If it’s just bad writing or stupidity – if the phrase “building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism” doesn’t actually modify “post-September 11 plan,” but instead is just another way of pretending that Shrub is capable of the kind of leadership that has its “moments,” then the sentence is only unintentionally hysterical. However, given the current situation on the ground (all 18 zillion square miles of it) it may well be precisely the lie it appears to be, to wit: that fighting “Shi’a terrorism” was the point of Shrub’s post-9/11 master plan all along.
Either way, it boggles the mind that anyone who isn't a certified graduate of the Minitrue School for Outer Party Members could write an English sentence even suggesting such a thing. Is that why America crushed the most powerful Sunni regime in the neighborhood? Is that why Democracy Boy cheered as an Iran-friendly government took power in Baghdad? Does it explain why the Iraqi Interior Ministry was turned over to the tender mercies of an Iranian-backed militia movement?
At some point, the pencil-necks of Duh Media have to put aside their arrogant posturing and start being truly self-critical. They have relied on the comfortable defense of "if both sides are pissed at us, we must be doing our jobs". There may have been a time when that was true; this is not such a time. The fact is that one side gets pissed and frustrated when they don't do their jobs; the other side hates them and wants to cause physical harm to them when they do their jobs.
Again, it should not take someone with a master's in Middle East Studies and Poli Sci to parse a Bush White House press release. Billmon was able to raise three damning indictments in less than a paragraph, whilst the Telegraph's DC correspondent simply regurgitated what what he was given by the usual anonymous flunkies.
Seriously, the article is chock-full of unattributed quotes. Talk about useful idiots. Journalists keep deluding themselves that this is the only way to get news stories, to let administration officials launch policy statements that no one will take official responsibility for. They bristle when we barbarian bloggers get uncivil on them and call them stenographers, but exactly how is that article not stenography? Zero attributed quotes; zero objective voices of reason pointing out the sheer delusion (as Billmon did) that if the "plan" was to use Sunnis to counter Shia-sponsored terrorism, then demolishing the only powerful Sunni state in the region, and emboldening and empowering the Shia state next door was the exact wrong thing to do.
A real journalist would find a way, either by including a dissenting voice in his puff piece, or (heaven forfend) by objectively disputing the official account with a recitation of demonstrable facts, to show that what the anonymous "senior officials" are saying is either dishonest or delusional (or, as appears to actually be the case, both). But there are no facts in the Telegraph article, merely unchallenged, regurgitated assertions from anonymous officials.
If journalists really want to know why most people have come to hold their profession in contempt, there ya go. Journalism used to be a guild; if one member of the guild performed his job poorly or dishonestly, other members of the guild -- even if they had no personal contact with that journalist -- took it personally enough to publicly say so. It was a team sport, and the team would not put up with one idiot embarrassing everyone else with substandard performance or conduct.
But now that "legitimate" journalism has devolved into just another networking profession, with a bunch of independent contractors all competing for the same few brass rings -- cushy anchor gigs, fat-ass book deals, partying with the in-crowd, clawing their way to the middle -- the only standards are "don't get caught", and "don't make waves". The only difference between that level of "journalism" and a crack whore is that a crack whore has to give a couple more handjobs to get that sweet fucking house in the Hamptons.
No comments:
Post a Comment