CenterFeud

AP catches up to Michael Yon on success in Iraq

Michael Yon, July 14, 2008: Success in Iraq.

Associated Press, July 26, 2008: Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost.

Hmmm...Only two weeks or so behind the curve. "Independent journalist beats MSM to the story" is seeming more and more like "dog bites man". Would be nice if occasionally, the mainstream press acknowledged this.

UPDATE: Maybe only 2 days behind the curve? On July 16, the AP was quietly saying the war was winding down, it just wasn't the headline. But Gateway Pundit commemorated the occasion with a flying pig.

Reuters admits to faked photo of Beirut

First RatherGate, now ReutersGate. From Pajamas Media, whose co-founder Charles Johnson (of LGF fame) was instrumental in bringing both media scandals to light:

In an apology that should cast serious doubt on much of the credibility of the news service itself, Reuters has acknowledged that its war photography from Beirut had been altered and is officially withdrawing the photograph. In a carefully worded statement Reuters admitted that “photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience.”

Inconvenience? This display of media manipulation during wartime was uncovered by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs who previously uncovered the forged memos of Rathergate. In the past, Reuters has often been accused of bias by the blogosphere, which the news agency has denied.

This clumsily doctored photo, which included cloned portions to "enhance" the smoke and destroyed buildings, is only the tip of a much larger iceberg, in which media outlets continue to live in denial regarding their role in the skillful propaganda war being waged by jihadist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda. A recent example was CNN reporter Nic Robertson, who led his viewing audience through what he later admitted was a carefully staged Hezbollah propaganda piece.

No one is questioning the media's right to cover the destruction in Lebanon, and to provide the critical Lebanese perspective of the damage that is being wrought by Israel's attacks. But it is irresponsible to hand a megaphone to Hezbollah, or to report without establishing the motives of the people supplying the information. Part of Hezbollah's war-fighting strategy is to milk every possible casualty for its propaganda potential, and there is growing skepticism that some (certainly by no means all!) of the images of dead Lebanese civilans are manufactured or manipulated for consumption of both Arab and Western media. This technique of staging and manuipulating media imagery has been honed to an art form by Palestinian propagandists and was exposed in a 60-minutes segment titled "Pallywood".

It is certainly fair to point out that Israel's attacks are damaging civilian infrstructure and causing suffering and strife among the population, but not without noting that the airports, roads and bridges in question are targeted because they would otherwise be used by Syria and Iran to resupply Hezbollah.

It is also fair to say that Israel censors some of the reporting coming from its side of the border, but not without pointing out that such censorship is common in wartime, even among democracies, and is done to prevent disclosure of operational details that would damage the war effort and result in the loss of life -- and that Hezbollah exercises its own form of "censorship" by threatening the safety of those who might report less-than-favorably.

And it is fair to report the number of Lebanese civilans killed in the conflict, but not without mentioning that such casualties could be lessened if those civilans heeded the leaflets Israel drops as advance warning (not to mention that some of those casualties may in fact be Hezbollah fighters dressed as civilans). And, as has been noted elsewhere (but not repeated often enough in news reports), Israel regards civilan deaths as a tragic failure, while Hezbollah regards them as a victory.

All of the above factor into our understanding of the story and consequences of a victory by either Israel or Hezbollah (and by extension, its masters Syria and Iran). It is bad enough that the media reports the daily airstrikes and battles without supplying critical context; for it to rely on "journalists" who supply crudely doctored photos and act as shills for terrorist propaganda is unconscionable.

ASL Vlogging

You know videoblogging (aka vlogging) has really come into its own when you see Deaf vloggers like Joey Baer posting in ASL (American Sign Language) and linking to other vloggers for commentary and personal perspectives, also in Sign Language.

The focus of his blog is the current controversy at Gallaudet University in Washington DC, which is the only post-secondary liberal arts institution in the world specifically serving a deaf and hard-of-hearing student body (much like the role Howard University plays in the African-American Community).

For the uninitiated, some background: in 1988, Gallaudet's campus erupted in controversy as students protested the university Board of Trustees' decision to appoint a hearing administrator as President, bypassing a well-qualified deaf candidate, I. King Jordan. As a result of the protests (now known as the "DPN" movement for "Deaf President Now"), Gallaudet reversed course and appointed Jordan, who became the university's first deaf president. (To get a sense of the students' outrage, imagine the uproar if Howard University had since its inception consistently passed over African-Americans candidates to serve as its president).

Now, nearly 20 years later, a new controversy has erupted over Jordan's successor, Jane Fernandes who like Jordan is deaf but learned ASL as an adult. She is seen as problematic for reasons related both to cultural identity and the fairness of the selection process, as well as to assessments of overallcompetence. Go here for a side-by-side rendition of this argument in both English and ASL by Gallaudet faculty member Dr. Tom Holcomb:

Many of us do not see her as a leader. The first time many of us met her, we each walked away from the encounter harboring grave doubts about her abilities. So many of us did. You can go down the line. Each and every one of us have the same doubts. And we all love Gallaudet too much to accept this situation. We simply love Gallaudet too much.

Earlier this month, Protein Wisdom covered the controversy as a critique of identity politics. And got this comment from a deaf Gallaudet student, who echoes Holcomb's argument:

I know some do have the culturally deaf issue as a complaint, and I think it’s a poor one. I adhere to classical liberal values, and I would prefer that the best qualified person be picked for the presidency regardless of color, disability, religion, and so on. And while many of the protesters are of a liberal or Democratic mentality, which I’m not of, I also do know they’re focusing on the two demands reiterated above. Fringe elements of the protest are the ones pushing the culturally deaf issue.

The reason there is a protest against the selection of Fernandes is because she’s a poor academic administrator, and because the Board of Trustees did not listen to the protesters – the undergraduates, graduates, and faculty, in separate polls, voted overwhelmingly against her before the selection. In fact, it is now known that the Presidential Search Committee recommended someone else to the Board of Trustees.

The revival of the Deaf President Now controversy at Gallaudet, this time swirling around the twin issues of culture and competence, coincides with the spread of videoblogging as a phenomenon. It's an ideal medium for deaf bloggers and I hope to see more of it, even once the current controversy fades.

Pajamas Media's man in Beirut phones Hezbollah

Michael J. Totten has pulled up stakes and moved from Portland, Oregon to Beirut, where he will be reporting on Middle Eastern politics for the next six months. So what do you do when you're the new American journalist in town? Pick up the phone and call the Hezbollah press office, naturally.

Totten is just one of the impressive cadre of bloggers now affiliated with (the soon-to-be-renamed) Pajamas Media, the brainchild of Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson. To date contributors and editorial board members include notables such as La Shawn Barber, Dean Esmay, Michael Barone, David Corn, Eugene Volokh, Tammy Bruce, Cathy Seipp and Evan Coyne Maloney.

An amazing assemblage of firepower, bringing together some of the best talent of the blogosphere and the MSM. I expect them to create a new model of transparent journalism that will rewrite the rules and put their traditional counterparts to shame.

UPDATE: Michael's meeting went down just fine, since Hezbollah's press office is all about courting Western opinion. He promises to write more on the details down the road.

Bush-bashing bloggers apply here!

Greg Gutfield has posted his own survey at the Huffington Post for wannabe bloggers that is provoking both giggles and outrage along the lines you'd expect. Go read it.

Getting through to Lileks

He offers some advice to would-be emailers. A sampling:

If you would like your letter to be read and considered, some suggestions.

The term “wingnut” is not as harsh and cutting as you might expect. Personally, I don’t like any of these terms – moonbats, repugs, democraps, etc. (Except for “idiotarian.” I like it because it’s ecumenical.) They’re usually shorthand for broad concepts held by people whose views on other matters may be divergent. Not very helpful. In any case, have you tried to use a wingnut? They’re quite handy if you want to tighten something and you don’t have a wrench. I assume it’s short for “right wing nut,” but if you look at a wingnut, it has two wings. Left and right. You could say it understands both wings, even though it prefers to turn in a clockwise direction.

The chickenhawk argument is likewise unpersuasive. But I’ll make a deal: only people with military experience can discuss matters of national security, and only people who grew up in North Dakota can judge the movie “Fargo.” I know what you’re saying: “Fargo” took place almost entirely in Minnesota. Why are you trying to stifle my dissent?

He also denies taking marching orders from Karl Rove. Oh surrrrre...

Eric the Unread

...is back. Apparently, he never left, despite saying back in June that he was going on hiatus for the summer. Lots of good posts, just keep scrolling.

OK, now where was I?

For those of you who have wondered about my absence, my apologies. I had not intended to abruptly stop posting without a word of explanation. But following the July 4th holiday, I simply found myself uninspired to write anything.

There was certainly no lack of news. After all, barely a few days into July we saw the horrific bombings in London. And of course there is the ongoing drama around the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Gay marriage in Spain and Canada. Israel's impending pullout from Gaza and Netanyahu's resignation of protest over same. John Bolton's recess appointment and new revelations about the UN Oil for Food Scandal. And the neverending saga of Plamegate.

And yet...I had nothing to say about any of these topics, not because they were not important but because I thought there was nothing I could say that others weren't already saying far more incisively. My voice would have been merely a weak echo, part of a "me too" chorus. This blog has never been about building traffic (and a good thing, too! - ed) but about saying what's on my mind. So when I couldn't come up with opinions worth posting, I decided to give it a rest.

But now I'm back to have at it again. Why should you care? You shouldn't. According to the invaluable Technorati, there are approximately 80,000 blogs being created every weekday, about one per second. And the blogosphere is doubling every 5.5 months - Moore's Law on steroids. So there are lots of voices out there. Pick one.

But if you are coming by from time to time, it's because you think there's some value in what I'm saying, even if you are of a different opinion. I want you to know that I am honored because there are so many good bloggers and so many people out here with so much to say. I am in awe of the sheer volume of diligent research and spirited debate that I see in just a casual reading of the few blogs I make it a point to follow. All of us - bloggers and blog readers alike - are sorting out the world in real time, making judgments about reality vs. spin. Some are just here to posture and flame each other, but I believe the majority doesn't have time for that.

I can't promise I won't go silent again. I'll post when and if I have something to say. And I'll chill out in the corner when I don't. Not the best way to build and keep an audience. But I plan to stay in this game on an ongoing basis, and it's nice to feel I can occasionally take a step back. I may leave the room, but I'm not planning to close the door.

Anyway, it's nice to be back.

Guantanamo vs the Gulag

For those unclear on the concept, (which of course includes Amnesty International), Eric the Unread has posted an easy cheat sheet for comparing Guantanamo with the Gulag, sourced from an excellent op-ed piece by John Podhoretz:

Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

Number of prisoners in the Gulag: 25 million, according to peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

Number of camps at Gitmo: 1.

Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets.

Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.

Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.

Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.

Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war.

He follows up with some commentary on the sad tendency of once-idealistic organizations like Amnesty International to sink into a reflexive hatred of the US:

One of the lasting legacies of Bin Laden's attacks on the US, has been the increasing number of Western liberals willing to pour scorn, cyncism and vitriol on their governments, often with little evidence, while at the same displaying nothing short of stunning naivety about the motivations of terrorist groups or radicals. At worst these agonised handwringing liberals* give excuses for extremism or act as apologists for terror. The War on Terror has knocked the left so far off balance, they have forgotten that the values they believe in occassionally need to be defended vigourously - and not from George W Bush.

That the corrosive bile of anti-Americanism has seeped into Amnesty International should come as no surprise; it was inevitable.

The irony is that it was the left who closed their minds to the Gulags of Stalinist Russia; now the left use their imaginations to shout "Gulag" at the US.

* I hate using the term liberal in a derogatory sense, since I consider myself one. If I was in Twelve Angry Men, I'd be the Henry Fonda character.

Eric's blog is going on hiatus, leaving us with a fine essay to hold us over the summer: Liberalism is not a death wish.

Arianna's blog - better than I expected

Arianna Huffington's much-touted über-blog The Huffington Post launched today and I must confess that I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not a huge fan of Arianna Huffington, but her political transformation from Republican socialite to limousine liberal makes her a somewhat interesting character (and her lilting Greek accent adds some international flair). She knows how the corporate money-and-power game is played and understands the habits of the elite - it takes one to know one, after all. Her 2003 candidacy for the California goverrnorship was a joke and cheap publicity stunt, but to her credit, she keeps looking for ways to stir the pot and reinvent herself. A few years back she was covering the 1996 election sitting in a bed next to Al Franken. Since then, she's been a best-selling author, pundit and gadfly who has worked both sides of the street. Now she's decided to be a blogger. Well, why not? Blogging is democratic enough to accommodate even plutocrat populists who hang with rich celebrities.

Huffington has been promoting her effort for the past few weeks, touting an "A-list" of media luminaries like Walter Cronkite, Seinfeld co-creator Larry David, Tina Brown, Ellen DeGeneres and Mike Nichols. But this is the least interesting part, as these are people who command suffiicient public attention to make their opinions known anyway, and their posts aren't particularly insightful, clever or noteworthy. Political scholar Norm Ornstein, playwright Seth Greenland and New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine do much better.

In addition to the blog itself, half the site functions as a news service a la Drudge (a comparison Huffington both encourages and denies), and it's not bad at all. As of the evening of May 9, the headline screams: HUFFINGTON POST EXCLUSIVE: EMBARGOED BOOK CLAIMS SAUDI OIL INFRASTRUCTURE RIGGED FOR CATASTROPHIC SELF-DESTRUCTION. This chilling post draws on Gerald Posner's forthcoming book on the Saudis, Secrets of the Kingdom and elicits thoughtful responses from terrorism expert Daniel Pipes and military strategist Brian Haig. This is good stuff, and far more compelling than the celebrity drivel touted by the major media. Moreover, her willingness to prominently feature conservatives like Pipes on her front page shows that she is interested in a range of viewpoints.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nikki Finke of The LA Weekly in particular thinks she is short on A-list celebrities, and that her blog is an embarrassment - proof positive that Arianna has jumped the shark (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt). She also cites as a problem that Huffington's blog expert is Andrew Breitbart, whose former association with Drudge and his disdain for Hollywood are both apparently grounds for treason in Finke's eyes. I doubt most of Arianna's readers will care, and if celebrities shun her project, so much the better; then she can focus on getting more real bloggers into the mix. A perusal of her blogroll demonstrates she (or at least Breitbart) knows where to find them.