|
|
December 21, 2006Sir, that’s not quite what I saidRegular readers know I generally do not respond to criticisms of this blog by other bloggers - or by anyone, really - I figure people are entitled to their opinions about me, as long as they’re quoting me accurately. So I was not inclined to comment when Mr. Eric Boehlert wrote this column on December 11 in which he took several bloggers to task for daring to question the AP and for (gasp) actually minding the fact that the AP seemed disinterested in seeking out whether one of its headlined stories - concerning the burning alive of six human beings in Iraq, and the destruction of 4 mosques - was in fact true, and whether their oft-quoted source, one Capt. Jamil Hussein, was a real, and credible, source. Boehlert mostly quoted my words correctly and since I had already made a point of admitting (within an update to the post) that I had been “writing mad…and that’s never a good idea,” I figured I had left myself open to some criticism and was willing to overlook the fact that “mostly” is not “wholly.” And too, I figure people pretty much see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, so I didn’t see the point in clarifying myself further. However, Boehlert has written a second column on the subject and - while I have written very little further on that story (because I am not the “warblogger” he keeps calling me, and I generally write about what is interesting to me of a moment) - he’s still quoting my weeks-old post, and quoting it badly. Writes Boehlert: Warbloggers, stressing their contempt for the First Amendment — “The government needs to slap down the press,” urged The Anchoress — would prefer that information about the war in Iraq be disseminated only by the United States military, despite the fact the bipartisan Iraq Study Group just concluded that for years the U.S. military wildly underreported violence inside Iraq. Well…that’s crap. First of all, what I wrote was, “The government needs to slap down the press and demand some accountability,” which is very different from “the government needs to slap down the press.” I never have - and never would - advocate the government “shutting down” (or shutting up) the press, which is what, in leaving off half my sentence, Boehlert is implying. What I have advocated - endlessly - is the government keeping the press honest by saying to it, “oh yeah? Who are those ’some’ you quote as ’saying’ this? Where is your evidence to support this charge?” And those are not unfair questions to ask the press…although lately they do seem to think it is. Really, they’re just checks and balances. I think little of Boehlert’s charge that “warbloggers” (of which I am not one) have contempt for the first amendment (here is a hint, sir, the first amendment is all that allows bloggers -”war” or otherwise - to blog freely. Why would any blogger be contemptuous of it? The one statement bloggers writing from both the left and the right can agree on is at we adore the first amendment. Whether Nancy Pelosi feels the same way is actually the more interesting notion.) I think even less of his idea that these so-called warbloggers “would prefer that information about the war in Iraq be disseminated only by the United States military,” which is insulting to both intelligent bloggers and the military, and I find odd his assertion that “The warbloggers’ strawman is built around the claim that if the AP hadn’t reported the Burned Alive story…then Americans would still gladly support the war in Iraq.” When in heaven’s name did any of us ever utter such foolishness? What many of us have said that the press seems to be ignoring any positive news and working to destroy public support of the war on terror in all its forms - what with fauxtography issues and doubtful sources and the narrative that we only went to war because of Saddam’s WMD, and the whole Wilson/Plame/Niger Yellowcake non-story that aimed to cast doubt on America’s movtives, and the NY Times’ completely inaccurate report on what 5 judges had to say about the NSA foreign wiretap program - but why go on, that’s just more of people seeing and hearing what they want to, right? Right, so let’s move on. Boehlert wrote, “The warbloggers’ deliberate and daily condemnation of wartime correspondents as being cowardly, unethical, and un-American is likely unprecedented in American history…” Well, yeah, blogs are new and so pretty much everything connected with them is unprecedented. But as a lifelong avid consumer of news and news-by-products, my own opinion (and I suspect I am not alone) is that the press’ embrasure of “fake but accurate” truthiness and “prove-the-negative” accusation as the acceptable new journalistic standards is equally unprecedented. Or, maybe not. Maybe the press has always operated exactly as it operates today, and we simply never noticed before. For all Boehlert’s angry writing, this fact remains: The AP has reported that multiple mosques were burned down and multiple human beings were burned alive. Within the report, they quoted a source they’ve used often - so often that a blogger noticed and said, “hmmm, who is this guy, is he legit?” And that raised* other questions. If four mosques were burned, why are there no pictures of them? It Captain Jamil Hussein is a ready source of information why is this ubiquitous and apparently terrain-familiar fellow so hard to find? If six people were burned alive, where are the families keening for the cameras, or at least speaking to the press? And that raises* other questions, too. If the AP values its credibility why does it offer nothing to back up its story beyond it’s statement that it “stands by” the thing? Why would it not seriously investigate and address the questions about this story in a comprehensive manner - one that either validates their story with something solid, or re-assures its readers that, having been misinformed, the AP is redoubling its efforts to present the news with accuracy. That would be the professional and mature way to address all of this - and it would quell the bellyaching of the bloggers, too. Instead, the AP seems content to do some piecemeal track-covering and “let slip the dogs of war” upon those troublesome bloggers. It seems odd to me. One of the things we all learned from both the Nixon and Clinton administrations is that “the coverup is worse than the the thing you tried to hush.” If the AP had simply looked into its own story with professional concern for accuracy, (instead of defensively closing ranks and trying to bite those who dared to question it) and then either verified it or corrected it, this whole matter would be dead and long-forgotten. Instead, it just goes on and on… Classical Values has a great piece on all this and Stephen Spruiell says Boehlert has a point, but he kills it all by himself through his own excesses. *Note: ["Originally read "begs the question," - admin] Related: That famous “warblogger” Instapundit rounds things up with a raised eyebrow and remembers some stuff the press would probably prefer he forget. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/12/21/sir-thats-not-quite-what-i-said/trackback/ 20 Responses to “Sir, that’s not quite what I said” |
December 21st, 2006 at 11:25 am
isn’t really sad, to see some liberal advocates rush to alarmsist rhetoric, screaming ‘censorship’, while failing to address the vivid slander, deceit, fabrication intended for political manipulation?
is freedom of expression a right to vilify unjustly?
is the modern liberal-progressive, (the strident Democrat Partisan), not concerned with the truth?
are they afraid of handling conceptions that prove their perception is misguided?
or do they recognize the dishonesty, and simply hope for more, believing it will help with their agenda?
December 21st, 2006 at 1:11 pm
[...] Bloggers have been taking a bit of abuse lately, between Boehlert at Media Matters here and here , Lowry at National Review and the Wall St. Journal. As with media criticism, some of these complaints against bloggers are justified, some are ridiculous, and some completely miss the point. Perhaps the most enjoyable part of this whole debate is that, in their complaints about bloggers, the media keeps committing the very same sins of which they accuse us. The Anchoress has been quoted out of context and repeatedly called a warblogger - something that she obviously isn’t. But the person doing the criticizing doesn’t let the facts get in the way of his rhetoric. She administers a well-deserved smackdown here. [...]
December 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Take heart and remember what Gandhi said:“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
MSM ignored bloggers, then laughed at them. Now it’s fighting them. So… what will happen next?
Very Merry Christmas to you.
December 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
[Double post deleted. Comments are now moderated on this blog, so if you do not see your comment immediately, it usually gets released pretty quickly.] - admin
December 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Baghdad’s Own Lieutenant Kije
CENTCOM says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police — Part 23 — Continued from this post. Solvalogging: Jamil Hussein… Baghdad’s Own Lieutenant KijeHatched by Dafydd So John over at Power Line sez,I assume that Associated Press reporters …
December 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
The looseness of “MediaMatters” suggests media doesn’t matter and that it’s there for entertainment, not understanding. So why bother.
I’d be interested in your comments on how I explain the problem:
Journalistic Indifference
and on my reply to one response:
Crisis? What crisis?.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Ma’am, that’s not quite what it means.
Not to be picky, but to “beg the question” means:
“to assume the fact of established solution, settlement, or proof of a question” - Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
“to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.” - Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition
“Taking for granted the thing to be proved.” - Oxford English Dictionary
“The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself.” - Fowler, Modern English Usage
Etymology:
The phrase “begging the question”, or “petitio principii” in Latin, refers to the “question” in a formal debate — that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To “beg” the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate. - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
Here is an example of begging the question:
“How do we know Darwin’s theory of genesis was wrong and the Bible’s is right? Because God created the world in seven days.” - http://academic.bowdoin.edu/WritingGuides/style.htm
To “beg the question” does NOT mean to “‘invite the question’ or ‘inspire the question’ or even ‘raise the question.’” - http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=1&aid=39197
December 21st, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I remember reading something Ernie Pyle wrote about war reporting. He said he was censored to some degree because the military was not going to let him put the men in more danger than they were already in. In other words in those days the military did not feel compelled to suck up to the press or even deal with them if it could cause a problem. I am a believer in the First Amendment too, but sometimes I wonder if the press does not abuse this right, maybe they should be kept out of some areas. We are trying to fight and win a war with lawyers and journalists crawling all over the place. How can that be good?
December 21st, 2006 at 6:00 pm
The Jamil Hussein Saga Continues
So, the AP continues to stand by its original reporting, despite the fact that no one, let alone the AP, has actually presented Jamil Hussein to the world for questioning. We simply are left with the AP asserting as unmitigated fact that this guy exi…
December 21st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
What’s with the MSM
. . . and its apparent death wish? The Anchoress just made Eric Boehlert her bitch. Not that she needs a bitch, but now she’s got one for emergencies. Via Insty….
December 21st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
How many people have ever heard of this Boehlert blowhard? I suspect the answer is very few. I really don’t care what he thinks, but good on ya for slapping him down.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pm
The Search For Jamil Hussein Expands
Michelle Malkin has an extensive update on the widening search for the most elusive mainstream media source in Iraq. She includes this “map of the wide variety of Baghdad locations from which “Captain Jamil Hussein” had reported incidents of violenc…
December 21st, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Left bloggers say it’s raining
A Yiddish proverb says, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. That seems to be the weather report from Left bloggers – it’s just rain — regarding the Associated Press’ refusal to produce its star source…
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 am
““The warbloggers’ deliberate and daily condemnation of wartime correspondents as being cowardly, unethical, and un-American is likely unprecedented in American history…””
Thus showing Mr. Boehlert’s ignorance of history. General Sherman detested the press, thought of them as spies, and was much in favor of shooting them as such. There are many other examples.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
my foam flecked frenzy over fictional facts
Is the best defense always a good offense? Eric Boehlert (a Salon editor who now writes for Media Matters) is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere right now because of the ferocity of his defense of the MSM’s…
December 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Did Vatican condemn Hitler’s suicide?
January 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
[...] While I detest intrablog pissing matches, I felt Boehlert’s mischaracterization of my words and their intended meaning merited a response, and I made one, here. At that time I also took issue with some of Boelhert’s other assertions about “warbloggers” which I found to be either unconvincing or simply odd. My post was civil in tone, engaged in no name-calling and simply addressed Beohlert’s mistake - I will call it a mistake and not a maliciously intended distortion - and some of his other ideas. [...]
January 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
[...] I am informed that Mr. Eric Boehlert has (for the third time) referenced this post in his unending series of rants about rightwing “warbloggers” and their supposed irresponsibility in (gasp!) questioning the Associated Press about a report and it’s source. At least this time he has quoted me correctly, so that’s a nice change from earlier. [...]
January 9th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
[...] I am informed that Mr. Eric Boehlert has (for the third time) referenced this post in his unending series of rants about rightwing “warbloggers” and their supposed irresponsibility in (gasp!) questioning the Associated Press about a report and it’s source. At least this time he has quoted me correctly, so that’s a nice change from earlier. [...]
February 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
[...] long as it’s not “fire” in a crowded theater, and the quotes are accurate and not expediently truncated. If what they say is stupid, offensive, childish, hateful or nuts…no one has to read them. [...]