Thursday, May 13, 2004
Poolside Punditry
Glenn Reynolds links to this story from a Spectator reporter, who reports on a Baghdad poolside encounter with a well-established US magazine writer.
She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.
But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.
She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.
The screaming absence: who in the world is the writer? Why is the Spectator covering up for this woman? Is this some sort of bizarre professional courtesy, like in that Sylvester Stallone movie, "Copland?"
There's no account of moving a conversation 'off the record.' There's no mention of the conversation occurring on condition of the reporter not being named.
And even then the only reason to conceal the identity of a public figure would be if it were neccessary in order to get at a larger story.
But in this case, a group of editors actually hoping for a disaster in Iraq, and a reporter with an admitted motive for slanting her coverage--and with an editorial staff already predisposed to aid and abet her slanting--IS the story.
And the story isn't worth much without us knowing what the publication is, so we can at least make an informed assessment for ourselves when we read the mag.
Splash, out
Jason
P.S.,
The reporter also makes the following charge:
Iraq is so dangerous now that hardly any television journalists venture out of the Al-Hamra or the Palestine Hotel, where lager and post-barbecue spliffs help relieve the tension of being in a war zone. There are insurance problems and the brooding, ex-SAS bodyguards forbid any excursions. The dirty little secret is that the endless ‘stand-ups’ you see on your screens are based on no reporting at all.
But those of you who've been coming to IraqNow since its origin in November already knew that.
Splash, out
Jason
She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.
But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.
She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.
The screaming absence: who in the world is the writer? Why is the Spectator covering up for this woman? Is this some sort of bizarre professional courtesy, like in that Sylvester Stallone movie, "Copland?"
There's no account of moving a conversation 'off the record.' There's no mention of the conversation occurring on condition of the reporter not being named.
And even then the only reason to conceal the identity of a public figure would be if it were neccessary in order to get at a larger story.
But in this case, a group of editors actually hoping for a disaster in Iraq, and a reporter with an admitted motive for slanting her coverage--and with an editorial staff already predisposed to aid and abet her slanting--IS the story.
And the story isn't worth much without us knowing what the publication is, so we can at least make an informed assessment for ourselves when we read the mag.
Splash, out
Jason
P.S.,
The reporter also makes the following charge:
Iraq is so dangerous now that hardly any television journalists venture out of the Al-Hamra or the Palestine Hotel, where lager and post-barbecue spliffs help relieve the tension of being in a war zone. There are insurance problems and the brooding, ex-SAS bodyguards forbid any excursions. The dirty little secret is that the endless ‘stand-ups’ you see on your screens are based on no reporting at all.
But those of you who've been coming to IraqNow since its origin in November already knew that.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
