Dead wood

This is not a post on the relevance of the Lynndie England case. I saw this article in the Oregonian this morning. What I would like to point out, actually, is a perfect case of the journalist in question, who happens to work for the LA Times/Washington Post news service, placing his own views in the article he writes.
In telling the story of how the judge has rejected the guilty plea of Pfc. England, Reid states:

But the judge's rejection of her guilty plea -- together with evidence at her sentencing hearing that senior Army commanders tolerated chaotic, dangerous and illegal conditions at the notorious prison outside Baghdad -- could undermine the Pentagon's assertion that the Abu Ghraib scandal was solely the fault of a small clique of enlisted soldiers.

Really? That's funny, nowhere else in the article does Mr. Reid give any indication where that deduction came from except his own head.
He leaves out the small fact that Abu Ghraib has been investigated down to the nub, and the Army declared that it was a local issue and has accused all the people they are going to accuse. Frankly, Mr. Reid has no evidence to back up this OPINION of his, and since journalists seem to be able to write articles that contain their opinions, I seem to trust news articles less and less. Especially from the LA Times, Wa Post and NYT.