Topic: Accuracy in Media
In our recent ConWebWatch article on Anthony LoBaido's reporting on South Africa for WorldNetDaily, one passing mention caught our eye: a claim that Steven Hatfill, the scientist suspected but never charged in post-9/11 anthrax attacks, had ties to extremist South African militias. A Dec. 20 Accuracy in Media column by Cliff Kincaid, which runs once again to the defense of Steven Hatfill, reminds us of that again.
We have no idea of Hatfill's culpability in the anthrax attacks, but we wondered: In all of its defenses, did AIM previously mention this unusual connection? Turns out it did -- but downplayed it and otherwise explained it away.
An August 2002 AIM Report states:
An association with the "white racist" governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa makes Hatfill an easy mark and target. He is politically incorrect. From all appearances, Hatfill appears to be an anti-communist who believed that the U.S. was vulnerable to a chemical/biological attack, and he worked on ways to counter those threats.
That's all the detail AIM serves up about this, aside from the occasional reference to his "background as an anti-communist in Southern Africa." In AIM's eyes, apparently, being anti-communist is enough to trump the fact that Hatfill has associated with violent white supremacists. Go figure.