| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Pulp Fiction, er, News Reporting |
| 2005-08-26 |
| EFL Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has again proved that he and his followers hold an important card in Iraq's future. Their clashes with fellow Shiites also made clear one very stark fact: The attempt to forge a new constitution has deepened Iraq's religious and ethnic divisions, not healed them, as Americans had hoped. WTF, over? A "stark fact," or a ridiculous and undocumented non-fact? Memo to the geniuses at AP -- Tater Tot and the Badr boys are vying for power, and at this stage in Iraq that means muscling each other around. Additionally, "religious and ethnic divisions" clearly don't apply WITHIN the Shi'a community, asshats. And when did "Americans" declare that they thought the task of building a democratic, rule-of-law-based society in Iraq would -- in the space of 4 months - "heal" these divisions? This sort of nonsense is common in today's "reporting". There's another whopper that's routinely slipped into Reuters dispatches from Iraq. The enemy is described as opposing "the Shi'a and Kurdish dominated US-backed government." Hmmm, all those descriptors are accurate, but d'ya think a significant one is, uh, missing? Like "elected"? The moral inversion of the major media when it comes to "covering" the struggle between the US and other civilized forces and the repugnant blend of genocidal fascists, criminal thugs, and insane religious fanatics in Iraq is, indisputably, a "stark fact." This article nicely showcases another prominent feature of media distortion: attribution of reasonable or rational motivations to various scheming thugs and tools of malevolent forces, combined with a resolute disregard for relevant history and facts. Al-Sadr plays an unusual role in the constitution stalemate. He is Shiite, a fiery preacher and the son of a famous cleric believed murdered by former dictator Saddam Hussein. But in the constitution fight and on other issues, he is allied with Sunni Arab hard-liners. Uh, and with hostile elements of the Iranian intelligence service, which fuels his operations with drug money. Hello? Both al-Sadr and the Sunnis have strong grassroots appeal among ordinary Iraqis disaffected by the political process. WTF? "Disaffected" by the process through which people can have a voice, participate in elections, express their views freely? How about an accurate, informed description of the situation: people terrified their reign of terror, rapine, and larceny is over (Sunnis) and lumpen who like the drug money and are so ignorant they're prey to the crudest and most corrupt rabble-rouser (Shi'as who fall under Tater's spell)? Both have fought against the Americans — al-Sadr in two bloody uprisings last year, ... (unfinished sentence: "both of which were crushed by masterful US military operations with the cooperation of resentful Shi'a victimized by the Sadr forces' brutality and destructiveness." ... the Sunnis in the insurgency. Both view any constitution written under a strong U.S. military presence as illegitimate. WTF???!!!!!!! Right -- Sunnis thugs and drug-fueled Sadrist bully-boys have highly developed, respectable concepts of "legitimacy" in the political sphere -- it's not that they've got their own designs on power which would NOT be served by a true constitutional order -- jeezuz. This is the sort of crap that any editor with half a brain would send back with a nasty note demanding an explanation for the histrionically naieve interpretation. The article rambles on, quoting Juan Cole -- though the quote used is unexceptional, WTF is it that these people can't find a respectable, informed "expert" to comment? So remember, it's not just the massive distortion inherent in the media's selection of what's news and how much play to give it -- the 70+ front page NYT stories on 6-8 hours of criminal activity by military guards at Abu Ghraib that was discovered, investigated, and duly punished by the Army -- it's the constant, insidious insertion of preposterous interpretations and baseless attribution of respectable motivations to anti-Coalition actors. All in all, a noxious confection that helps the public to completely misunderstand Iraq (and many other topics). |
| Posted by:Verlaine in Iraq |
| #18 a 1000 Verlaine's before a Sylwester, or even a Frank G, when it comes to word from Iraq. Bravo Verlaine, keep it up |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-26 23:17 |
| #17 rkb: my deepest condolences. I'm sure the LT was a fine young man. She was a fine young woman, who served with pride and honor. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-08-26 22:21 |
| #16 ap: the essential global news network. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-26 16:25 |
| #15 Yeah, Shipman. Kinda like me. |
| Posted by: The Ghost of Walter Duranty 2005-08-26 16:16 |
| #14 Citizen of the World reporter.. (puke) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-26 16:12 |
| #13 Verlaine, You're close enough to the front lines for me to respect you and your opinions. Because as far as I can tell anywhere in Iraq can become the front line in 2 seconds. Sally Buzzbee is no high schooler. She is the AP's chief of Middle East News. "Buzbee is a native of Walla Walla, Wash. She has an undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Georgetown University. She has lived in Saudi Arabia and Tunisia." One thing that grates on me is her use of the word Americans as though she's not one nor is she writing for them. They are simply one of the many interesting groups she, as an objective observer from an alien planet, reports about to her disinterested readers. The MSM is no longer an Ameican institution in any sense other than financial. That's why the only reporting being done in Iraq is by Michael Yon. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-26 15:25 |
| #12 I echo rkb: Verlaine, your post was fine (I edited to fix a few line breaks). Mike: I don't see a problem here. rkb: my deepest condolences. I'm sure the LT was a fine young man. My best wishes to his family and colleagues. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-08-26 14:41 |
| #11 It was a righteous and appropriate rant, Verlaine. We buried a young 1Lt here yesterday, too, with grief and pride. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-08-26 14:08 |
| #10 If I pushed any RB etiquette envelopes, my apologies. I just had to tee off on this ridiculous article -- and as I said, it's a fairly good example of systematically distorted reportage on Iraq, so I wanted to make more general points about it. I appreciate the support from several commenters, but want to emphasize two points: (1) I've got soft duty here, thanks to the thousands of US, Coalition, and (increasingly) Iraqi troops out doing the hard work - we all do our part but I'm not on the front lines here (2) my contentions about media distortion really don't depend on any direct knowledge I might have of the situation. Which only strengthens the point. Anyone with a clue knows that the constitution-writing process isn't expected to heal ethnic divisions in the short term, that former regime elements don't even comprehend the concept much less hold specific views about "legitimacy," etc. One doesn't have to be here to understand that -- heck, it should be obvious to someone even in, say, Cairo ... To echo the excellent comments above, the piece I chose to highlight as an example of the preposterously awful "coverage" of Iraq was a high school paper done at the last minute, and is (laughably bad) opinion writing posing as journalism. Walked past a wall commemorating fallen heroes of the 4th Bde, 3rd Infantry Division at their HQ today. Young faces on that wall. One died a week after his daughter was born. Let's make sure none died in vain. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-08-26 14:02 |
| #9 "Rantburg rabble"....Kiss off,asshole. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-08-26 13:46 |
| #8 Mike, when you or I break out the highlighter, it's opinion. Verlaine's there. When he breaks out the highlighter, it's Eyewitness News. IMHO, of course. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-08-26 12:38 |
| #7 Note that the AP writer's dateline is Cairo, and the reporter gives no indication that she's ever been within a country mile of Iraq. Further, one of her "sources" is Juan Cole -- no bias there- appearing on CNN. She didn't even talk to Cole directly, or, as far as the article discloses, any of the people discussed in the article. This isn't reporting: it's a high school essay written the night before it was supposed to be turned in. |
| Posted by: Rabble 2005-08-26 10:10 |
| #6 It's time for you to stop all yer sobbin' ... yes it's time for you to stop all yer sobbin' ... there one thing you gotta do ... MIKE ... to make the "rabble" still want you ... gotta stop sobbin now ... stop stop stop ... each pathetic tear ... that falls from yer eyes ... |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-26 09:31 |
| #5 Mikey's just jealous. Verlaine is there and knows what he's talking about. Mikey's here and has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't. What I haven't decided upon, quite yet, is exactly why Mikey bothers to merely post pointless whining. The only other time I've seen such thoroughly unrewarded, yet thoroughly determined, behavior was as a parent observing children who were so starved for attention that even negative attention sufficed. They just couldn't stand being ignored. A primary trait of the lifelong Red-headed Stepchild Syndrome. Regards the topic, Verlaine nails it. In spades. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-26 08:40 |
| #4 Hey Mike, why don't you give the enemy some more aid and comfort by reproducing their unalterd propaganda in toto? I'm sure that'll do some good. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-08-26 08:38 |
| #3 MS: On the other hand, it's a big sin in the Rantburg rabble's eyes to post an article without a comment to show what the rabble what it should think about the article. Well - it's a big sin in the media's eyes to write a balanced news article without comment to show the rabble what it should think about the article. Verlaine is merely balancing this op-ed disguised as a news article. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-26 08:29 |
| #2 The comments here are about five times the content of the posted text. This posting is essentially not an article but rather a long comment by Verlain about nine scattered lines of text in the original article. On the other hand, it's a big sin in the Rantburg rabble's eyes to post an article without a comment to show what the rabble what it should think about the article. This posting certainly does not commit that sin. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-26 08:21 |
| #1 One thing I don't think many common Iraqis think about is reconstruction should the insurgency win. Unlikely, I grant you, but a good percentage of the country seems indiferent to who wins in the long run. Iran wants political hegemony and oil wealth from them, islamo-nuts want a wahabi state where you cant do anything but pray, and the criminals and sunnis want civil war and destruction in general. What if we did pull out tomorrow? They'd be screwed, for 10 years at least things would be so bad they would think back fondly to the occupation years. There would be no reconstruction money, no developement of any kind, everything in the country would fall into a state of disrepair and grind to a holt. So why do they want us to leave? Oh! they must mean leave, but keep the money coming. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-26 08:04 |