Monday, June 21, 2010

In defense of Mark Kirk

It's no secret I'm no fan of Mark Kirk, but even he deserves journalists who can get their facts straight. In a scathing column about how Kirk fled from reporters after a Metropolitan Planning Council luncheon, Chicago business blogger Greg Hinz wrote:
Mr. Kirk, of course, has been under increasing scrutiny for falsely suggesting that he was named the naval intelligence officer of the year, commanded the Pentagon's war room, came under fire while deployed abroad, and declaring he learned about the impact of guns while teaching at a British prep school for a year and at an Upstate New York nursery school.

In addition, a Pentagon official has said Mr. Kirk improperly engaged in political activities -- media interviews and Tweets -- while deployed overseas.
That's incorrect. Pentagon officials did say Kirk violated restrictions against politicking while on active duty, but those activities took place in the U.S.--while on training in preparation for his two-week stint in Afghanistan and while on duty in the Pentagon.

I have been very careful in my claims about Kirk's actions. I find it disappointing that I don't see the same care in the "professional" media.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. You are very fair and objective. The papers seem to get the main details wrong. Re the original military flap, the Tribune's take is that Kirk misstated a Naval Award, claiming it as an individual award, instead of a group award which totally misses the point. The Trib and Sun Times don't seem all that willing to cover the new elements to the story and yet, they managed to keep the dubious Broadway Bank story alive for three months.

2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home