Fisking Another "Maverick"
Kathleen Parker is referred to—quite a bit—as a "maverick" conservative. There’s another "maverick" my eyes are on, and I take as many opportunities to pound on the drum known as John McCain. But not today. Today I was greeted with an editorial written by Ms. Parker for the Orlando Sentinel. Again, this is on the fallout of the Newsweek story. (I know a lot of people are probably sick of this story, believing it’s run it’s course. I beg to differ.) The media is giving Newsweek a mulligan on this story; refusing to add their cries to the calls for the editor’s heads, and a true accountability of Newsweek in this inaccurate story. Ms. Parker wrote this piece, I’m sure, from her heart. And I’m sure she means what she says. But, I’m less than enthused about how a "conservative" like her views this issue.
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1046
The apparent Newsweek mistake was regrettable, but we should beware allowing ourselves to mirror the emotional reactions of people who were by no measure justified in their response - even if the story had been proven true. The same people foaming over a reported act of blasphemy didn't flinch while executing women for stepping outside sans burqa. I'm afraid my moral outrage in favor of the morally outrageous is all tapped out.
Regrettable? It’s abhorrent. It never should have happened. And last time I checked, those that raised the eyebrow—those that questioned two veteran journalists—were not rioting. The riots in Afghanistan were an "emotional reaction" to a false story regarding the desecration of a Koran. And we do condemn such acts that are quite seemingly barbaric, such as the abuse and killing of anyone over not wearing a burqa. I have criticized those nations for their brutal, Dark Ages mentality.
I have no interest either in defending Newsweek or in justifying interrogators' methods, but let's be blunt: Those rampaging in Afghanistan didn't need a reason to riot; they needed an excuse. That the media provided one is regrettable, but that regret needs to be tempered by perspective and objectivity.
Ms. Parker does not defend Newsweek; she instead does what the rest of the media is doing. A media outlet in this country published a story that raised the ire of a people halfway around the world. And then it was found out to be untrue. That outlet tried the "I’m sorry" approach, which failed miserably. The reaction of bloggers was quite tempered; we did not call for torches and pitchforks, and a march on the Washington Post Company’s headquarters. WE wanted answers. And the American public wanted answers, and still desires them. Newsweek hasn’t provided any. Their only answer is "Whoops. We screwed up." Great. Thanks for admitting what we already knew. How did it happen? Who is responsible? And who the hell is this "unconfirmed source"?
I believe that the blogosphere acted in a professional and objective manner. The story was ripped to shreds—refuted by over thirty different bloggers, and later by the Pentagon. Bloggers started with the facts of the story, and worked their way back. Within a matter of days, Isikoff’s "unconfirmed source" was trying to put as much distance between the story and himself, and the story finished imploding from that point up until now.
Instead, much of the anger the past several days has been directed not at the Islamist extremists who went berserk, but at the reporters who apparently got the story wrong. What if they'd been right? Should Newsweek not have reported it? Would the riots have been justified if someone had flushed a Koran?
I do blame the extremists for not acting in a more civilized manner, however it’s their country, and it’s how they reacted. Newsweek should have known—and I mean this—that what they would print might have repercussions. We are in a delicate time in history, and the last thing we want to do is escalate this war further. We are after terrorists, not Muslims. I believe Karzai’s comments in regard to the Newsweek story is right on the money. He is working to build a free government over in Afghanistan, and it’s not wise to incite the anger and hostility of that populace. News week should have known better.
As to her questions, their irrelevance in the matter is astronomical. Of course Newsweek should have reported on a backed-up, factual story. The story’s main contention—the desecration of the Koran—was refuted, thereby throwing the rest of the story into a tail-spin. Would the violence have been justified? An absolutely intern-like question. The answer to that is an emphatic "no". I am not a violent person, but threaten me, my family, or my friends with any violence, and watch how quick my reaction is. If you flush my Bible, I’m not going to be happy, but I’m not going to riot over it.
We might debate those questions, but meanwhile, we should resist the urge to overreact as some have in suggesting that the press should be restricted or stifled.
No one—NOT ONE BLOGGER—called for such. The rest of this paragraph surrounds the "freedom of the press" we cherish. It is not only an inherent right, but an enumerated one as well within the very fabric of this nation. We don’t want a propaganda tool at the behest of or government, which she aptly notes, yet incorrectly addresses to our government on the heels of the Terry Moran questions in yesterday’s White House press briefing. We bloggers share the same rights as the press. Would we like to be stifled or restricted? Hell no. And I don’t ask it of the MSM. We’re the "ombudsmen" of the MSM; they make a mistake, we force them to correct it.
Many people have commented that the media does this all the time, so why bother with this? Simple. An egregious offense calls for a swift response. We have cited the instances where the bloggers have decided the offense warranted an immediate response. Raines brought shame to the New York Times. Rather lied to a nation, and was caught within hours of said lies. Jordan implicated out troops in a war crime, and couldn’t prove it. Newsweek—or more appropriately, Evan Thomas and/or Mark Whitaker—allowed their publication to run with an out-and-out false story, and that story was a spark that ignited a riot that resulted in 17 dead and hundreds injured. This offense was responded to with poise, precision, and patience. We didn’t run out—frothing at the mouth—and scream for blood. We destroyed the story, and demanded accountability.
Mistakes will be made, but freedom means living to say, "I'm sorry."
"I’m sorry" doesn’t cut it. I’m sorry is rejected by Karzai, by the White House, by the bloggers, and by the people. "Apology not accepted, Captain Needa". (Sorry, shameless Star Wars plug.) And therein lies the crux of the problem. The MSM can’t protect Newsweek. The public outrage is too great at this point. (And I firmly regret missing it this weekend, but Marcie did a great job with it, and got her recognition in Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes piece yesterday. WTG, Sweets.)
No, I’m sorry Ms. Parker, I don’t like disagreeing with conservatives much, but on your column I think you really are no better than the MSM willing to give Newsweek their mulligan. We aren’t. Neither are the rest of the bloggers that started this swarm. The editors still need to go.
Publius II
Kathleen Parker is referred to—quite a bit—as a "maverick" conservative. There’s another "maverick" my eyes are on, and I take as many opportunities to pound on the drum known as John McCain. But not today. Today I was greeted with an editorial written by Ms. Parker for the Orlando Sentinel. Again, this is on the fallout of the Newsweek story. (I know a lot of people are probably sick of this story, believing it’s run it’s course. I beg to differ.) The media is giving Newsweek a mulligan on this story; refusing to add their cries to the calls for the editor’s heads, and a true accountability of Newsweek in this inaccurate story. Ms. Parker wrote this piece, I’m sure, from her heart. And I’m sure she means what she says. But, I’m less than enthused about how a "conservative" like her views this issue.
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1046
The apparent Newsweek mistake was regrettable, but we should beware allowing ourselves to mirror the emotional reactions of people who were by no measure justified in their response - even if the story had been proven true. The same people foaming over a reported act of blasphemy didn't flinch while executing women for stepping outside sans burqa. I'm afraid my moral outrage in favor of the morally outrageous is all tapped out.
Regrettable? It’s abhorrent. It never should have happened. And last time I checked, those that raised the eyebrow—those that questioned two veteran journalists—were not rioting. The riots in Afghanistan were an "emotional reaction" to a false story regarding the desecration of a Koran. And we do condemn such acts that are quite seemingly barbaric, such as the abuse and killing of anyone over not wearing a burqa. I have criticized those nations for their brutal, Dark Ages mentality.
I have no interest either in defending Newsweek or in justifying interrogators' methods, but let's be blunt: Those rampaging in Afghanistan didn't need a reason to riot; they needed an excuse. That the media provided one is regrettable, but that regret needs to be tempered by perspective and objectivity.
Ms. Parker does not defend Newsweek; she instead does what the rest of the media is doing. A media outlet in this country published a story that raised the ire of a people halfway around the world. And then it was found out to be untrue. That outlet tried the "I’m sorry" approach, which failed miserably. The reaction of bloggers was quite tempered; we did not call for torches and pitchforks, and a march on the Washington Post Company’s headquarters. WE wanted answers. And the American public wanted answers, and still desires them. Newsweek hasn’t provided any. Their only answer is "Whoops. We screwed up." Great. Thanks for admitting what we already knew. How did it happen? Who is responsible? And who the hell is this "unconfirmed source"?
I believe that the blogosphere acted in a professional and objective manner. The story was ripped to shreds—refuted by over thirty different bloggers, and later by the Pentagon. Bloggers started with the facts of the story, and worked their way back. Within a matter of days, Isikoff’s "unconfirmed source" was trying to put as much distance between the story and himself, and the story finished imploding from that point up until now.
Instead, much of the anger the past several days has been directed not at the Islamist extremists who went berserk, but at the reporters who apparently got the story wrong. What if they'd been right? Should Newsweek not have reported it? Would the riots have been justified if someone had flushed a Koran?
I do blame the extremists for not acting in a more civilized manner, however it’s their country, and it’s how they reacted. Newsweek should have known—and I mean this—that what they would print might have repercussions. We are in a delicate time in history, and the last thing we want to do is escalate this war further. We are after terrorists, not Muslims. I believe Karzai’s comments in regard to the Newsweek story is right on the money. He is working to build a free government over in Afghanistan, and it’s not wise to incite the anger and hostility of that populace. News week should have known better.
As to her questions, their irrelevance in the matter is astronomical. Of course Newsweek should have reported on a backed-up, factual story. The story’s main contention—the desecration of the Koran—was refuted, thereby throwing the rest of the story into a tail-spin. Would the violence have been justified? An absolutely intern-like question. The answer to that is an emphatic "no". I am not a violent person, but threaten me, my family, or my friends with any violence, and watch how quick my reaction is. If you flush my Bible, I’m not going to be happy, but I’m not going to riot over it.
We might debate those questions, but meanwhile, we should resist the urge to overreact as some have in suggesting that the press should be restricted or stifled.
No one—NOT ONE BLOGGER—called for such. The rest of this paragraph surrounds the "freedom of the press" we cherish. It is not only an inherent right, but an enumerated one as well within the very fabric of this nation. We don’t want a propaganda tool at the behest of or government, which she aptly notes, yet incorrectly addresses to our government on the heels of the Terry Moran questions in yesterday’s White House press briefing. We bloggers share the same rights as the press. Would we like to be stifled or restricted? Hell no. And I don’t ask it of the MSM. We’re the "ombudsmen" of the MSM; they make a mistake, we force them to correct it.
Many people have commented that the media does this all the time, so why bother with this? Simple. An egregious offense calls for a swift response. We have cited the instances where the bloggers have decided the offense warranted an immediate response. Raines brought shame to the New York Times. Rather lied to a nation, and was caught within hours of said lies. Jordan implicated out troops in a war crime, and couldn’t prove it. Newsweek—or more appropriately, Evan Thomas and/or Mark Whitaker—allowed their publication to run with an out-and-out false story, and that story was a spark that ignited a riot that resulted in 17 dead and hundreds injured. This offense was responded to with poise, precision, and patience. We didn’t run out—frothing at the mouth—and scream for blood. We destroyed the story, and demanded accountability.
Mistakes will be made, but freedom means living to say, "I'm sorry."
"I’m sorry" doesn’t cut it. I’m sorry is rejected by Karzai, by the White House, by the bloggers, and by the people. "Apology not accepted, Captain Needa". (Sorry, shameless Star Wars plug.) And therein lies the crux of the problem. The MSM can’t protect Newsweek. The public outrage is too great at this point. (And I firmly regret missing it this weekend, but Marcie did a great job with it, and got her recognition in Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes piece yesterday. WTG, Sweets.)
No, I’m sorry Ms. Parker, I don’t like disagreeing with conservatives much, but on your column I think you really are no better than the MSM willing to give Newsweek their mulligan. We aren’t. Neither are the rest of the bloggers that started this swarm. The editors still need to go.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home