I don’t think you really understand the situation. Watada gave her an interview and she turned it into a glowing piece on “this beautiful man of conscience in jail.” She took his quotes and reproduced them in her piece. The question she will be asked in court is to verify that she represented his words accurately. That’s it. When you ask how she could be called a “propagandist,” the general definition of that word is someone who writes a story from a pre-determined point of view and dismisses any contrary facts that veer from that POV. We do have a lot of “propagandists” here in this country and most are employed at our nation’s newsrooms. And by the way, it is possible to be both malicious and stupid.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

So what is wrong with this woman? Just one thing. She isn’t really a journalist. She is a propagandist. She doesn’t want to go testify because she agrees with LT Watada, and those common beliefs are more important to her than what she sees as feeding ammo to the “evil-baby-killers-who-are-going-to-throw-this-beautiful-man-of-conscience-in jail”. She is just running around, projecting the image of a lone woman fighting for the truth and the soul of this country while being held in the clutches of the maniacal military-industrial complex. She’s a left-wing politically biased advocate hiding behind a grotesquely built shield of pseudo-journalism;

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Sure, it doesn’t sound like her legal arguments have any basis. She doesn’t want to testify and she’s whining about it. How do you make the leap to “propagandist”?

If being wrong makes one a propagandist, we have a few hundred million of them in this country.