Tarring Iran by allegation by guess who at the NYTimes

So, here we are again. Michael Gordon (of the infamous aluminum tubes) in the NYTimes.

A shipment of Iranian-made weapons bound for the Taliban was recently captured by allied forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagon’s top officer said Tuesday.

It was the first time that a senior American official had asserted that Iranian-made weapons were being supplied to the Taliban. But Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was not clear if the Iranian government had authorized the shipment.

Gordon includes more cautions than his previous recent breathless articles about Iranian EFP's (that were just torn apart,) but again he gets into some very loose reporting in an effort to show the Iranian government is behind this.

But as relations between Iran and the United States have become more confrontational, some intelligence reports have indicated that the Revolutionary Guards might arm the Taliban in order to weaken and tie down the American military in Afghanistan.

Some intelligence reports indicated they might....

I am not debating the facts. I'm debating the presentation.

If you want to see the way this article should have been written, take a look at the AP version. Sure it doesn't put Michael Gordon on the front page, but it's a far better and less speculative article.

All of the claims are sourced. There is no vague connecting framework by the reporter to try to add meat to the claims. Just look at the difference in tone. (Or this Bloomberg version.)

(Also notice the way Gordon uses the Iranian relationship with the Shia militias in Iraq to imply a similar relationship with the Taleban. Iran has been an active Taleban enemy for over a decade, unlike the Iraqi Shia militias who it has been supporting for 30 years.

And, of course, there's no mention of the possibility that these armaments come from the black market.)

Sorry for the rant, but this is evil reporting.