« Anti-Gannons and Anti-Semites | Main | Important Quibbling »
Real World Baghdad
This is what happens when newsweekly reporters stop being polite and start getting real. Since blogging has basically ruined my abilities as a print writer, I must say I think it would be cool if journalists could just write like this, saying what they really think and all.
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83457cc8f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real World Baghdad:
» The MSM Fights Back from Political Animal
THE MSM FIGHTS BACK....Via Matt Yglesias, this Q&A with Newsweek's Rod Nordland is genuinely entertaining. My favorite bit:Hopatcong, NJ: Do you, Masland and Dickey mean "F---ing Murderers" when you say "insurgents" and "fighters" in your STUPIDITY? I'... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 16, 2005 12:57:23 PM
» Newsweek Tosses Towel - or Dog Bites Man II from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
The left of the web has been all over this Newsweek article NEWSWEEK's Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts. I wish it were so, but sadly, he'll probably continue... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 7, 2005 1:29:43 AM
Comments
Time's Baghdad bureau chief has been saying things like this for 3 months now:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7484.htm
He also did an interview with AirAmerica and was just shockingly pessimistic
Posted by: Adam M | Feb 16, 2005 1:20:07 AM
"It's very simple: last one out, please turn on the lights."
Not so funny, I guess. But I laughed anyway.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 16, 2005 1:41:26 AM
Blogging has ruined your abilities as a print writer? Shit, I'd hate to see you quit blogging -- your site is the first thing I check when I get online -- but if blogging is really undermining your ability to earn a livelihood, you gotta give it up...
Posted by: ehle | Feb 16, 2005 3:07:01 AM
We war supporters have long held that MSM reporters are, virtually to a man, self-important cynics peddling the left/liberal conventional wisdom. Nice that we can now just post a link to this when the moonbat brigade does its little denial dance.
Posted by: Dick Eagleson | Feb 16, 2005 4:16:24 AM
I understand your frustration, Dick, but isn't it possible that reporters are cynics because the Iraq effort is FUBAR? Isn't it likely that they resent being lied to by the president? And finally, didn't you notice that he savaged the left as well, defending the presence of the troops?
It's clear that the reporter believes in democracy but genuinely fears that the effort is at risk.
Posted by: AWC | Feb 16, 2005 6:59:14 AM
So that's what truth in reporting looks like. I'd almost forgotten.
Posted by: Matt G. | Feb 16, 2005 7:11:56 AM
Yes, Dick. I'd far prefer a naive doofus who swallows every peace of dung given to him by the administration, over a self-important cynic.
I'm happy to hear the conservative "conventional wisdom" from you on Iraq, provided it makes a desultory attempt to correspond to some facts.
Echoing AWS, it appears the primary complaint here was the vapid nature of the questions, from both sides. To be fair, the questions from the left were generally more childish than the dumb questions from the right.
Posted by: govols | Feb 16, 2005 9:05:43 AM
If you ask me, this guy is not nearly jaded enough.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 16, 2005 9:18:18 AM
Dick, have you read the full chat or just the excerpts? Nordland comes across as pessimistic and somewhat cynical about American intentions, but he's hard on nutty left-wing questions as well-- to take one example:
Washington, DC: From a European citizen: Why do Americans seem to be unwilling or unable to grasp the fact that it is THEY who are the aggressors, it is THEM that cause untold suffering, hatred and long-lasting bitterness the world over? For God sake, America, why don't you grow up and look at yourself in the mirror?
Rod Nordland: Well, we're not indiscriminately, deliberately and as a matter of policy killing civilians, beheading prisoners, and otherwise behaving as complete savages.
Or this one:
Toronto, Canada: Dirty bomb. Wow, Zarqawi might have one dirty bomb. The U.S. has been shooting off nuclear waste all over Iraq in this Gulf War, and in the last one too. So who is the real terrorist here?
Rod Nordland: What a poorly informed question.
I thought the chat was refreshing.
Posted by: JakeV | Feb 16, 2005 10:21:47 AM
isn't it possible that reporters are cynics because the Iraq effort is FUBAR?
Possible? Yeah, it is possible. But funny, then, that so many people who are NOT professional reporters - ordinary Iraqis and our military personnel on the ground and so forth - tell a completely different story about Iraq. So I suppose it is possible that the reporters are correct and everyone else is wrong. But it is certainly not probable.
In the end, I suppose that, for all of you who believe every last word of what Dan Rather and Eason Jordan and Andrew Gilligan and Jayson Blair tell you, things in Iraq really are FUBAR. For some of us who venture out beyond the left-wing MSM a bit, though, the picture is a bit less clear.
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 10:35:19 AM
Al, of course, has the clear picture, as he posts from Iraq.
I must admit, I'm curious about the non-MSM sources Al implies that show Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, did have solid ties to al Qaeda, and in which US forces have secured Iraq against insurgent attacks.
But then, when I want a dose of fantasy, I prefer anime.
Posted by: Gregory | Feb 16, 2005 10:52:48 AM
Al--I appreciate the fact that you admit the possibility. In return, I'll grant that:
1) It's possible that things will work out great in Iraq. If that happens, I'll confess the media was biased.
2) All us statesiders are dealing with an objectivity problem. All we have to go on are representations from the government and the media, both of which have their own interests. So we often choose to believe whatever we predicted at the start.
But... I hardly think that the statements of "ordinary Iraqis" support a positive interpretation. Certainly, lots of Iraqis have criticized Bush. And the fact that we're not actually talking to those folks in Arabic suggests that we're both reading statements that are filtered, just like media reports.
As for military personnel, please. Who do you think is leaking to Sy Hersh? Remember the Vietnam War? You'll never get a military officer to offer an on the record criticism.
Posted by: AWC | Feb 16, 2005 11:07:43 AM
Hysterical. Give us more. Journalists are a funny bunch, notoriously cynical, but that's ok, you can't be journalist without the cynicism.
On the subject of Iraq and regime change and democraticization -- if you go back about 20-30 years, you will find the MSM full of criticism of the US government for supporting right wing dictatorships in Chile, South Korea and Taiwan while opposing genuine national liberation movements like those in SE Asia and elsewhere. The US Government said, well we believe we can move our friends towards democracy through quiet diplomacy and trade, etc. The left scoffed. Fast forward to today, and Chile, South Korea and Taiwan are no longer military dictatorships but capitalist democracies, and the national liberation movements lead nowhere but to poverty and death camps. What the US Government said it was trying to do, it accmplished.
What does this mean for the future? I don't know, but I wouldn't dismiss out of hand, as so many of you do, the Government's stated goals. And it may well be that the US can push its undemocratic friends towards democracy just as it did South Korea and Taiwan and Chile.
Posted by: DBL | Feb 16, 2005 12:05:05 PM
AWC: I don't disagree with what you say except for the part about the military. The version of Iraq you overwhelming see from the folks in the military is completely different than what you see from the MSM.
(And citing Sy Hersh for anything does not enhance cridibility... who do I think is leaking to him? His imagination, largely.)
Posted by: Al | Feb 16, 2005 12:09:28 PM
Just read the Nordland Newsweek piece on Sistani. (There is a link from the interview.) Highly recommended...
Posted by: Andy | Feb 16, 2005 12:34:12 PM
Yeah, it is possible. But funny, then, that so many people who are NOT professional reporters - ordinary Iraqis and our military personnel on the ground and so forth - tell a completely different story about Iraq.
Strangely, I've seen plenty from "Ordinary Iraqis" and "military personnel on the ground" that indicates that Iraq is FUBAR.
And plenty of administration-friendly reporters and columnists that say its not.
So its quite unrealistic to portray it as "reporters" vs. "everyone else".
Posted by: cmdicely | Feb 16, 2005 1:00:44 PM
Nordland has been on Newsnight many times as well. You can see the weariness and the shellshock in his eyes. I guess Dick's a real tough guy and would do a much better job.
Dick Eagleson, nice ring to it.....kinda like Jeff Gannon.
Posted by: Zappatero | Feb 16, 2005 2:19:30 PM
In the end, I suppose that, for all of you who believe every last word of what Dan Rather and BLAH BLAH BLAH For some of us who venture out beyond the BLAH BLAH BLAH
Posted by: Al | February 16, 2005 10:35 AM
"Al, you're an idiot. How's that."
Ba da boom. crash.
Posted by: Scott McArthur | Feb 16, 2005 2:33:18 PM
Al--
I know I won't convince you, but Sy Hersh has an excellent record. More importantly, as everyone knows NOTHING gets into the New Yorker without being fact-checked. His editors are calling his anonymous sources. There's absolutely no chance he's making this stuff up.
Now, does Hersh oppose the Bush administration's policies. Yes. But that's not prima facia evidence that he's lying. Sorry.
Posted by: AWC | Feb 16, 2005 3:02:52 PM
Jake V -
The Canadian questioner was speaking, I presume, about depleted uranium from U.S. artillery and tank shells. The long-term hazards of DU are still debatable, but, arguably, we are leaving nuclear wastes in Iraq. It's not quite such a nutbar comment after all.
Posted by: Steve Snyder | Feb 16, 2005 3:57:34 PM
Al, the "liberal" MSM... what a laugh.
Big media is in fact more liberal than many Americans on two social issues, arguably: abortion and gay rights.
On any major socioeconomic issue, corporate power, or government establishmentarian issue, the MSM is right, to well-right, of the American average.
Posted by: Steve Snyder | Feb 16, 2005 4:04:21 PM
Matt:
Reporters CAN be like that. It's just that, when they join Big Media, they sign a tacit agreement to slowly emasculate themselves.
I've not called anybody an idiot, but I have gone over the line from satire to sarcasm more than once on my editorial page.
Posted by: Steve Snyder | Feb 16, 2005 4:06:44 PM
To all - You are correct, all I read were the excerpts. I thought that was all there was. Perhaps I have misjudged Mr. Time.
FWIW, I don't doubt Iraq looks FUBAR on the ground. Every war looks FUBAR the narrower your focus. I guess my problem is just that most MSM reporters these days never seem to get beyond that egocentric localized perspective.
Trust me, WW2 looked a lot uglier on the ground than Iraq does. Of course during WW2, U.S. journalists didn't openly denigrate the rationale for the mission, scorn the possibility of a good outcome in the end, openly stooge for FDR's political opponents or collaborate with the Germans and Japanese to get cool photos either.
Sy Hersh has an excellent record
I have four words for you, AWC: KAL 007.
Steve Snyder - The long-term effects of DU are about the same as the long-term effects of lead, another heavy metal that has been used as ammunition. Bodily levels are easy to measure and there are chelating agents that can remove either from the body if an unsafe level exists.
And DU is not "radioactive waste." In fact, it's closer to being the opposite as it consists only of the nearly pure U-238 left after the much more radioactive U-235 fraction is removed during enrichment processing. U-238 is, technically, radioactive - it decays by low-energy alpha particle emissions to Thorium 234 and thence, through several other steps to Lead 206 - but it has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It originates so little radiation on its own, that it is sometimes used as shielding against other forms of ambient radiation in instruments, etc.
So if that DU "question" wasn't a "moonbat" question, it was, at a minimum, an ignorant one.
Posted by: Dick Eagleson | Feb 16, 2005 7:12:58 PM
>Of course during WW2, U.S. journalists didn't openly denigrate the rationale for the mission
I wonder why?
Posted by: joe o | Feb 16, 2005 9:18:13 PM
Actually Dick, Max Boot's attacks on Hersh have been debunked.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502010008
Given the nonsense that flowed from the president and VP about WMD and the connections between Saddam and Usama, I don't think you'all should be throwing stones. People get things wrong. But, making mistakes is not the same thing as fabricating evidence. I feel certain that Hersh isn't making up the sources for his New Yorker pieces. I wish I could be so sure about the government.
Posted by: AWC | Feb 16, 2005 9:41:20 PM
