world. Reporters report the happenings, but they rarely seem to explain the motives behind actions, or they assume that the reader has all the background knowledge required to understand. It's endlessly frustrating, and I'm always very impressed by people who understand current events!
I must say, Wikipedia has contributed enormously to my general reading comprehension of current events. Nice way to get a quick, generally accurate description of the background.
Ooh, interesting - I'd never thought of using Wikipedia that way. Thanks for the tip! Really, a lot of our problem is space - you just can't always say everything you want to in a story, and it's so tempting to skimp on background and fit in more of the news. (Also, to be fair, I rarely read this kind of story past the front page - it could be they're all explaining the background on A14, and I'm just not there for the party.)
No, I usually read the A14's and it ain't there either! Probably lack of space, as you suggested.
On the other hand, given the arrogance of some of the DC cognoscenti, it could be that they figure if you don't know the background, you shouldn't be reading the article!
Post a Comment