Joel Achenbach: WaPo Blogger ... Round Two With Hugh Hewitt
Last week, Mr. Achenbach was on Hugh's show to discuss a post he had put up regarding al-Zarqawi's death. Today was round two, and Hugh gave him plenty of time to stick his head in the noose, and leap off the edge of the gallows. Mr. Auchenbach did a fine job of hanging himself. But I would like to address a portion of the interview that caught my attention.
Transcript Courtesy of Generalissimo Duane
HH: Time out. Joel, time out. Joel, you're not hearing what I'm saying. What I have said many, many times, it's a fine blog, you're a great writer, I'm looking forward to the Washington book. What I'm saying is you dabble in politics, as we said at the very beginning. Occasionally, you write about politics.
JA: That's true.
HH: But you don't write about politics in any way that people can get some sense of what you really mean. I think you actually approach it as sort of, when it comes to politics, as sort of dilettantish. I'll say this, I'll say that, and then I'll go back to the safe worlds of humor and science, but without really engaging.
JA: Hey, you know what? The world of humor is hard.
HH: Of course. I didn't say it was easy.
JA: Last week, you made this condescending comment about me being a humorist. You ever try to write humor columns?
HH: No, I can't. I'm fundamentally unfunny.
JA: It's very hard. It's very hard.
HH: But I didn't say that, Joel. I didn't say it was easy. I said it was safe.
JA: Well, it doesn't feel safe when you're on deadline, and you finally produce a column, and your editor says this isn't funny, start over.
HH: Now that makes it hard.
JA: But it's true. But your argument is this. Your argument is that I have some kind of duty, because I occasionally dabble in politics, to be readily identifiable to you, Hugh Hewitt, as to what my opinions are on all issues.
HH: That's not what I said. My argument is this, that serious subjects deserve serious treatment in an extended fashion, not drive-by's, not drop-ins, not occasional asides, but that serious subjects such as Iraq, terror, the war, the future, what's going to happen, what do we do about Mogadishu, how long do we stay, what do we do next, that those are not walk-ins and walk-outs. And I think maybe E.J. Dionne is wrong, but I respect him. He goes at it every single day. I think I'm just arguing that it's not...if you're going to write about politics, write about it, not all the time...even if it's only one out of twenty times. But when you do it, do it with an eye towards people understanding what you're trying to say, and with a serious point to make that people understand.
JA: You know, having a blog is not exactly the same thing as having a credential. I know that's a shock, because we live in a time when bloggers are so self-important that they think that they have a blog, therefore they're the authority on everything. I exercise my prerogative sometimes to not pose as the expert on what to do in Mogadishu. I have not ever written about Mogadishu. I haven't...I mean, that I can recall, because I don't know. I mean, occasionally I do touch on a political theme. Let me just shock you, Hugh. I'm not an expert on everything, and I actually choose not to write about things that I'm not an expert on. I mean, my blog has...and you called me last week the most popular blogger at the Washington Post. But that's not a credential for me to therefore like weigh in on immigration, you know, what should we do about immigration. Should we build a wall? I don't know. It's not something I know about, and so I choose not to write about it.
HH: And I accept that.
JA: And as far as the Iraq war, you've been asking me all these questions about the Iraq war, and I tried to give you my answer, but if you read through my blog, I don't write a whole lot about the Iraq war in part because it's not something that I have so much to contribute to, that I therefore think I should slap my opinions onto the blog for everyone else to read. And I think you're saying that everyone should be...
HH: No, I didn't say that. I said if anyone writes about the war, they ought to do so seriously, with a forethought and concern that they be understood, and that they be informed. And I just got the sense, Joel. You're a very good humorist and science writer, but that when you wander into the of world of politics, and especially into the world of the War On Terror, that perhaps you came a little unprepared, and that you resent that people who do do their best to report on this in a serious, thorough going fashion...earlier today, I had on, for example, Bill Roggio, who's given up his life to go to Kandahar and embed with the Canadians there so he can understand this war. I've disagreed extravagantly with Michael Ware, who's a tremendous Baghdad chief of the Time Magazine Bureau there. But I have him on, because these are serious people trying to get to the truth, and I just think the subject matters deserve not the light-hearted, humorist approach that you may have given them before, but that they deserve seriousness.
JA: Okay.
HH: You get the last word.
JA: So you're saying hands off Iraq?
HH: No, I didn't say that.
JA: Don't write about politics?
HH: No. If you write about Iraq, if you write about politics, then it ought to be done in a fairly...not necessarily politics...
JA: No jokes?
HH: No, politics is for mocking. I think Stephen Colbert is good. I think the War On Terror, when you write about it, is not a joking matter. I don't think life and death situations are a joking matter. I don't think that they're matters, if not even joked about, to be treated lightly. That's very different from politics. Politics is a source of great mockery.
JA: Well, I mean, have I, in your opinion, somehow made light of tragedy?
HH: No, I think you have not treated, for example, Zarqawi's death, where this began with us talking last week, was kind of a slapdash, here we go, here are a few graphs, and fundamentally confusing to many people. I don't mean them to be mad at you, it was just very fundamentally confusing. A lot of people took it the wrong way. And that there is moral seriousness called for. That's what I'm saying.
JA: Hugh, you saw my little apology on my blog, right?
HH: Yeah, and I apologized to you, too, for jumping to the conclusion that you intended to be understood as I understood you.
JA: Yeah, I mean, you were totally fair on the radio last week, and I thought you were giving me sort of a pop quiz, or a patriotism test, or something.
HH: No, it's not a patriotism test.
JA: And I understand you want to know what I believe, and I'm a little resistent to just spout off my opinions on all these heavy duty political things, in part because I don't really view myself as a political pundit. You know, that's just not how I see my role. And I prefer having the blog be a little more light-hearted place where everyone can jump in. However, politics is around us all the time, and so yes, I sometimes do touch on it. And I think that you misconstrued what I was writing last week, but it certainly was not written in a tone that was flippant, and I think you would agree with that, that it wasn't flippant. It might have been a little unclear, but it wasn't flippant.
HH: On that note, we're going to have to postpone Round 3 for a couple of weeks from now. I hope you'll come back, Joel.
JA: I'd be happy to.
HH: Good. And I will have read Washington's...what's the book about the Potomac? What's the title of it?
JA: Oh, The Grand Idea.
HH: I look forward to that. Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post, thank you.
Seriousness is what I'd like to opine about for a little bit.
When Thomas and I deal with the issues of the day, we take the same approach we have always taken. This is professional, not personal. When we address a serious issue, we act the way we are supposed to. Sure, we may crack a joke or two along the way, but we do not turn our posts into humor pieces. Indeed, Hugh is correct that politics is for mocking. We have plenty of clowns in elected offices around the nation. But when we deal with a serious story--the war, Hurricae Katrina, bloggers being rounded upo around the globe, CNN news executives unable to establish the difference between good guys and bad guys, etc.--we are honest in where what stand, what we believe, and and what we say.
Mr. Achenbach seems to be unable to understand that. And while his blog for the WaPo is strictly science and humor (for the most part) it is understood that the attitude will always be there. However when one deals with such an austere issue like the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, there should be a level of honest, sedate reporting and opinion. He claims he was not flippant. I disagree. I do not think it was as frivolous as some did, but there was definitely a lack in being serious. And the comment made regarding the differences between our troops and al-Zarqawi I took offense to. I equivocate it with Bill Maher's ridiculous comment that 9/11 terrorists were braver than the US military because they rode the planes all the way in; they were not simply "lobbing missiles" into another country.
That is the impression I had after reading what he wrote. Simply put, Mr. Achenbach is a man on the Left. He admitted this in the interview, proclaiming that he would be considered to the left of Hugh's main audience. What I find disturbing about him, and this is a reflection of the media, is that they lack any seriousness when it comes to important issues, and they over-hype, hyperventilate, and go completely nuts over minor issues that would barely rank a footnote in a serious news outlet's reporting. If he feels that he does not need to be serious, fine. But then stick to the things that he knows, and leave the serious stuff alone.
Oh, and as a blogger, I hardly feel this site gives me any sort of credentials. This is a soap-box; a sounding board. We have readers that enjoy us, and for that we are thankful. But our readers also know that while there may be some humor in what we write, we are serious when it comes right down to it. Hugh pointed out, after the interview was over, that James Lileks is an outstanding humorist, but when he gets serious, everyone can sense the change. James is not one to take heavy matters lightly, and even in the case of his "translation" of President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, one could see the gravity of his piece. That is what separates the men from the boys, and Mr. Achenbach clearly has quite a bit of growing to do.
Marcie
Last week, Mr. Achenbach was on Hugh's show to discuss a post he had put up regarding al-Zarqawi's death. Today was round two, and Hugh gave him plenty of time to stick his head in the noose, and leap off the edge of the gallows. Mr. Auchenbach did a fine job of hanging himself. But I would like to address a portion of the interview that caught my attention.
Transcript Courtesy of Generalissimo Duane
HH: Time out. Joel, time out. Joel, you're not hearing what I'm saying. What I have said many, many times, it's a fine blog, you're a great writer, I'm looking forward to the Washington book. What I'm saying is you dabble in politics, as we said at the very beginning. Occasionally, you write about politics.
JA: That's true.
HH: But you don't write about politics in any way that people can get some sense of what you really mean. I think you actually approach it as sort of, when it comes to politics, as sort of dilettantish. I'll say this, I'll say that, and then I'll go back to the safe worlds of humor and science, but without really engaging.
JA: Hey, you know what? The world of humor is hard.
HH: Of course. I didn't say it was easy.
JA: Last week, you made this condescending comment about me being a humorist. You ever try to write humor columns?
HH: No, I can't. I'm fundamentally unfunny.
JA: It's very hard. It's very hard.
HH: But I didn't say that, Joel. I didn't say it was easy. I said it was safe.
JA: Well, it doesn't feel safe when you're on deadline, and you finally produce a column, and your editor says this isn't funny, start over.
HH: Now that makes it hard.
JA: But it's true. But your argument is this. Your argument is that I have some kind of duty, because I occasionally dabble in politics, to be readily identifiable to you, Hugh Hewitt, as to what my opinions are on all issues.
HH: That's not what I said. My argument is this, that serious subjects deserve serious treatment in an extended fashion, not drive-by's, not drop-ins, not occasional asides, but that serious subjects such as Iraq, terror, the war, the future, what's going to happen, what do we do about Mogadishu, how long do we stay, what do we do next, that those are not walk-ins and walk-outs. And I think maybe E.J. Dionne is wrong, but I respect him. He goes at it every single day. I think I'm just arguing that it's not...if you're going to write about politics, write about it, not all the time...even if it's only one out of twenty times. But when you do it, do it with an eye towards people understanding what you're trying to say, and with a serious point to make that people understand.
JA: You know, having a blog is not exactly the same thing as having a credential. I know that's a shock, because we live in a time when bloggers are so self-important that they think that they have a blog, therefore they're the authority on everything. I exercise my prerogative sometimes to not pose as the expert on what to do in Mogadishu. I have not ever written about Mogadishu. I haven't...I mean, that I can recall, because I don't know. I mean, occasionally I do touch on a political theme. Let me just shock you, Hugh. I'm not an expert on everything, and I actually choose not to write about things that I'm not an expert on. I mean, my blog has...and you called me last week the most popular blogger at the Washington Post. But that's not a credential for me to therefore like weigh in on immigration, you know, what should we do about immigration. Should we build a wall? I don't know. It's not something I know about, and so I choose not to write about it.
HH: And I accept that.
JA: And as far as the Iraq war, you've been asking me all these questions about the Iraq war, and I tried to give you my answer, but if you read through my blog, I don't write a whole lot about the Iraq war in part because it's not something that I have so much to contribute to, that I therefore think I should slap my opinions onto the blog for everyone else to read. And I think you're saying that everyone should be...
HH: No, I didn't say that. I said if anyone writes about the war, they ought to do so seriously, with a forethought and concern that they be understood, and that they be informed. And I just got the sense, Joel. You're a very good humorist and science writer, but that when you wander into the of world of politics, and especially into the world of the War On Terror, that perhaps you came a little unprepared, and that you resent that people who do do their best to report on this in a serious, thorough going fashion...earlier today, I had on, for example, Bill Roggio, who's given up his life to go to Kandahar and embed with the Canadians there so he can understand this war. I've disagreed extravagantly with Michael Ware, who's a tremendous Baghdad chief of the Time Magazine Bureau there. But I have him on, because these are serious people trying to get to the truth, and I just think the subject matters deserve not the light-hearted, humorist approach that you may have given them before, but that they deserve seriousness.
JA: Okay.
HH: You get the last word.
JA: So you're saying hands off Iraq?
HH: No, I didn't say that.
JA: Don't write about politics?
HH: No. If you write about Iraq, if you write about politics, then it ought to be done in a fairly...not necessarily politics...
JA: No jokes?
HH: No, politics is for mocking. I think Stephen Colbert is good. I think the War On Terror, when you write about it, is not a joking matter. I don't think life and death situations are a joking matter. I don't think that they're matters, if not even joked about, to be treated lightly. That's very different from politics. Politics is a source of great mockery.
JA: Well, I mean, have I, in your opinion, somehow made light of tragedy?
HH: No, I think you have not treated, for example, Zarqawi's death, where this began with us talking last week, was kind of a slapdash, here we go, here are a few graphs, and fundamentally confusing to many people. I don't mean them to be mad at you, it was just very fundamentally confusing. A lot of people took it the wrong way. And that there is moral seriousness called for. That's what I'm saying.
JA: Hugh, you saw my little apology on my blog, right?
HH: Yeah, and I apologized to you, too, for jumping to the conclusion that you intended to be understood as I understood you.
JA: Yeah, I mean, you were totally fair on the radio last week, and I thought you were giving me sort of a pop quiz, or a patriotism test, or something.
HH: No, it's not a patriotism test.
JA: And I understand you want to know what I believe, and I'm a little resistent to just spout off my opinions on all these heavy duty political things, in part because I don't really view myself as a political pundit. You know, that's just not how I see my role. And I prefer having the blog be a little more light-hearted place where everyone can jump in. However, politics is around us all the time, and so yes, I sometimes do touch on it. And I think that you misconstrued what I was writing last week, but it certainly was not written in a tone that was flippant, and I think you would agree with that, that it wasn't flippant. It might have been a little unclear, but it wasn't flippant.
HH: On that note, we're going to have to postpone Round 3 for a couple of weeks from now. I hope you'll come back, Joel.
JA: I'd be happy to.
HH: Good. And I will have read Washington's...what's the book about the Potomac? What's the title of it?
JA: Oh, The Grand Idea.
HH: I look forward to that. Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post, thank you.
Seriousness is what I'd like to opine about for a little bit.
When Thomas and I deal with the issues of the day, we take the same approach we have always taken. This is professional, not personal. When we address a serious issue, we act the way we are supposed to. Sure, we may crack a joke or two along the way, but we do not turn our posts into humor pieces. Indeed, Hugh is correct that politics is for mocking. We have plenty of clowns in elected offices around the nation. But when we deal with a serious story--the war, Hurricae Katrina, bloggers being rounded upo around the globe, CNN news executives unable to establish the difference between good guys and bad guys, etc.--we are honest in where what stand, what we believe, and and what we say.
Mr. Achenbach seems to be unable to understand that. And while his blog for the WaPo is strictly science and humor (for the most part) it is understood that the attitude will always be there. However when one deals with such an austere issue like the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, there should be a level of honest, sedate reporting and opinion. He claims he was not flippant. I disagree. I do not think it was as frivolous as some did, but there was definitely a lack in being serious. And the comment made regarding the differences between our troops and al-Zarqawi I took offense to. I equivocate it with Bill Maher's ridiculous comment that 9/11 terrorists were braver than the US military because they rode the planes all the way in; they were not simply "lobbing missiles" into another country.
That is the impression I had after reading what he wrote. Simply put, Mr. Achenbach is a man on the Left. He admitted this in the interview, proclaiming that he would be considered to the left of Hugh's main audience. What I find disturbing about him, and this is a reflection of the media, is that they lack any seriousness when it comes to important issues, and they over-hype, hyperventilate, and go completely nuts over minor issues that would barely rank a footnote in a serious news outlet's reporting. If he feels that he does not need to be serious, fine. But then stick to the things that he knows, and leave the serious stuff alone.
Oh, and as a blogger, I hardly feel this site gives me any sort of credentials. This is a soap-box; a sounding board. We have readers that enjoy us, and for that we are thankful. But our readers also know that while there may be some humor in what we write, we are serious when it comes right down to it. Hugh pointed out, after the interview was over, that James Lileks is an outstanding humorist, but when he gets serious, everyone can sense the change. James is not one to take heavy matters lightly, and even in the case of his "translation" of President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, one could see the gravity of his piece. That is what separates the men from the boys, and Mr. Achenbach clearly has quite a bit of growing to do.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home