Sunday, March 19, 2006

Pacifica Spotlight: Ruth's Public Radio Report

Ruth's latest report.  C.I.: "Ruth actually had quite a bit more she wanted to cover.  She was pressed for time and I was as well.  We went with the time we both had as she dictated this entry.  Kat and Dallas deserve credit for links, tags and for smoothing out my spelling and punctuation.  And spelling errors are mine, not Ruth's, not Kat's and not Dallas'.Trivia note for those wondering why Andrea Lewis' solo Fridays get noted and Philip Maldari's Mondays are not -- Ruth's not staying silent on Maldari.Lewis is one of her favorite voices.  But on Mondays, instead of KPFA's The Morning Show; she listens to WBAI's Law and Disorder."
 

Ruth's Public Radio Report

Ruth: Before we start by highlighting some Pacifia Radio programming, please note that KPFA will broadcast protest coverage on Saturday beginning around noon Pacific Time, three p.m. Eastern Time.

This week, I'll start with CounterSpin. A note on the links, I do not provide them. Dallas and C.I. hunt them down and the tags as well. Last week, CounterSpin wasn't linked in the entry although it is a permanent link on the left side of the site. That was an unintentional mistake and, if you look at the amount of links and tags in most of my reports, you will see that Dallas and C.I. are tracking down a great deal. Trevor had e-mailed with a question on that, so I hope that clears it up.

The broadcast began with Steve Rendall and Peter Hart discussing recent news coverage. These items are always make me laugh, not due to the mistakes by the mainstream media, but for the manner in which Mr. Rendall, Mr. Hart and, especially, Janine Jackson deliver them in.
Peter Hart delivered my favorite item this week:

TV pundits are free to say what they want, that's sort of the point. But when reporters step into pundit mode you hope they don't leave behind their journalistic duty to provide evidence for what they're saying. But sometimes that's exactly what happens. On ABC's This Week on March 12th, reporter Clair Shipman jumped into the debate over censuring George W. Bush over illegal NSA wiretaps. To Shipman this made no sense for the Democrats. QUOTE "You look at the polls, the public supports the president on this issue. So I'm still a bit confused on how much this is going to help them." Well except that's not what the polls say. When asked whether Bush has the legal authority to do this, the most recent CBS poll found fifty-two percent of the public say he does not. On Fox News channel the next day the pundits on the show Special Report were discussing the Iraq war which led NPR reporter Mara Liasson to make this claim. QUOTE "Poll after poll has shown that no matter how pessimistic Americans are about Iraq, there is no big support for a pull out now movement. In other words, still it's like one-in-six think we should withdraw our troops. There is basic support for the project of forming some kind of a stable democracy in Iraq." That's a curious assertion since the latest CBS poll showed twenty-nine percent of the public favor immediate withdrawal of US troops which is more than one-in-six. Another thirty-percent favor decreasing troop levels. And that same poll found that fifty-four percent of Americans think Iraq will never become a stable democracy. Instead of reporting on polls, these reporter/pundits seem to be wishing that the public would see things the way they see them.

Mr. Hart interviewed Jack Fairweather who wrote "Heroes in Error: How a fake general, a pliant media, and a master manipulator helped lead the United States into war" for Mother Jones. Mr. Fairweather stated that "the man presented to the New York Times and Frontline was, in fact, a complete imposter." The man was presented as an Iraqi general who told a tale of terrorist training camps where Arabs were being taught to hijack planes. The story, like the "general," was made up. The New York Times has not corrected its report. Frontline has offered a minor correction on their website. Mr. Fairweather noted that the paper of record's "famous but rather tepid mea culpa" has not resulted in "back reporting" to determine the veracity of their pre-invasion coverage.

Mr. Rendall interviewed Ben Bagdikian regarding the purchase of the Knight-Ridder news chain by the McClatchy newspaper chain. Mr. Bagdikian is a media critic of many years and the author of the groundbreaking book The Media Monopoly. Many issues were addressed including the myth that newspapers do not turn a profit. The reality is that they do. The same profit margin that would have pleased investors years ago is no longer seen as enough of a profit by Wall Street analysts. Mr. Bagdikian noted that, for most Americans, the primary source of news remain the newspaper or TV coverage. Therefore, losing the Knight-Ridder chain is a blow since it has shown more independence than many other news print organizations. The chain included the Miami Herald whose coverage of Latin America was noted by Mr. Bagidkian. Mr. Rendall noted the willingness by Knight-Ridder to question the official narratives coming out of D.C.

The purchase of the Knight-Ridder news chain was a topic that Mr. Rendall discussed with Andrea Lewis and Philip Maldari on KPFA's The Morning Show Tuesday. McClatchy will not be keeping all of the thirty-two Knight-Ridder newspapers they purached, twelve will be sold off.
Why does the sell matter? As Mr. Rendall noted, "It takes another voice out of the debate.
. . . They were one of theonly mainstream news outlets that consistently challenged the government's case for war with Iraq." Mr. Rendall felt that it was better for the paper to be purchased by McClatchy instead of another buyer but he also noted "where there were two independent voices, now there are one."

On the subject of voices, Friday Ms. Lewis interviewed Norman Solomon who stated that, "If we are not trying to end the war through all forms of pacifist activities, we are allowing it to continue." Words to remember on this third anniversary of the invasion. As Mr. Solomon noted, "It's so much easier to continue a war than to stop it." Interviewed with Mr. Solomon was Bill Hackwell, of ANSWER, who made the point that demonstrations are taking place all over the country and all over the world.

Norman Solomon will be speaking at an event at Walnut Creek. He will be speaking on a number of topics including the building of "an agenda for war . . . [that] then tries to make an argument through media and Washington high office that you can't leave now." If I have this correctly, this will be a march and a rally with the rally beginning at noon in Civic Park and will include many people but a name that stood out to me was Country Joe McDonald, it will stand out to you as well if you also are part of the babyboom generation.



Each week I have "Geoff Brady" in my notes. He is the producer of Law and Disorder. I believe he also selects the music and that this was noted last month on WBAI when he and Heidi Boghosian were handling the fundraising duties. Each week, Mondays for me since I listen on WBAI, the program has wonderful music. Kelley wondered "who that woman was with the song was that aired during the music discussion?" It was Melanie performing her song "What They've Done To My Song, Ma?"

The music discussion was conducted by Michael Smith and the guests were The Trouble With Music author Matt Calahan and Eli Smith who is a musican and music producer from New York. He is also, as he pointed out, Mr. Smith's son. This was a very interesting discussion about copyright law, who benefits and who does not. Do not read that and think, "Copyright, huh? Pass." This was a very lively discussion about the effects that copyright law have on the development of new ideas and art as well as on the way it can be used to the harm of musicians.
One very important point that I think may raise some people's interest in the issue is a basic question: What is always given away free or at very little cost?

Did you answer music? To help the radio industry develop, audiences were provided with music at no direct cost. As Steve Jobs and others promote iPods, once again, we see music being used to promote the products at little or no cost. How does that impact you? Listen to the show.

Paul Craig Roberts, a Republican from the Reagan administration who writes for CounterPunch and other publications, was the first guest on Law & Disorder. He attempted to put the neocons in power in the Bully Boy's administration into historical perspective. He also commented on the Lynne Stewart case and that he found the conviction "outrageous." He noted that Stewart was charged not with breaking a law but with breaking a "decree." The issue of the law was the focus for his segment with Roberts discussing how Bully Boy is "asserting that he is the law or above the law."

The middle segment was testimony from Black Panther Hank Jones on how he, Harold Taylor
and John Bowman were rounded up for a 1971 shooting. Mr. Jones draws clear parallels between the actions then, under Nixon, and now, under the Bully Boy. Listen and be appalled by the actions that are going on now and how similar they were to a time people of my generation thought we said "Never again" to.

I believe this event was noted on Law and Disorder, I have it in the margins of my notes:

Date:
Sunday, March 19th 2006
Time:
2:00 PM - TBA
Location:
Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church,
85 South Oxford Street (at Lafayette),
Fort Greene
City/State:
Fort Greene, Brooklyn, NY
Category:
Veterans
Contact: bpfp@brooklynpeace.org
Website: http://www.brooklynpeace.org
On the Third Anniversary of the Iraq War..
BACK FROM IRAQ:
NYC VETS SPEAK OUT
Come hear:
Testimonies of NYC Veterans,
Congressman Major Owens,
and Job Mashariki of Black Veterans for Social Justice
Many vets are returning home to face unemployment, homelessness, mental and physical health problems, and a lack of adequate services. Come hear about their experiences.

This weekend it is important to be active. I hope you will find a way to take part and be heard.
If nothing else, invite friends over to listen to KPFA's live broadcast beginning at noon Pacific time Saturday, three p.m. Eastern. But please do something. Make your voice heard, even if it is only among your friends and family.


























Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Posted by at

Reality Check: War Pornographer Michael Gordon tries to shift the blame

C.I. takes on what some see as "the paper of misrecord."  Michael Gordon decides to play shift the blame, hide behind others and distort -- and when that doesn't work he starts attacking Amy Goodman.  If you missed the Democracy Now! segment, use the link in the entry below.  You'll see real reporters (Goodman and Juan Gonzalez) and a pretender (Gordon).
 

NYT: Can't own up to mistakes, be it the paper or Michael Gordon

Before we deal with news of the morning (or what made it into print this morning), we're flashing back to March 25, 2003.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have now learned from the U.S. Central Command that, in fact, Iraqi television and is also a key telecommution -- communications facility, as well as Baghdad's, Baghdad's satellite communications, have all been targeted, both by Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and by ordnance dropped from the air as well.
So a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television and also satellite communications as well. The stated purpose of this, according to the U.S. Central Command, is simply to take away command (UNINTELLIGIBLE) control capabilities from the regime.
And again, a senior administration official here in Washington tells CNN that it was always the plan not to take out the television from day one, that it served a purpose for a while. But under the war plan, there's a sequence of events that happens in a specific order to try to create the effect of undermining the regime. And in that sequence, today was the day that Iraqi television was scheduled to be taken out, Aaron.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you very much.

The above is from CNN's rush transcript for the March 25, 2003 broadcast of CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN. We're going back to it (the above was to set up that day's event) and, yes, there is a point. Here's the New York Times' Michael Gordon on the same program.

So I think the headline really is, shift of focus in the ground attack to the south. The air is continuing to focus on the Republican Guard in the north. And, you know, it's an adaptation, and I think really a necessary one.
And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Gordon wasn't asked, by Brown or anyone else, according to the transcript -- read it yourself, about the bombing of Iraqi television, he brings it up himself and, above, is his full statement.
At the top of the program, the day's events are explained and they include that "a number of precision-guided munitions were used to take out a group of buildings that comprise something that makes up Iraqi television." The embed Gordon (he identifies himself that way on air), brings up the topic without prompting and states:

And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target.

Now we're going to yesterday's Democracy Now! ("New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs"). Here is what Juan Gonzalez asked him:

JUAN GONZALEZ: There was, of course, the bombing of Iraqi television that occurred in the early days of the war. And you were actually on CNN where you were quoted as saying, "Personally, I think that the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda, that I think it was an appropriate target." And your, in retrospect, on that, that was condemned by many journalism organizations around the world, the attacking of Iraqi television. Your thoughts on it?

Now let's go through Judith Miller's former writing partner, who has now turned war pornographer, response, in full, to a direct question from Gonzalez:


MICHAEL GORDON: Well, I think when--you know, I don't know what was in General Franks' mind when he meant "media targets." I think General Franks has an odd way of talking, if you're familiar, if you've listened to him a lot or are familiar with him, and he's not always -- I don't want to cast any aspersions on him, but he's not always precise in his language. I think by "media targets" in that context, really what he meant was command-control communications.
But here was the issue: in the first war, they knocked Iraqi TV off the air. I'm not calling, and I shouldn't be interpreted as calling on the United States to bomb, you know, TV technicians--some of my best friends are TV technicians; I don't care if they're American or Iraqi. I don't want people to bomb TV stations per se, but I think that one of the problems they were had was keeping Iraqi television off the air, either through electronic jamming or by, you know, if you could hit an antenna, or, you know, hit a some sort of, you know, cable, or, you know, if there was some way of doing it.

He was asked to explain his statement saying that a civilian target, a TV station, was an appropriate target. Did Gonzalez mention Tommy Franks? No, he did not. Why Gordon brings up Franks is anyone's guess. No, Gordon didn't 'call' for a bombing of Iraqi TV, he merely justified it, after the fact, on his own, with no prompting from Aaron Brown. He brought the bombing up, on CNN in real time, on his own and justified it. Now, pressed on it yesterday, he can't admit what he did it. He can't own what he did. Why? Because it's that damn disgusting.

It goes against journalism, it goes against the rules of engagement for warfare. But he was there, in real time, to cheerlead a military attack on a civilian target. Now? He wants to act as though he was asked about Tommy Franks. By by Aaron Brown, Juan Gonzalez or his own craven ego desperate to save himself, I don't know. But he appears to think someone mentioned Tommy Franks.

(Or maybe the good embed just always pictures Franks in his head -- fully dressed or not, I wouldn't know.)

Here's the rest of "I schilled for the administration" Gordon's response to Juan Gonzalez' question:

And the reason this became a big problem was because the Americans were invading Iraq, they were hoping that the Shia would help them and support them. And yet, Saddam was on the TV all the time, telling his public that, in fact, the Americans were losing and he was winning, and so when the American intelligence experts were trying to say "well how come in the cities they're not rising up?" well, they weren't rising up for two reasons. One, he had the Fedayeen in these cities to kill anybody who rose up. That was a very -- you know, that discouraged a lot of people from rebelling. And two, Saddam was on the air all the time. So, what I believe is it would have been better if we had some way of knocking out that broadcasting capability, not through killing people in a television studio, but through electronic jamming or if you could hit an antenna somewhere, you know, the kind of stuff they managed to do in the first Gulf War.

Michael Gordon's been volunteering for the administration for so long that he may have confused his actual occupation but his profession is supposed to be "journalist." It is never okay for journalists to be targeted in military attacks. Gordon's war-on's gone limp enough that he's got enough blood rushing to the head to realize how shameful his 2003 appearance was. So he pretends on Democracy Now! yesterday that the issue is Tommy Franks. He pretends that any of this has to do with Tommy Franks and not with what he himself said in 2003 (without any prompting from Aaron Brown). He pretends that he didn't justify the targeting of a journalistic institution.

He sidesteps the issues by hauling in his buddy Tommy Franks.

Let's be really clear because clarity escaped Michael Gordon long ago: what he stated on CNN was offensive to his profession, it was offensive to the rules of engagement for warfare. What he did was justify a war crime. There was nothing journalistic about his statement. Now, three years later, when the shines gone off the war he sold and his war-on's a little limp he wants to pretend like what happened didn't happen. What happened was that Michael Gordon betrayed his profession and journalists everywhere by endorsing the illegal action of targeting a journalistic institution (TV station). What happened was that he demonstrated he can carry water for the administration, he just can't step up to the plate for his profession.

It does not matter what Tommy Franks thought (he's not even brought up -- by either Gonzalez or by Brown). It matters what a journalist (and that's what Gordon's supposed to be) endorsed. He can claim this year that some of his best friends are TV technicians. (Which strikes me a bit like a racist claiming, "Some of my best friends are Black.") It doesn't matter. There's nothing to hide behind. There's no way to rewrite what he chose to say.

Judith Miller's writing partner should have grasped that the public record is the public record. But when she went down for all of the writing (including pieces that he co-wrote), he may have thought that he was "safe." He isn't "safe."

He will be held accountable for his "reporting" and he will be held accountable for his statements. He can shift the blame (as he did to Tommy Franks) and he can confuse the issue (as he did repeatedly) and he can avoid questions (ditto). Didn't work too well for Judith Miller but he thinks he can get away with it.

Miller's apparently revising (yet again) in the current Vanity Fair and has dropped her brief "I was wrong" stance. Check the site, but I don't believe I ever slammed her for admitting she was wrong. I don't believe I went to town on her for that statement. I remember stating that I thought, in fact, the Times should have let her go back to work following those statements because, having been used, she destroyed her own reputation and she might be the one to rebuild it. (For her "name" or some other reason -- self-serving or not.) Now Miller's apparently playing "It wasn't my fault, it was everyone else's." Well she had one moment of honesty. That's one more than Michael Gordon's had. So is Gordon going to be held accountable?

[Added: Miller has not changed her stance in the Vanity Fair article. Her remarks quoted in Vanity Fair are in keeping with what she has stated since going to jail with an addition of a conversation she says she had with Bill Keller -- Bill Keller denies the remark attributed to him by Miller.]

Or was all the late-to-the-party outrage over Judith Miller just a way to play "bash the bitch"?
Will Gordon get a pass because of his gender? He needs to be held accountable. He tried to avoid accountability yesterday. He talked down to Amy Goodman (whose won her share of journalism praise -- including the Polk award), he tried to lecture her, he tried to do everything but speak to his own incompetence.

That's what it was, at best, journalistic incompetence.

He wants to tell Amy Goodman that she's not "very well informed." Him. The man, who with Judith Miller, pushed every bit of nonsense you can imagine. He wants to say that Amy Goodman's not "very well informed"?

If he is "informed" in the slightest, he's too busy rewriting history (call it what it is, he's "lying") to take accountability. At one point, he told Goodman, "I don't have a dog in this fight." Oh but he does. It's called truth, it's called reporting. That's his "dog" in the fight. He did his job poorly (that's being generous). His "dog" was the truth. But he doesn't feel that he had a "dog" in "the fight." (In the fight? What an arm chair warrior.)

After selling lies for the adminstration, he wants to point to the "public record" and he tells Amy Goodman, at one point, that after selling lies, MONTHS after peddling them, he wrote a new version (buried inside the paper, as Goodman notes), a revision. That doesn't excuse his earlier "reporting."

Let's be clear on this, and it will be our focus for today's highlight from the paper, anyone can be wrong. That's not the issue. It's not that a source alleged something and he reported the allegation as an allegation. What he did was trumpet spin as fact. That's not reporting. If he'd done his basic job, he'd have the very real excuse of, "All that happened was I got burned by a source. It happens."

But he wasn't burned because he didn't practice the "balance" that the Times puts forward. He ran with claims and charges that weren't established as fact but he presented them as though they were. He led with lies. He pushed them.

That's not reporting. That's stenography.

(A lot like the current book he's hawking.)

He's very good at taking down minutes for the administration. Don't confuse it with reporting.

On the issue of the infamous (proven false) piece he and Judith Miller wrote on aluminum pipes (September 13, 2002) being sought for nuclear weapons, Gordon refuses to take accountability. Months later, he says urging that the "public record" be checked, he refuted the claim he put forward (with Miller). In fact, it was disputed in real time. The IAEA disputed it days before his co-written article ran. But readers of the Times didn't learn that . . . until months later. There's no excuse for that. Others had already reported the reality before his embarrassing piece of administration stenography ran.

He tosses out, "But as soon as the IAEA went public with its assessment, I covered it." Well others covered it days prior to September 13th, not months later. (September 13, 2002 is when Miller and Gordon's "reporting" on aluminum tubes ran.)

He tells Amy Goodman that she's not "very well informed on this" because he's friends with David Albright. Gordon, we're all glad to know you have a few friends. It's good to know not everyone avoids you. Even those who fail at their profession should be able to have downtime and play dates. But Goodman never claimed you were or weren't friends with anyone. Goodman, and America, could care less who you are friends with. The issue was the aluminum tubes and hiding behind your friend Albright (who even you have to admit challenged the aluminum tubes lies) and his belief of other aspects doesn't justify the fact that the Times didn't present dissenting voices. Or, for that matter, that you didn't.

(On a friendship level, not a journalism one, it's actually a betrayal that a dissenter whom Gordon claims is a friend was also shut out by the likes of Gordon. He's not a very good reporter so it may not be a leap to infer that he's not a very good friend either.)

He refuses to take accountability for his actions. He wants to hide behind Albright or Franks, as though they co-wrote his pieces or made the statements he made on his own while appearing on CNN. He needs to be responsible for himself.

And his lies (and the lies of others) helped the administration sell an illegal war, helped scare the public. Now he wants to claim that the public record vindicates him, that because Colin Powell said whatever, he's somehow off the hook.

He's not. He's supposed to be a reporter and he did his job very poorly.

He can attack Goodman (and he did and thank you to ___ who said he would Thursday night, "Watch, you'll see how he behaves in the office" -- yes, I did see and do understand why so many at the Times complain to me about him). He can avoid answering questions (and he did). He can shift the blame to everyone else (and he did). But, point of fact, Colin Powell and anyone else he wants to hide behind, they aren't reporters.

That an administration flunkie lied is not surprising. That a reporter didn't challenge the lies is sad. It's very sad. And while Colin Powell wants to minimize about the "blot" on his record, Gordon won't even own up to a blot.

Now he wants to peddle war pornography. He wants to sell the American public on how the war could have been "won" if only this had been done or that had been done. When asked about the war itself, by Goodman, he responds: "Well, that's a policy judgment and a political judgment that’s really beyond the scope of our book."


Over 2300 dead American troops because an illegal war was sold on lies and the best Gordon (who had a hand in selling it) can do is say, "That's a policy judgment"? [Note that the link for that goes to the first half of the broadcast. We're focused on the second half for most of the comments comments but for those who see a link and think "Oh, it's going to the same thing and I already read it" -- his "policy judgement" comes from the first half of the program.]

If that's his idea of neutrality or objectivity, it's a funny sort of understanding. He wasn't neutral or objective on journalists being targeted with bombs (he was for it at the time, though now he tries to rewrite reality). He wasn't neutral or objective when false claims were made before the invasion by the administration (he was pimping them like there was no tomorrow). But on the war he helped sell, it's a "policy judgement." On the war that's cost an unkown number of Iraqi lives, he's neutral.

Too bad he had no neutrality when he and his profession needed it.

Now? Now the little boy who cried wolf (more than once) wants to pin it all on big sis Judy. He wants to act as though it wasn't him, it was that older sister Judith Miller. Why, he played with Jimmy Risen and lots of other boys! He wasn't just spending all day inside playing WMD dress up with Judy. He was a tough boy.

Whatever he is, whatever he was, it wasn't a reporter.

And that needs to be remembered as he peddles excuses. It's no surprise that his book is nothing but war pornography as he attempts to sell American on more occupation, on better planned occupation. It's nothing but an excuse for an illegal war. And an endorsement for the continuation of it. (Excuse me, for the continuation of a "policy decision.") Not surprising. He's still making excuses for his own part in selling the "policy decision."

Little boy Gordon might want to consider borrowing a bit from an old Steve Martin routine and parroting "Excuse me." It wouldn't be convincing, but it would, at least, be a step in the right direction.

It's a lesser story, and of lesser importance, but in today's paper, you see the same mindset at work. Kate Zernike has to explain how the Times got it so wrong on whom was or wasn't in the infamous Abu Ghraib photo ("Cited as Symbold of Abu Ghraib, Mand Admits He Is Not in Photo"). The problem started for the Times, under Hassan Fattah's byline though we're all supposed to forget that, because the Times wanted to push/rush a "scoop." They didn't have a scoop. They didn't have anything. (As Zernike notes today, but much nicer than I'm noting here.)

A man claimed to be the guy in the photo. It wasn't a scoop and the paper wasn't sharing credit when they were trying to maintain that they were breaking news. Maybe they were? Vanity Fair had only reported (in 2005) that the man claimed to be the one in the hood, not that he was the man in the photograph.

If people had been aware of both stories, they would have noted what was the most glaring aspect of the story: the Times had no verification for their story. Now they're having to correct the record.

Vanity Fair may or may not. They really don't have to. That's because Donovan Webster (and Van Fair) weren't stupid enough to present a claim as fact. They noted that the man (same man) claimed to be the man in the photo; they also noted, repeatedly, that the claim couldn't be verified. That's called reporting.

Had Fattah done it (or Gordon), the Times wouldn't be in the mess they are. When the Times pushed the non-scoop, they avoided crediting or acknowledging Vanity Fair's year-old report. To do so would have taken the shine off their own scoop.

As soon as the scoop fizzled, suddenly, in print, in the Times, you could read of how Vanity Fair reported it too! The whine, the pout, shows up when their story was questioned. When it's time to be questioned, suddenly the Times can hide behind others. (Again, note that Webster did not say it was the man in the photo in his own story -- he was very clear that it was a claim and that it couldn't be verified. Additional note: see end of this commenatry.)

Fattah needs to be disciplined. The editor who okayed the story needs to go. That's very basic. They pushed a story. Fattah may have been close to it and too pressed for a deadline to see the problems with the story. That's why editors exist. They're supposed to be the calming influence, the one that asks, "Do we really have enough to run with this?" They didn't have enough to run the story as it was written. Fattah should have been instructed to present qualifiers clearly within the text. That didn't happen. That's the editor's failure. And someone should lose their job for it.

That may seem harsh but it's reality. It was the editor's job to know of the Vanity Fair article. Since the Times was in "scoop" mode, it was the editor's job to read the Van Fair piece. If that had been done, Donovan's repeated qualifiers should have stood out and the editor's question should have immediately been, "Do we have enough support to run this as fact?" They didn't.

In the real world (as opposed to the world of the Grey Lady), someone would lose a job. It should be the editor. The Times usual way of dealing with this is either to ignore it or to kick the person upstairs where they can't do any damage. (I'd argue about whether or not they can still do damage.) The editor can remain at the paper or not but should be removed from the position of editor. There's no excuse for it. Fattah may have been too high on the story. Too close to it.
That's why an editor exists, to say, "Let's pull back a second and look at what we really have factually."

That either did not happen (I'm told that it didn't) or else the editor weighed the piece and weighed what the Times did have (not much) and decided that there was enough to run with the story as is. That wasn't just a mistake, that was evidence that someone's not up to the responsibilities of the position they hold.

Though it got a huge amount of attention, this was a minor story. It was a feature trying real hard to be a news article. But the danger is that the same editor could make the same sort of mistake on an important story (say one written by Michael Gordon -- a star reporter used to having his way). Fattah made a mistake. The editor failed at the job. That would be clear in most newsrooms, but we're speaking of the New York Times where failure means never having to say you're sorry (see Michael Gordon -- "sorry" doesn't exist in his vocabulary) and getting moved upstairs. (It's why the rumors that Judith Miller was offered a position away from reporting are still believed. That's perfectly in keeping with the Times way of "dealing" with a problem. If you're new to the rumor, Miller could have stayed, the rumor says, if she'd agree to stay with the paper in a position other than reporter.)

From Zernike's article:

Mr. Qaissi had been interviewed on a number of earlier occaions, including by PBS's "Now," Vanity Fair, Der Spiegel and in the Italian news media as the man in the box.

That would be PBS's NOW (not Now). I stopped watching shortly before Bill Moyers left the program so I have no idea how the man was presented on NOW. I'm also unfamiliar with the Der Spiegel article (or Italian news reports). But to repeat Vanity Fair (Donovan Webster wrote the article) DID NOT present him as the man "in the box" (the hood). The publication presented him as someone claiming to be him. They were very clear about that. (Zernike earlier notes he was standing on a box, so why she later refers to him as "in the box," I have no idea.)

Webster actually gets mentioned inside the paper (the article is a front page article that continues inside the paper). It's nice that he finally gets the credit he's earned; however, readers of the paper may not be aware that Webster didn't maintain that it was the man in the hood. As I remember the article, he went to great pains to note that it could not be verified. Webster focused on the larger issue of torture itself. (This is now verified see end of this commentary.)

On A2, an editors' note appears that also doesn't name Fattah as the author of the non-scoop that backfired. In addition, the "Editors' Note" tries to weasel out of it by bringing up Vanity Fair:

Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge.

Two things. First, Vanity Fair did not, repeat, did not say he was the man in the hood. That is fact. Read the article. (I intend to as soon as I'm finally home -- after this weekend's protests.)
There was no reason to "challenge" Van Fair's article because the article was about what went on in Abu Ghraib. It was not "THIS IS THE MAN IN THE PHOTO!" However, second point, since the Times appears to be stating, in the editor's note, that they were aware of the reporting on others, why did they present last Saturday's story as a "scoop"? There was nothing in that article to indicate they were building on the work of other media outlets.

When they thought they had a scoop, they were happy to play glory hog and dismiss the work of others. When it blew up in their faces, they want to spread the blame around. That's a big part of the problem with the New York Times and it goes beyond one article.

To their credit, the editors' note does admit that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty did not verify the man as an earlier attempt to weasel out of the mess attempted to imply:

How do they respond to that possibility? It's worth noting, even spotlighting, because it gives you a look into the way things work at the Times. Susan Chira ("foreign editor of The Times") is on record in the story making a statement, that some will find laughable, about how seriously the paper takes charges of possible mistakes. Hassan M. Fattah, who received credit in the byline? He's nowhere to be found. He's not quoted nor is he named. But Chira can attempt to hide behind human rights organizations (Amnesty and Human Rights Watch -- neither of which appear to have confirmed that the person was the hooded man in the famous photo -- only that Shalal was at Abu Ghraib).

Today the "Editors' Note" notes:

The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.

Additional note. My memory is correct. Donovan Webster used qualifers very cleary. I'm having a trouble getting this entry completed (I've switched to a friend's laptop). Though some will no doubt feel that it should already be up, this entry (and it should be), the delays meant that I was able to speak to a friend at Van Fair who called about the Times. There's not pleasure over the paper of record attempting to hide behind the magazine. I was asked if I was addressing it today? I explained it was addressed and the entry almost completed but I kept getting knocked out of Blogger/Blogspot. (No problems thus far since switching to my friend's laptop.) While on the phone, I did learn that Donovan Webster's article is available online. It has been for some time. (Shortly after we noted it here back in January of last year.)

From the article Webster wrote and Vanity Fair ran:

Another detainee I spoke with may already be well known to Americans, thanks to what is arguably the Iraq war's most iconic image: a hooded man standing on a box, his arms held away from his body in a posture of total, pure, miserable submission, electrical cables trailing from his fingertips.

"May be."

There were at least two photos of a hooded, wired man taken at Abu Ghraib. Evidence suggests he is 46 years old, of medium height, and pale-skinned. He generally dresses in Iraq's traditional male clothing: a red-and-white checked head wrap (called a kaffiyeh), a flowing gown (or dishdasha), and sandals. He is a husband and father of four. His name is Haj Ali. (He asked that his surname not be used; Haj is an honorific signifying he has made the pilgrimage to Mecca.)

"Suggests."

Altogether, it is an easily identified deformity and appears to be visible in one of the famous photos of a man with wires attached to his fingers. (Two slightly different low-resolution pictures, seemingly of the same man, have been released to date. Haj Ali's lawyers believe he's depicted in the photos, although no one can be sure, given the circumstances under which the photos were taken; Haj Ali does claim he was subjected to the same abuse. Unless the guards involved shed light on the matter someday, it will likely remain impossible to say for certain who is pictured.)

"Impossible to say for certain." "No one can be sure."

Donovan Webster and Vanity Fair did not report that the man was the one pictured in the photo. They did use qualifiers and the New York Times needs to stop trying to hide behind Vanity Fair for their own screw up. When the paper, from the top, can't own up to their mistakes and attempts to hide behind others, it's not surprising that Michael Gordon thinks he may be able to do the same.

Maria's got highlights of the week's news and Ruth will have a report. (I may have to farm out the dictation of that to Kat. Computer problems have put me way behind.) Kat will note RadioNation with Laura Flanders and I'll note that I heard Christian Parenti is supposed to be on. Check Kat's entry later today for whether that's correct or not. (My assertion is not verified and just passing on what a friend told me yesterday.) And thank you to TC who offered that his highlight could wait "several days." It will go into Sunday night's entry. There's no problem with his highlight but it does require comment. (The writer's writing does not require comment. You'll see why it requires comment when Sunday's entry goes up. This was highlighted earlier this week in a lost e-mailed entry and it took several paragraphs to address an issue. Hopefully, it will take no more than two on Sunday.) Thank you to TC for understanding.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. That's the public address and I probably won't have time to check it until Sunday or Monday. Members should use the private e-mail address. And if you haven't already checked your e-mail accounts this morning, remember that you have a special edition of the gina & krista round-robin waiting. (One will go out tomorrow as well.)

Before Maria's thing goes up, we will highlight Cedric's Thursday entry here.
















Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Cedric on Feingold and the Dems

Did you catch Cedric's Thursday post?  You didn't catch it Thursday due to Blogger/Blogspot errors.  You may have missed it Friday as well.  (C.I. reposted it in full Saturday at The Common Ills.)  If you have missed it, here's your chance to read it now.
 

Russ Feingold and the Dems

Go to the comments from Tuesday. There's a link someone left to a thing where you can show support for Russ Feingold. So check that out. My plan was to highlight it here. But I can't read my site right now and you can't either.

Try to and you get this message:

Blog under maintenance
This blog is temporarily not viewable.

Friday, I'll try to highlight the comment that was left. I believe it was by a woman but I'm not sure. I saw it this morning at work and it's a link that you have to copy and paste. If you don't know how that works, take your mouse, right click over the link address to highlight it, after it's highlighted, take your finger off the right click, then left click and choose "copy." From there, go up to the top of your web page where "address" is, delete the address shown and then left click and choose "paste." That'll put the address in the address bar and you can just click on "GO" or hit the "enter" key.

Most people probably know how to do that but I know everyone doesn't because Three Cool Old Guys were asking me about that Sunday and I showed them what to do.

Rebecca wrote a must read "you don't need a pollster to know which way the wind blows" about how Democrats stabbed Russ Feingold in the back.

Feingold Criticizes Fellow Dems Bush Measure (Democracy Now!):
Here in the United States, Senator Russ Feingold has lashed out at fellow Democrats for not supporting his measure to censure President Bush for his warrantless domestic spy program. Feingold has failed to attract any co-sponsors. Appearing on Fox News, Feingold said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. … Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004.… [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."

And because the Hillarys and Bidens and Liebermans stabbed him in the back, the Republicans are trying to play this as "Now we're going to win in 2006!" In the New York Times, that nonsense was treated as fact in an article called "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base." C.I. addresses it in "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements" but why does C.I. have to address it? Because big media sucks. Because they had no interest in reporting on the impeachment in the New York Times and no real interest in the censure until they had Republicans crowing, "It's a win for us!"

If the Dems couldn't get behind a censure, how are we supposed to believe that they'll support an impeachment? And if they can't impeach over an illegal war, over warrantless spying, what can they do?

News flash for the Times, in an election year, anything that happens will be a 'rallying cry.'

That's what C.I. wrote and it's true. And it's why the Dems lose. They refuse to do anything. If they do something, it might give the other side ammo. So they do nothing. Over and over.

I'm really getting tired of the do-nothing Dems. There are ones that will stand up. Russ Feingold did. And John Conyers will and Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee. There really are some who will stand up. But most of them are scared little cowards, cowering in the shadows.

And then they wonder why they're seen the way they are.

It's an election year and their strategy seems to be don't say anything, don't do anything. We're in the lead because Bully Boy has screwed up so we're going to win.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running, they're trying to win. When they pass the Democrats who are standing still, the Dems won't even notice.

It happened in 2004. They attacked John Kerry all during the GOP convention and the people on Kerry's campaign just sat around and watched it.

Like they were thinking, "We have a lead, we don't have to worry."

They do have to worry. They have to worry about doing nothing.

They let all the stupid worries stop them from doing anything.

Democrats support abortion. You can play with that all you want and run all the Repubes in Dem's clothing you want, but Democrats support abortion. Stop running from what you are.

Democrats support Bully Boy paying for his illegal spying and illegal war.

They're doing the same thing they always do. Stand around and do nothing because they're sure they'll win that way. And when they lose, they'll scratch their heads and blame everything but themselves.
 
 
----
 
 
On Tuesday, Kathleen Callon left a comment and I wasn't able to read it (or my site) Thursday when I blogged last. To make sure everyone sees it, here is her comment:

If you want Senator Feingold to run for President in 2008, please, come over to http://russfeingoldpetition.blogspot.com/ and sign the petition.
Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your comment, Kathleen.

Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Posted by at

Humor Spotlight: Bully Boy Press breaks the story of the frothing White House Lap Dog

Wally had many hilarious posts this week; however, this was a favorite of two moms (Wally's and Mike's) so we'll go with it.
 

THIS JUST IN! WHITE HOUSE LAP DOG FROTHS AT THE MOUTH!

BULLY BOY PRESS - DC.
 
THIS JUST IN!
 
WHITE HOUSE LAP DOG FROTHS AT THE MOUTH!
 
STAY AWAY FROM HIS BONE!
 
WHITE HOUSE LAP DOG SCOTT MCCLELLAN SNARLED AND SNAPPED AT THE CD PRESS CORPS TODAY AS HE BARKED THAT HE WAS "TIRED OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS."
 
WHAT MADE THE LITTLE DOGGY'S TAIL STOP WAGGING?
 
SUGGESTIONS BY WOULD BE COMEDIAN SENATOR NORM COLEMAN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF MIGHT BE TIRED AND NEEDING TO BE PUT TO SLEEP OR AT LEAST GIVEN A REST.
 
YAP-YAP-YAP REPLIED SCOTTY.
 
"THE BULLY BOY HAS A SMART, CAPABLE AND EXPERIENCE TEAM THAT IS FULLY COMMITTED TO HELPING HIM ADVANCE HIS DESTRUCTIVE AGENDA AND GET THINGS DONE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,"  GROWLED SCOTTY BARELY LOOKING UP FROM THE KIBBLE IN HIS DOGGY BOWL.
 
 
WHEN THE LINE OF QUESTIONING CONTINUED, SCOTTY BARED HIS TEETH, THE FUR ON HIS NECK RUFFLED AND FLARED AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VERY NASTY SCENE WAS AVOIDED ONLY BY THE PASSING OF A FIRE TRUCK.
 
AFTER SCOTTY WAS DONE HOWLING ALONG WITH THE SIREN HE APPEARED TO BE IN A MUCH BETTER MOOD AS HE SCRATCHED HIS EAR WITH A BACK PAW.  AROUND THIS TIME, THE WHITE HOUSE PET DISMISSED THE ENTIRE QUESTIONING AS "WASHINGTON BABBLE THAT GOES ON IN THIS TOWN."
 
BEFORE HE COULD CONTINUE ON THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT, SCOTTY WAS SCOOPED UP BY WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR AND NATIONAL MENACE TO SOCIETY KARL ROVE. 
 
DENYING REPORTS THAT ROVE WAS TAKING HIM IN FOR A FLEA AND TICK BATH, SCOTTY INSISTED HE WAS JUST GOING TO GET HIS NAILS PAINTED AND A FEW BOWS PUT IN HIS HAIR.
 
SCOTTY SAID, LICKING HIS PRIVATES,  "THIS IS PART OF THE PARLOR GAME."
 
 
 
 

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Rebecca provides lyrics and a report on kids in America

Music and a report on the kids in America?  How could we not note this from Rebecca?  Her youngest readers put most adults to shame. 
 

never cheerlead an illegal war

okay, i need some help here. sing with me here, we're going for the melody to dionne warwick's 'i'll never fall in love again.'

what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.

what do you get when you rah-rah-rah?
americans coming home with worse than pneumonia
some of whom can never phone you
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again
chris matthews, never cheerlead a war again.

don't tell me what's it all about
because you were a fool and people died
from those lies
your lies that bind you
that is why i'm here to remind you.

what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
you only get lies and pain and sorrow
so take a vow for peaceful tomorrows
never cheerlead an illegal war again.
never cheerlead an illegal war again.

the inspiration for the above version of hal davis and burt bacharach's classic is a new item from fair - '"The Final Word Is Hooray!" Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits' and here are some of my personal favorites of dupes embarrassing themselves as they got on board for the illegal war:

"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine _expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional _expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation [stunt]--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right." (New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years." (Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

use the link to relive more embarrassing moments of the war cheerleaders.

so how are you protesting the war on the third anniversary of the invasion?

andrea and her best friend hannah are going to read a piece they wrote together to their grandmother's saturday mah jong group. andrea asked her asked her grandmother and she said 'sure.' andrea says she and hannah are really excited and have been practicing their presentation in front of her grandmother who says it's really good.

i'm sure it is and i'm sure if 2 young women, 12 year olds, can find a way to make their voices heard, you can too.

goldie's having her friends over for a sleep over like mindy's doing this week (and like goldie did in september) but this time, before the sleep over, they're going to walk up and down the sidewalks carrying signs. they've already made 'stop the war'; 'bring the troops home'; and 'bush lied people died' and they're working on the other 1s. goldie's mom told her it was fine as long as she made sure the other mothers knew ahead of time so she and mom called the other mother's and everything is okay with it. they're working a cheer to chant right now.

7 high schoolers are attending their 1st protest. some of you who became protest veterans in 2005 are gearing up for the next wave and bringing friends along.

there's a huge group in oregon that's working on sign they'll hang from a bridge over a highway.

we've got 2 different women organizing teach ins with their friends.

so what are the rest of you doing?

if nothing else, you can make a point to talk 1 on 1 to a friend about the war. in my opinion, that's the very least you can do, bare minimum.

check out elaine's "Peace doesn't come about through silence" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY LAUNCHES OPERATION GET IT UP!" and c.i.'s "NYT: It's only news when Republicans issue statements."

and do something. make your voice heard.





Yahoo! Travel
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Elaine wonders who is still suffering from "War Got Your Tongue?"

Here's how we got a spotlight out of Elaine who always says, "Highlight someone else."  A) We asked her, "Do you want to waste time on a back and forth over this or get started on the writing of the latest edition?"  (We're all tired.)  B) "How about we note the Friday post with the editorial we all worked on?  You'd never read it after it went up and others may not have either?"  C) "You're noting Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez standing tall.  Shouldn't we get the word out on that?"  So Elaine said, "Fine."  We'd recommend you check out Like Maria Said Paz.  We rarely get to highlight it.  It's a wonderful site and Elaine's an important voice.
 
 

"War Got Your Tongue?"

Mike is energized tonight so please visit Mikey Likes It! I'm not sure what I'm up for tonight. We've already all done a discussion for Saturday's gina & krista round-robin and I'm honestly not sure how many more comments I have left in me. I've got the music playing, probably too loudly, hoping that will give me enough energy to get through an entry. (You might want to try something similar if you're attempting to read this.) Right now James Blunt's Back to Bedlahm is playing.


"US Launches Largest Air Assault Since Iraq Invasion" (Democracy Now!):
US and Iraqi troops have launched what the military is calling the largest air assault in the three years since the Iraq invasion. In a press release, the army said over fifteen hundred troops and fifty aircraft have been deployed in a “suspected insurgent operating area” northeast of Samarra. Operation “Swarmer” is expected to last for several days. No casualties have been reported so far.


Operation "Swarmer" because when you're launching destruction, a catchy name is really important apparently. The intent/hope is probably that a cutesy name will have the media focusing on the buzz and not the reality.


"Hidden In Plain Sight" (Norman Solomon, CounterPunch):
The U.S. government is waging an air war in Iraq. "In recent months, the tempo of American bombing seems to have increased," Seymour Hersh reported in the Dec. 5 edition of The New Yorker. "Most of the targets appear to be in the hostile, predominantly Sunni provinces that surround Baghdad and along the Syrian border."
Hersh added: "As yet, neither Congress nor the public has engaged in a significant discussion or debate about the air war."
Here's a big reason why: Major U.S. news outlets are dodging the extent of the Pentagon's bombardment from the air, an avoidance all the more egregious because any drawdown of U.S. troop levels in Iraq is very likely to be accompanied by a step-up of the air war.



That's the reality. But will big media focus on the reality? Probably not. They'll probably be taken in by "shock and awe" instead. I see no indication that they've learned a thing from their mis-coverage in the lead up to the war.

If that seems harsh, you obviously missed today's "New York Times Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon Defends Pre-War Reporting on WMDs" where the New York Times' Michael Gordon could justify (or ignore in some cases) every bit of mis-reporting he did. You can read the transcript, but to appreciate the sheer arrogance of this man, you need to listen or watch. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez deserve strong praise for the work they did on that interview.


"Over 500 Events Planned For Events Marking Third Year of Iraq War" (Democracy Now!):
And as the invasion and occupation of Iraq reaches the three-year mark this Sunday, activists are staging anti-war events around the world. At least 500 protests are being held in the US this weekend alone. United for Peace and Justice has organized actions in all 50 states. Some began earlier this week. A veterans march for peace, which began in Alabama Tuesday, will end in New Orleans. According to USA Today, a new poll shows 60 percent of Americans believe the war was not “worth it.” In London, the Stop the War Coalition will stage a protest Saturday to demand the withdrawal of US and British troops from Iraq. Similar demonstrations are to be held in cities in Iraq, as well as in Mexico, Japan, and other parts of Europe.


It's so important that you make yourself heard. Maybe a mass protest/rally isn't your thing? Then you need to figure out what is "your thing" because we can't afford to be silent. If you've forgotten, this was sold as a "cake walk" and it's been three years. Now Bully Boy's talking "Long War" and you better believe nothing's changing if you're not willing to make it change.

We all have the power to say "no" to the war and I hope that we'll use our voices. That might not be a protest for you. That might be a house party or something else. But you need to be heard. You need to be counted among the many who are opposed to the continued occupation.


"And the war drags on (Indymedia Roundup)" (The Common Ills):
Talk about what was done in Iraq. Talk about how we got over there. Hearing tales from high ranking military officials about how they wished they had more whatever (bombs? troops?) is nonsense. We shouldn't have been over there and trying to sell the hogwash that there could have been a "win" is nonsense, it's jerking off, it's fantasizing and it's attempting to tack on even more days to the occupation as Americans are told if-only's and led to believe that Rumsfeld can carry it off this time.
It doesn't need to be 'carried off.' It needs to be ended. It never should have started. For three years a lot of people have deluded themselves about the tensions (against the occupiers) in Iraq. As though we could trample around their country and impose our concept of "order" upon a people -- an intelligent people, not a group of ignorant children. We can't. If that's not obvious to people now, it never will be.
Fortunately for those who practice the religion of denail, the likes of Michael Gordon scribble badly written articles that let them think, "If only we'd fought this way or that way, we'd have peace now!" No, we wouldn't. When one country occupies another, you don't get peace. When the host country wants the occupiers to leave, you don't get peace. When you import workers from out of the country and deny jobs to Iraqis, you don't get peace. When you have a tag sale on their public goods, you don't get peace. When you make noises about taking away their food subsidies, you don't get peace.
Why take away their food subsidies? Especially if they don't want them taken away? Because it doesn't fit the "free market" model we've attempted to impose upon Iraq, that we've attempted to force onto the people.
That's not democracy. That's occupation. We're calling the shots, and Iraqis don't like it. That's not a surprise to anyone awake. And hearing about the grumbles from the leadership of the military doesn't begin to address reality.

I was talking to Rebecca about the above, on the phone, this morning. As she said, "What do you say after you read that other than 'Wow!'?" I know it was written in the midst of the discussion for this morning's roundrobin. I know that C.I.'s probably about to fall over and it's not even time yet for the latest edition from The Third Estate Sunday Review. I don't know what to say other than I will never understand where C.I. gets it -- this energy. This "I'm about to fall over or pass out but something still needs to be done so let me grab a fifth or sixth wind."


I wish I had that kind of energy. Or focus.

If either of the two who read Wednesday's post are here now, I think it's pretty sad that you went whining to C.I. about what I wrote but didn't have the character to e-mail me. I stand by remarks. (And thanks to C.I. for backing me up.)

This isn't a time for silence. We all need to find and use our voices. Hence, our reality check for tonight.


"War Got Your Tongue?" (The Third Estate Sunday Review, December 9, 2005):
Let's give it up to the bloggers and the op-ed columnists with bravery because they've weighed in the war. The war that hits the third year mark in March.
You do know there's a war going on, right?
We kind of feel like we have to ask that question because most people don't appear to. Again, give it up for the bloggers and the op-ed columnists. Give it up for progressive media.
"'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed'" we asked at the D.C. protests in September. Here's how one person responded:
74) Ivan, 62, Michigan: I think today is great and am thrilled with the turnout. I protested against the war on Vietnam and there it took us years to get the momentum going. What I worry about is where are the people? I don't mean the protesters, I'm really encouraged with the cross-section today. But, okay, you've got Cindy Sheehan. Great spokesperson. Ralph Nader's here and maybe he can make up for the recent past or maybe not, but he's here. The actress from Tootsie and Cape Fear, right Jessica Lange. She's here and I didn't remember her name but she really did give a great speech. I'm glad those people are here. But we need more. And in my day, the people had others. Yes, we had Jane Fonda, Fred Gardner, Joan Baez, Tom Hayden and others front and center. But you also had people backing it up. Like Bob Dylan. I think he went to one protest with Joan Baez for civil rights. But his songs backed up what his actions didn't. Or you turned on Dick Cavett or David Frost and there was an author or singer or someone and they weren't at the protests but they'd put it on the line and they'd say, like John Phillips [Mamas and the Papas] that the war was wrong. I caught Jane Fonda on David Letterman, when her book came out. And he asked her about the war and she said she was against it and the audience just went crazy with applause and cheers. But are there younger people doing that? Is it just people my age? Maybe there are and I just don't know them. But part of the reason the movement finally did end the war is that our cultural heroes were willing to speak out. You hear a lot of that sneering "You're a celebrity, shut up" talk and that's really fearing the power if they do speak out. With Vietnam, and this isn't a full list, just names that come to mind, you had Joan Baez and Jane Fonda front and center, but you also had Phil Ochs, you had the whole Mamas & the Papas, you had John Lennon, Mia Farrow, Tim Hardin, Laura Nyro, Peter Fonda, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Joni Mitchell, Jim Morrison, Janis [Joplin], the Rolling Stones, Grace Slick and the [Jefferson] Airplane, this whole list of people. And you had people my age and younger and we weren't that different from kids today, we thought about what was in front of us. So when you have these people that you watch or listen to talking about it, it put it front and center. There were a lot of priests and a lot of Quakers and a lot of really solid activists who worked and gave their time to ending the war. But what kept it on the front page was a) real reporting with real photos and b) the fact that you couldn't escape it. You turned on the TV to escape but there was some entertainer talking about it. It was front and center. Now maybe there are people doing that today. I don't watch much TV now. Maybe if I turned on Letterman every night, I'd see some young people coming on to talk about a movie or TV show and I'd hear them speak out against the war. But I really don't get the sense that's happening. The right spent a lifetime demonizing Jane Fonda. There's a reason for that. They want to make sure no one else is tempted to use their power. They're scared of what would happen if entertainers really started throwing their weight around and making the people buying tickets or records think about this war.
Hard to believe it to look around today, but that did happen. C.I. had lunch today with a friend who's trying desperately to work the war into a show he writes for. During the conversation a number of issues were raised about what's being ignored by the mainstream press. C.I. shared the converstation with Jess who said, "I had that same conversation!" C.I. came up with the title of this editorial. Jess tossed in something else. By then it was going to have to be a Third Estate Sunday Review piece because we all wanted to weigh in.
All we are saying is JUST TAKE A STAND
On this anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon, we're surprised by how few seem to act as if a war's going on. Ripped from the headlines our asses. Hiding from the headlines. And it goes on everywhere.
Maybe pop culture doesn't allow you to comment on Harold Pinter's speech? Maybe a playwright is too "culture" and not enough pop? Maybe it's just not really handing out awards if no one asks, "Who are you wearing?"All we are saying is just take a stand.
If you're presenting as being on the left, why are you so silent on a war that's waged for almost three years? War got your tongue?
Hey, if you're for the war, come out and say it. You can find readers who'll support you. But quit hiding behind "I'm left" if you can't comment on the war.
You're not looking "moderate." You're looking ignorant. And when people read you years from now and see that you had nothing to say about a war that waged and waged, they're going to wonder about that.
We should wonder about it right now.
Bloggers, op-ed writers, Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman, The Progressive, The Nation, go down the list. They're the people who have kept the conversation alive, who have forced it to the front. They did that without you. They're still doing it without you even though polling consistently demonstrates a trend of the people turning against the war.
You waiting for it to hit 99% before you feel "safe" about weighing in?
Naomi Klein rightly argued about the need to bring Iraq to the NYC during the Republican convention in 2004. We echo that only we say it's time to bring it to the people. That means no jerking off over Jessica and Nick or whatever "hot" topic. If you're not weighing in on a war, what are you but a couch potato?
Are you in a coma? Do you not see what's going on?
We ask that question because Bright Eyes gets slammed online by a left site. "When a President Talks To God" is "trite, crudely so, and certainly unenlightening"? Harold Bloom, when did you come online? Or is it the Professor from Gilligan's Island? (We felt the Bloom ref might be lost on the "wit" who penned the critique.)
Maybe you missed the performance of that song? Maybe you weren't at any of the sites on the left that talked of this or listening to The Majority Report whan Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder played the clip? We're sure reading The New Rag takes up a lot of your time.
But is that your statement? Your full statement on the war?
Gee, thanks for weighing in. Maybe you're one of the sites or magazines that can also say you reviewed Jarhead?
We're so lucky to have you.
All we are saying is just take a stand.
Clooney and Damon have a new movie, you could blather on about that and claim you've addressed the war three times!
We're not sure what you're so scared of. Or why, having been silent, you think anyone cares what you think about the voices calling for an end to the occupation?
Are you Shelly Hack in Annie Hall?
"I'm bascially very shallow and have no ideas or thoughts of my own."
Is that it?
How's that working out for you?
As you muddle down the middle of the road, how's that working out for you?
















Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Posted by at

Humor Spotlight: Betinna crowns Thomas Friedman "First Among Fools"

Betty wants an apology noted if we include this.  Her apology is that there was only one chapter this week.  No apology necessary.  Not only because it's a funny, wonderful chapter. But also not necessary because we know Betty focused on getting the word out.  In her community, with her family and friends, participating in discussions for the gina & krista round-robin, participating in a discussion for Polly's new newsletter.  (Called Polly's News for now, but Polly says she hasn't had time to think up a permanent title yet.)  So we'll note Betty's apology but we'll note that it's not necessary in our eyes.  She was active.  She was getting the word out.  We hope you were as well.
 

First Among Fools

What's it like to be married to the most hated man in the nation?

That's a question I get a lot.

Not from everyone. For instance, Gail Collins seems over her crush on young Mr. Davy Brooks.

"Oh, Betinna," Gail whispered over the phone, all nervous giggles, "he's such a manly man. You're so lucky to be married to Thomas Friedman."

Well we've known she was out of touch with reality for some time. But the thing that had delighted Gail so, what had turned her from a Friedman-hayta' into a wanna-be-playa' was
"Mr. Nasty, Brutish and Short-Tempered."

I came up with that title.

Thomas Friedman loved it, "Oh Betinna, it's perfect. It describes them perfectly."

Yeah, "them."

The layout of the op-ed page is such that columnist's name (regular ones) appears and then a line below it with the title of the column below that in larger font. So it's like this:

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
___________________

Mr. Nasty, Brutish and Short-Tempered

I thought it read perfectly. "Thomas L. Friedman . . . Mr. Nasty, Brutish and Short-Tempered." I'd call it "autobiographical" but he didn't come up with it.

What did he come up with? What triggered the lower the belly desire in Gail?

Thomas Friedman making an ass out of himself.

He really thinks he's loved. And I was egging him on.

"Everyone loves you!"

So he opens with his attempt at silly. A little bit about how he has a job for Dick Cheney but no giggles because he's serious and not about to tell a shooting joke.

Shooting joke? He's writing about Iraq. Does he realize how insensitive he comes off?

Of course not. That would require awareness of others and he only has eyes for Thomas Friedman.

So his big plan is to "get tough" by putting the conficting factions in Iraq (which means officials, he does work for the paper of misrecord, after all) into the same room and locking them in there.
What a brave he-man he is! He's nearly as tough as the dad on Growing Pains.

He also tosses out "Darth Vader" for Cheney, not realizing that joke was funny about three years ago and has since been done to death. But what can never be done to death is a fifty-two year-old using the slang "dude."

He does that.

"Betinna, I think it needs a 'dude,'" he said showing me his work in progress before it appeared in Friday's paper.

"Let me look," I said with false sincerity.

That's how this sentence popped into print: "We need a really bad dude to make it work."

He asked me if I understood that "I'm using 'bad' in the colored sense of the word?"

"Oh, yes!" I agreed. "You'll have everyone on board with this column, Thomas Friedman. My people like nothing then to hear our slang in print."

Cracker.

While Dick Cheney gets to be "tough," Thomas Friedman reduces the people of America to the role of either "mid-wife" or "baby sitter." I'm not sure if that's a sleight against women, one against the people of America, or against mid-wives and baby sitters. It's hard to tell because few can offend so many in a single sentence.

What I said when I read it was, "Genius! Pure genius!"

Corn, pure corn.

"Mr. Cheney, this is your Kodak moment" Thomas Friedman typed away. Not grasping that your average technically aware person is familiar with the fact that digital cameras are replacing traditional ones and then some.

I found it interesting that he is back in love with Cheney. He doesn't think Bully Boy can pull off "Read my lips" -- let alone "mid-wife" democracy in Iraq. I seem to remember Bully Boy's father saying "Read my lips." Guess Junior's not up for it?

His praise of the Kurds and Richard Holbrooke only demonstrated how uninformed he is.

Well he does work for the paper of record. And it's always one embarrassment after another for the New York Times. Never say Thomas Friedman doesn't do his part. Of course, these days it gets harder and harder for Captain Freidman to stand out on the ship of fools.

Fortunately, Friday's column, where he reduced the fate of a country to a time-out, made him first among fools.







Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }