Vores dækning af Plame-sagen skyldtes ønsket om at give et korrigeret billede af en meget omtalt sag, hvor der blev lagt større vægt på fakta, end medierne normalt gør.
Problemet med den slags er, at så er der mange andre sager, man også burde dække.
Her er f.eks. et uddrag fra WSJ om Wolfowitz, der tilsyneladende er genstand for en klassisk framing. Efter at gennemgå noget så banalt som kilderne, hvilket de fleste MSM ikke lader sig forstyrre af, konkluderer avisen bl.a.:
Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn't allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a "conflict of interest" that was no fault of her own.
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind. Mr. Melkert, a Dutch politician now at the U.N., seems to have played an especially cowardly role.
Det bedste, man kan sige om dækningen i danske medier er, at den er på niveau med de øvrige europæiske MSM. Desværre.