Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2095 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Truth_Seeker
[Read the article: War as reality rather than cartoon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if this is your intention or not, but the above makes it sounds like hundreds of Israeli civilians were killed in Israeli terriroty as a result of the missiles Hezbollah was firing into Israel. If that was the intent, your numbers are incorrect.
You're right. I just read a report yesterday that referred to hundreds of "causalties" and recalled that incorrectly as deaths. I've changed the post to reflect that hundreds of Israeli civilians were killed or wounded, which is accurate (the number is actually in excess of 1,000, but since that includes some who were only slightly injued, "hundreds" is accurate).
-
Plisko:
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it would be twice as effective if you could also include a picture of whoever you are highlighting that day.
I think this is a good suggestion, but this odd conflict arises that explains why I've been reluctant to do it in the past.
It is so often the case that when you look at a picture of one of these journalists or neocon pundits, somehow the way they look actually conveys so much about them. It's almost as though the way they look bolsters the criticisms of their statements.
As a result, when I think about posting a picture of them alongside the commentary, it always feels like I'm using their picture -- their physical appearance -- to make a point. When you post their picture, you're not just showing what they look like, but are showing what they really are.
Just look at the picture of Fred Hiatt at the link Paul posted and you'll see what I mean. Just looking at the picture speaks volumes - in some intangible way - about what Fred Hiatt is. The same is true for som many of them. Take a look at Fred Kagan or Robert Kagan's photos for more good examples.
Part of me thinks that's a good reason to use their pictures, but part of me thinks it's a little bit of a cheap rhetorical device -- like mocking their appearance as an argument, even if that's not the intent. I'll have to re-think that.
-
Is this a serious question:
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought S.P. submitted this question. Are you trying to take credit for it Glenn, or did I miss something?
It was S.P.'s idea to submit a question regarding that topic. I authored it. S.P. hit the "submit" button. Thanks for enabling that important matter to be clarified.
-
WSJ
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Especially since that article was published in the high profile WSJ.
As Silence pointed out, the article appears to be only online, not in the print version - but I'd wager that that's only due to its length, not its content.
It appears to be an essay written originally in the Claremont Review of Books (where John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson got their glorious start as pundits), and it's roughly 3,500 words long -- roughly 4-5 times longer than the standard print op-ed. It fits right into the WSJ Op-Ed page, which often publishes Law Professor Robert Turner's identical defense of the Omnipotent President unconstrained by the annoyances of law.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thus, this complaint misses underlying the point that reality and Democratic partisanship have, over time, come to be one and the same thing. This is particularly evident as the GOP becomes increasingly anti-science, as well as anti-transparency in government. Reality is the enemy of authoritarianism.
So Democratic partisans don't engage in spin, fact-distortive propaganda and falsehoods in order to promote their political agendas?
Newspapers can just go ahead and print DNC Press Releases -- or releases from the Clinton and Obama campaigns -- on their front page without further comment and without editing and be confident that they are printing pure fact? After all, "reality and Democratic partisanship have, over time, come to be one and the same thing."
There are no facts that reflect negatively on Democrats or which conflict with the political assertions Democrats make? Objective reality and the Democratic Party have now merged and become one indivisible entity, so that to call for objective facts is the same as calling for a full embrace of Democrats?
That is how I always understand your argument when you make this point, and I don't see what other meaning it can have - "reality and Democratic partisanship have, over time, come to be one and the same thing."
-
Paul:
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The expression may have been a bit sloppy, but the full context of my remarks should make it clear that I'm saying reality is all on the Democratic side--not that the Democratic side is all reality-based--and that this has come about because the right has abandoned reality.
But I'm not disputing, and never do dispute, that point.
If a journalist publishes Fact X, and Fact X happens to bolster the Democratic view, that does not meant that the journalist is engaging in "partisan" reporting. It means that the journalist is engaging in non-partisan reporting (defined as "reporting facts without regarding to whether such facts promote or impede any specific political agenda), and that non-partisan reporting just incidentally happens to promote the Democratic view.
Even if EVERY fact -- Facts X, Y and Z -- happen to promote the Democratic view, that is STILL nonpartisan reporting. When I say that media criticisms are NOT based on a desire for their reporting to be "partisan," but merely objective and factual, the fact that such reporting will end up helping Democrats mostly or even exclusively doesn't make the reporting any less non-partisan.