Of course, pretty much anyone in Iraq can now approach a reporter and tell their story. And the reporter, dutifully, will write it down and report it.

And of course, Tom will be waiting, ready to discredit - without evidence - any claim made.

The key phrase in this article:

"None of the claims by former prisoners could be verified."

Sounds like responsible reporting to me.

Then why publish anecdotes as though they were facts?

They did not. See, above, what you quoted as the "key phrase".

I appreciate that this is an emotional issue for you. But the press always reports on statements made by eye-witnesses, or other interested parties. How many times have you heard Kobe or Michael say they didn't do it? Concerning a quote, the only fact that a reporter must answer for is whether the person actually said what was quoted. If they go to the extra trouble trouble of reminding you that it is just a quote (again, see above), then they are being very careful indeed. (probably careful to avoid the wrath of conservative watchdogs like yourself)

The media is running with this full-tilt. What's really infuriating about them going enthusiastically into Vietnam mode, is that they haven't even changed the script.

Humorous excursion into TB-land: This is not a big story. The press should not cover it.

They're going with the same crap all over again. Look for the words "systemic, widespread, typical."

I hope that those words are unwarranted. I don't know enough to make an informed decision, yet. Certainly those words are currently warranted when asking the questions ("is it systemic, widespread, typical?"), which is something that is vitally important that we find out. Without the press, I would never know enough to answer the question.

Back then, Lt. Calley suddenly became every soldier in Vietnam, a view which John Kerry in his anti-war mode broadcast across the nation. Not every soldier. Certainly more than one, though.