Letters to the Editor
-
Some takeover
The national media continues to depict demands for an end to this war as the by-product of the fringe "antiwar Left," and perpetuates the banal myth that Democrats face political peril because they have to satisfy this fringe element of their party. In fact, the true fringe group is the group of hard-core war supporters who support the President's desire that the war continue indefinitely.
Indeed. And these are the people who are being catered to in Congress, especially the Senate, right now.
Most especially His Holiness, Holy Joe Lieberman, who has been loudly threatening to bolt the Dem caucus if they do anything he doesn't like and approve with regard to His Holy War.
Occasionally you will see stories in the press -- try McClatchy, they tend to avoid the ridiculous Narratives and Storylines of the NYT and WaPo, and generally refuse to print the propaganda and spin from the White House and Pentagon without critical analysis -- that point out that's what's going on, and that's a big reason why Dems have been having such a hard time Unifying behind a single proposal, program, or position with regard to Holy Joe's War. They take this threat from within their own caucus seriously.
The whole notion of an "anti-war left" in this country is functionally absurd. There most definitely is an "Anti-War" (ie: anti-this-war) Constituency, and it is huge, as you point out, it is the majority by far. It is not even remotely "leftist." The notion that it is comes out of two things: the Communists with A.N.S.W.E.R. who have been so successful in organizing huge public demonstrations against the war (but who have not been able to recruit many members at their gatherings) and the lies and the propaganda of right wing authoritarians like David Horowitz, Hugh Hewitt, and Rush Limbaugh. In other words, anyone who disagrees with the Autocracy is by definition a "leftist." (Formerly a "liberal" but that term has fallen somewhat from favor.)
-
What does it even mean to be "antiwar"?
Glenn's points are right on the money. I would add - or ask - Stolberg and Broder and others who blather about the anti-war left: what do you mean by "anti-war"?
Typically, they seem to mean that one is anti-war who advocates for ending the military occupation of Iraq, as soon as practicable. But this begs the question of what the American mission is by the implied answer that we are still in Iraq because it is the central battlefield in the global war on terror.
What about Afghanistan? Is the 'anti-war left', or the American public in favor of pulling the troops out of Afghanistan?
On the contrary, even the alleged anti-war left is mostly in favor of putting more effort into Afghanistan. "Anti-war" peaceniks are, in general, rather firm in their support of the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
Our role in Afghanistan may indeed be in the nature of fighting a war, since it was their government that allowed bin Laden free rein, from which territory the 9/11 attacks were plotted.
In either case, the very term 'anti-war' is too muddled to accurately parse, let alone defend. As such, complaints like this from likes of Stolberg and Broder stand as the perfect synecdoche for the situation in Iraq.
-
Article pulled from WaPo website?
Bloggers do not want journalists to advance partisan storylines or advocate partisan views.
Glenn, shouldn't you qualify this statement? I mean, are all bloggers like this? You consistently highlight and call out bloggers who do want journalists to advance partisan storylines and viewpoints. Perhaps I'm making a meaningless point, it's so obvious. Keep up the great work.
-
D'oh
Sorry for the irrelevant headline. It was from my last post. Sorry sorry sorry.
-
But why?
I know this has been endlessly discussed and debated, but I still haven't seen a satisfying explanation for the shockingly poor quality of journalism that permeates the mainstream media. It is difficult to accept the level of credulity and incompetence that is necessary to ignore poll after major poll (ie, reality) in favor of, as Somerby puts it, the story line. It's getting to the point where massive conspiracy is almost the more plausible explanation.
-
Terrific
As usual, a really great piece.
(Though there are an unusually high number of typographical errors in this post that may be fodder for those with editors looking to respond).
-
Agreed, Glenn
Thanks for picking up on this article as one of the most egregious examples of "infotainment" in what used to be responsible newspapers. Increasingly it seems that journalists are attempting to manufacture strife where none exists, presumably hoping to make their news reporting more appealing to a level of the population which is unlikely to read those newspapers anyway.
-
Charles
Glenn, shouldn't you qualify this statement? I mean, are all bloggers like this?
Fair point. I'll add a qualifier that I mean the predominant complaint - it's true that there are blogger complaints about articles here and there which amount to a desire to see their political views be adopted by the medai rather than complaints about factual accuracy and the like, but those are isolated exceptions.
-
Joel_Grant makes an excellent point...
which accentuates the dishonesty of the article. Wanting to pull out of iraq is not an anti-war position. The Iraq war was a bait-and-switch which stole resources and attention away from the fight that was justified( we were attacked - we responded) and diverted to one that is morally reprehensible. (we weren't attacked - we weren't going to be attacked - we attacked anyway.)
That's why most Americans agree that we should get out. Because by the simple rules of morality we were taught as children, what we are doing in Iraq is wrong.
-
Agreed-press should be more factual
I agree whole-heartedly with this column. I don't want a partisian slant, but I would like to see facts checked in the articles, as opposed to stating obviously incorrect info as truth.
I have several 'conservative' friends who are convinced that the press has an ultra liberal slant. I would like for articles such as this to be more widely circulated. Maybe if they read and considered they would put more effort into their newsgathering.
Thanks for your blog.
jfnorman