The American elite is almost beyond redemption. . . . Moral relativism has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning right from wrong. Everything can be explained away, especially by journalists. Life is one great moral mush--sophistry washed down with Chardonnay. The ordinary citizens, thank goodness, still adhere to absolutes. . . . It is they who have saved the republic from creeping degradation while their "betters" were derelict.

-- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

With the above in mind, I want to return briefly to yesterday's post in which I speculated about possible inaccuracies involving a "cat in the washing machine" in a story by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

I wrote an update to the post, but readers who come here looking for new posts might miss it. Because I think it's important I want to to re-stress yesterday's point: what reporters say should not be taken at face value.

While I focused on the cruelty to cats angle (which struck me as possibly untrue character assassination), I now see something worse in Mr. Evans-Pritchard's blatantly untrue claim -- asserted quite boldly, to emphasize his central point -- that the Pim Fortuyn killing had been "the country's first political assassination since 1584." A commenter named Kozinski refuted that claim with this reminder of a brutal 17th century political double murder:

Pim Fortuyn was the Netherland's first political assassination since 1584? Tell that to the De Witt brothers, who ruled Holland in the 17th century. John and Corneilius were literally torn apart by a frenzied mob in 1672 when their policy of appeasment towards France resulted in an uprovoked invasian by Louis XIV.

22 year old William of Orange (later Englands's William III) then took control, opened the dykes, and drove the French out. It helps to be reminded that the Dutch used to be made of sterner stuff.

On top of that, there was an even worse omission in the Evans-Pritchard piece. As I showed below, he ignored the 1979 assassination of Sir Richard Sykes, Britain's Ambassador to Holland.

1979: British ambassador assassinated in Holland
British ambassador in Holland Sir Richard Sykes has been shot dead outside his Dutch home.

Two gunmen opened fire on Sir Richard and his Dutch footman as they left his residence at The Hague to make the short five minute car journey to the embassy.

What I'd like to know is why?

Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on this reporter. After all, he's been around long enough to see that hardworking reporters who do the proper research get nowhere (they might even end up being punished!), while the sleazebags (those who write fictitious stories) end up being rewarded. There's probably a slippery slope there. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Maybe cat-eat-cat . . .

(Must have something to do with the "spin" cycle.)

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Some of my more politically conservative readers might admonish me for this apparent "attack" on a conservative reporter, and may wonder whether I'm becoming a cog of the liberal attack machine. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of my "attacks" (if pointing out inaccuracies is an attack) have been directed against liberal reporters -- most often those writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer. I think at minimum, I should apply the same standard to those who would replace the liberal media. I've seen enough agenda-driven reporting to dislike it wherever I see it. The extent to which I agree with the agenda is irrelevant. (Actually, the argument can be made that dishonest reporting, by harming the conservative agenda, does more damage to it than dishonest liberal reporting.)

While I know this is irrational, on a more personal note, I feel a bit betrayed, because years ago I bought one of this reporter's books, and probably fell into the "wanting to believe" mindset I'm now cautioning people against.

But please, folks, this is just some friendly advice from my hardened and cynical heart -- not to be misread as a moral lecture!