Sounds Scared

The left is developing quite a flair for bathos.

"This is the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. They should be ashamed of themselves," Peter Beinart, editor of left-leaning The New Republic magazine, said.

What’s Mr. Beinart talking about? Why a group of talk-radio hosts who are headed to Iraq to see what’s going on for themselves and report back, that’s what.

"The reason why we are doing it is we are sick and tired of seeing and hearing headlines by the mainstream media about our defeat in Iraq," Melanie Morgan, a talk radio host (search) for KSFO Radio in San Francisco and co-chair of Move America Forward, said.

Morgan said the media is "imposing a Vietnam template on this war."

"This is not Vietnam," she said. "War is war, and it's dangerous, and the killing is taking place all of the time. At the same time, where there is danger, there is success and there is a mainstream media that is determined to shut out that success."

But Mr. Beinart thinks going to Iraq in an attempt to balance the bad news with the good carries some shame with it, for some reason. I always thought that people should have shame when they are doing something wrong, something selfish and/or are hurting others. By going to Iraq to survey the scene and report back, who could these radio host possibly be hurting?

"They have no idea what journalism is, and to pretend they are journalists is laughable," Beinart said.

Now I see. These people are invading the "elite" territory with guns PDAs blazing. Additionally--and unlike their betters with j-school degrees--they're going over there with their biases out front instead of pretending to cloak it behind some bogus professional concept called impartiality. (Who the heck is impartial about the Iraq War, anyway? Either you want us (and the Iraqis) to win or you don't.)

Anyway, those pathetic non-journalists are hurting the flow of narrative that “professionals” like Mr. Beinart keep attempting to shape for the “ignorant” masses.

Shame on these wicked talk-radio hosts for ruining Mr. Beinart’s fairytale like that! How selfish can they be?

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Welcome Daou Report Readers; always a party when you folks are here! :-)

Comments

[Ken Summers]

Melanie's my local Right Wing Death Babe. I heard about this on the morning show today. I find it amusing how the ones who scream "chickenhawk" have to denigrate people who actually go there.

As for her not being a "journalist", she actually has worked for a number of news outlets as a and is currently investigating, on her own time and money, an unsolved murder in Missouri (in fact, it was one of the first stories she worked on as a reporter in the early 80s).

And as an aside for Mr. Beinhart: by definition, administration shills get paid by the administration. All these people are shelling out their own money, with only partial recompensation by their stations.

[JLawson]

How DARE these people not take their talking points from their journalistic betters, and actually go see for themselves what's what?

Honestly, Baldilocks, I think there's a third category of the folks looking at the Iraq war that you missed.

Firstly, there's the ones that want the US and Iraq to win against the terrorists.

There's the ones that want the terrorists to win against the US.

And then there's a subset that want the terrorists to LOSE, but who don't want the US to WIN more than they want the terrorists to lose.

Makes for an interesting dichotomy in their thought processes, I'd say. It'd be kind of like looking in the US/USSR conflict in the '70s and going "Well, we want the USSR to lose, but we don't want the US to win, so, we'll support the USSR over the US." The absurdity of that stance fails to register.

As always, your writing is eloquent and succinct.

J.

[Madmatt]

Tell you what nothing but good things to say about Iraq if you get Rush to walk from the Green Zone to the Airport

[baldilocks]

Madmatt: see today's post entitled "Recycled Weapons."

[Seattle Slough]

"Either you want us (and the Iraqis) to win or you don't."

Obviously this is meant to be a cheap insult. Either that or you are woefully misinformed. But you are also missing the point of the trip.

The "journalists" are going to show us the "good news." They aren't going to find out what is going on. They have likely already written most of their stories. Rather they are going to Iraq to bolster their pre-formed opinions.

Whether a reporter thinks this war was well advised or ill, they should be able to convey the conditions there free from bias. All you do is step away from the military escorts and leave the green zone. If things are going well in Iraq, the reporters should not be afraid to do this. If Iraq is no more dangerous than Houston, then a reporter ought to feel secure enough to drive to a typical (i.e. neither excessively rich nor poor) neighborhood to speak with typical Iraqis about their day to day lives. Not handpicked individuals. Not with armed U.S. soldiers standing with out. Random Iraqis. Sadly, this will not happen.

If a reporter interviewed random Iraqis and then reported what they said, it would not matter what their bias was. That is called reporting. It differs from punditry. Talk radio hosts are pundits.

Everyone has biases, but a journalist should be able to do their job without them interfering.

I am a lawyer. Sometimes I represent a client I do not like or agree with personally. Doesn't matter. I do my job regardless.

This is like the Armstrong Williams traveling show. They are going there to put a positive spin on the situation. And you and I are paying for their protection. This would be OK if they weren't spending the entire trip with the U.S. military. But they are. They aren't going to report anything that the military does not tell or show them. So what is the point?

[Josh Yelon]

They get military protection? Gawd, that's awful. Our military has become the personal handservant of Rush Limbaugh. This nation is so screwed.

Look, if they think it's so nice over there, why don't they try experiencing it the way Iraqis do: walking down the streets of Baghdad, unescorted? The fact that they don't dare says something in itself.

[baldilocks]

Seattle Slough:

Obviously this is meant to be a cheap insult. Either that or you are woefully misinformed. But you are also missing the point of the trip.

Obviously?

Or is it that what you would like it to be so you can *feel* insulted and, therefore, wounded?

Or did that bit of rhetoric of yours serve some other purpose?

I'm asking, rather than assuming. You ought to try it sometime.

Whether a reporter thinks this war was well advised or ill, they should be able to convey the conditions there free from bias.

These people aren't reporters, they are commentatators. There is a difference. The nature of a commentator--which talk radio hosts are--is to communicate their biases to those who will listen.

This is like the Armstrong Williams traveling show.

How so, counselor? Is the government secretly paying for the trip? Are the radio hosts pretending as though they are unbiased? Or is it like Armstrong Williams for some other reason?

This would be OK if they weren't spending the entire trip with the U.S. military.

So spending time with the military in Iraq (yet another of your assumptions) is illegimate if one wants to know the military situation there? Or do you assume that military personnel will not tell the truth about Iraq?

State the reasons for your assumptions. Do you have something objective on which these statements are based?

[Seattle Slough]

Do I assume military personnel will not tell the truth? I don't assume military personnel will know the "truth." That is the problem. There is no "truth," and going there expecting to find it is a fools errand. Coming in with your idea of the truth already in hand, is ridiculous.

Iraq is a very complicated place.

The U.S. military is putting these "commentators" up on a military base. It isn't that they are going to be lied to necessarily. It is that they aren't going to be exposed to anything that the military does not want them to see. How do I know this? I know the military is going to be under strict orders to ensure that none of these "commentators" gets killed or captured. That is enough for me. They are going to get the Bob Hope treatment. Sure they are sleeping on cots and whatnot, but they are in the safest place in all of Bagdad.

Your statement was insulting because it assumed that people who's biases are different than the "commentators" want the U.S. to 'lose' the war. This isn't true, and I'm sure you know this. I opposed this war from well before day one, so I couldn't be said to be wanting us to lose it. Rather I didn't want us to even compete in it.

Imagine your friend wants to get in a fight with another person. You tell him, this is a bad idea. You plead with him in fact. He gets in the fight anyway and now he isn't doing so well. Did you want him to lose?

The last thing we need in this war is three or four more sets of rose colored glasses. We need sober and honest analysis. We need soul searching. Armstrong Williams did get paid. But that is only part of what he did. What he really did was allow himself to be spoon fed, information by the government. Then he turned around and repeated this information as if it were reality.

When these "commentators" return, I will put as much stock in their assessment as I would that of any VIP who was taken to Iraq. (i.e. Jessica Simpson) There are lots of actual reporters (many from organizations that aren't necessarily for or against the war) who live outside the 'green zone.' So why do we need this? Fox has reporters there. Aren't those glasses rosey enough?

When Sean Penn went to Iraq before the war did you trust his assessment? Why not? Only an independent press can be trusted. You knew that.

[Miguel]

We are witnesing the implosion of liberal media. Good! Just about time.

[harlengen]

the issue is not going so-called journalist going to iraq to find happy news to counter actual news, the issue is the idea of so-called journalists already determining what the news will be -- and its attendent happy spin -- before they are even there to witness, and then report it. talk about bias!

[DeoDuce]

Seattle Slough,

You said:

"Either you want us (and the Iraqis) to win or you don't."

Obviously this is meant to be a cheap insult. Either that or you are woefully misinformed.

Quick PoliSci lesson:

In Iraq, we are in a war. Generally, there are two sides to a war. In this war, the two sides are: The US/Iraqi side versus Al-Qaeda and Misc. bad guys. It is GOOD if WE win. It is BAD if Al-Qaeda/Terrorists and their henchmen win.

Are you still insulted? If so, I heard that Al-Q is recruiting. Maybe you could train on the monkeybars and be in one of their videos.

[copithorne]

Peter Beinert does not represent 'the left.' Nor is The New Republic 'left leaning.' Nor does Peter Beinert have any credentials for speaking about journalistic standards or integrity.

My perception is that Peter Beinert and the New Republic partake in the dominant conservative paradigm that supports stealing money from American children in order to start wars.

In this regard Mr. Beinert would share in the shame of being selfish and harming others that properly belongs to the talk show hosts. The talk show hosts are more able to avoid experiencing that shame by belonging to a culture that celebrates denial and propaganda as virtues instead of defects of character.

[Seattle Slough]

wow.

Thanks DeoDuce, for the PoliSci lesson that is. When I majored in PoliSci, I never got that one. Must have been something Rousseau said. Sure doesn't sound like J.S.Mill.

Gee. I though the world was a pretty complicated place until you showed up.

Thanks a lot.

[Robert Crawford]

When I majored in PoliSci

Say no more!

[Peg C.]

The interesting thing is lately Beinart has been a voice of reason. Now even he has gone insane.

I'm so glad the talk radio hosts are doing this. Drive the Left more insane, I say!

Man, you're a chickenhawk if you don't go and a propagandist if you do. It's really quite hilarious.

[Robert]

Peg C.

You hit the nail on the head. These pundits are going over there to drive the left insane. Not to find out what'sreally happening. THAT's the story.

These pundits are paid an extraordinary amount of money to keep Americans confused, misinformed and stupid.

There's no news in that news.

[The Tonic]

Why do these guys assume that all the news coming out of Iraq is "the bad news"? Maybe it's just "the news." Maybe what is actually happening in Iraq, when reported, sounds bad because it is.

[jim beach]

I'm taking bets on how often these pundits-as-journalists will leave the Green Zone unescorted by any US military.

My bet is zero for Rush, and zero for everyone else individually, and maybe one time for the group as a whole - while they're actually escorted by some gun-toting private contractors and plainclothes in swarms.

Any takers?

[chrisBZ]

You quote the new republic, but then link to a fox news story. Why not provide some context by providing a link to the original story?

Simply no objectivity whatsoever. This is why blogs suck and they're not going to replace actual reporting anytime soon.

[The Raven]

You want "good news" from Iraq, Baldilocks? Here's some good news! Today, Halliburton was awarded another $5 billion in contracting.

We know from Congressional testimony that they've been bilking the U.S. taxpayer and padding their invoices, so now they get even more cash to spread around. Oh, and Cheney still draws his salary and retains his stock options. Good news!

Those pundits are going to hang out with the troops, just like Hannity did, and come back with more propaganda. Can't wait. See, there isn't any good news in Iraq because we shouldn't be there. You want good news? How about "Osama bin Laden captured on the Afghanistan-Pakistani border"? That would be good news indeed.

[baldilocks]

Okay, Raven. We'll believe what you say as you sit on your butt and type every cliche known to the Left. Even though more courageous men and women than you defend our country and another group goes to try to give them more of a voice, we all will listen to the codewords you spew and nod in agreement like Pavlov's dog(s) as you ring the bell.

Halliburton!
Cheney!
Stock Options!
Osama!

/sarcasm off

Sell your basket of non sequiturs in a place in which the blogger does not know the difference between catching one terrorist and one thousand. Sell it someplace in which the blogger does not know the difference between tactical and strategic operations.

Sell it someplace in which the blogger does not know how much contempt most on the left have for the military and the intellect of individual members.

Because I gurantee you, this little culled gal knows the difference on all counts.

Next.

[StinKerr]

"Imagine your friend wants to get in a fight with another person. You tell him, this is a bad idea. You plead with him in fact. He gets in the fight anyway and now he isn't doing so well. Did you want him to lose?

Let me take this similie a little farther, SS: Your friend is winning the fight, proving you wrong. Do you then go and drag him back by his belt, impede his swings, bite his ankles to make him lose and prove that you were right?

That's exactly what you and your ilk are doing. It's too late to protest the invasion. It's over. To protest the rebuilding is futile and selfish because we're committed and can't leave, in good conscience, until the job is complete and Iraq is self sustaining.

I was against invasion at the start. I didn't think we had enough reason to invade. I took part in the debate at the time and the decision was made. It went against my opinion.

The difference between us is that I accepted the decision and closed ranks with other Americans and supported my country and our military. I want to make this work. I refuse to be the petulant child who is being dragged kicking and screaming everywhere because he didn't get his way.

Of course, I didn't see the purpose in invading Afghanistan either. I was wrong in that. There is no reason that I can't be wrong about Iraq. Either way, we're involved and I will give my support wholeheartedly.