MEDIA WATCH MUGS MUGGED

In a recent column on multiculturalism in The Australian Mark Steyn recounted Johnelle Bryant's early 2000 encounter with Mohammed Atta. Relying on the 9/11 Commission report as a factual source, Media Watch concluded that Bryant's story was groundless and that Steyn's column was therefore factually incorrect. As it turns out, Bryant could well have been telling the truth:

So, despite the 9/11 Commission's touching faith in US immigration's "record" of June 3rd 2000 as Mohammed Atta's first entry to the US, military intelligence puts him on American soil in 1999.

So much for the Aussie TV guys' only factual dispute with my column. Better luck next time, fellers. The only mugs here are the "Media Watch" team: I don't know what makes a good media watchdog, but surely an unquestioning acceptance of an "official" report ought to be an instant disqualification. Some of us are on record at the time as querying both the Commission's shameless politicking and the bureaucratic mindset of their conclusions. It turns out there's quite a few people who "do not appear" in their final report - not just Ms Bryant but also US Army intelligence. The scandal here is that for political reasons the Commission wedded itself to some predetermined conclusions - of which the Atta timeline was one critical factor - and then excluded any evidence that contradicted it. A real "Media Watch" would be investigating why media outlets like "Media Watch" fell for it.

In our correspondence with ABC, I offered to do a live interview with the show, but they wimped out. My offer of a live interview on Johnell Bryant, Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 Commission and anything else still stands - anytime they feel they're up to it.

Click the link above to read Steyn's full response to Media Watch – it contains all the appropriate links.

Tim "Fact-Check-Boy" Lambert might want to reconsider any future reliance on Media Watch as a factual source after this little effort:

Media Watch points out a couple more problems with Bryant’s story. The 9/11 Commission Report has a detailed description of Al Qaeda’s planning of the attack and clearly did not find Bryant to be credible. Furthermore, Bryant claimed the encounter occured in early May, but Atta did not enter the US until June 3.

Instead of making a correction, Steyn compounded the error by insisting that Bryant was right and the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Steyn claims that Atta could have entered the US before June 3 in a visit that US immigration failed to record. Unfortunately for Steyn’s theory, Atta did not get a US visa till May 18, so he could not have entered before then.

Hey, here's an idea for the Media Watch crew, why not get Lambert and Steyn on the same live show and let them hash it out? That's one episode of Media Watch I'd watch for sure, you know, for the same reason I gawk at road accidents.

Update: If Fact-Check-Boy's link doesn't work for you, copy and paste the following:

http://timlambert.org/2005/08/steyn-vs-reality/#comments