>>>Where I still have an issue is the characterization of the Post blog entry as "full of inaccuracies." In regard to a piece of journalism, that phrase means the article contains factual errors.
>
>"IMHO the Washington Post article also is full of inaccuracies and careful skirtings around the truth." For inaccuracies, start with the title. I pointed out the skirtings around the truth in my last post. I didn't call it lying by omission but it is as if somebody attributed healthcare reform to the Republicans and the WP characterized any objection as a big overreaction by insecure people because the Savior (Obama) only got a passing mention. If it's meant to be a propaganda piece then that's fine, but if it's news then give us the facts so we can decide.
>
>Re facts: it was the British and NZers who initially took in the diplomats, and it was a NZ diplomat who subsequently got them to the airport and away safely. NZ's small insecure consulate was too dangerous so the ambassador rented a safe house for them. Fortunately the Canadians then stepped up with an even better alternative. The first WP article asserts that the NZers turned away the Americans, the second says "some in New Zealand have taken those words — “Kiwis turned them away” — as implying the country did nothing to help." Sorry but that's just weasel-speak and WP should be ashamed if this is supposed to be a news piece.
>
>I'm happy to let it go as well, but the WP has shown itself to be lazy and superficial IMHO.

The misrepresentation of NZ is all over the news in most countries now of course. I found this short article interesting:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873058