Newscaster vs. Sportscaster

Keith Olberman was one of my favorite talkin' heads at ESPN until he thought he was bigger than all that. I've tried to watch his Countdown show a couple of times but thought it a bit much.

So, I've not given Olberman much of my time. Until now...

In surfin' today, there was much ado about the Newsweek fiasco. But what caught my eye was the dressing down of Scott McClellan by the media pool during today's briefing. I love the belligerence:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

I saw a bit of feed on PBS and just couldn't believe the tone, that was until I read Keith O's blog this evening.

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

[...]

Whatever I smell comes from this odd sequence of events: Newsweek gets blasted by the White House, apologizes over the weekend but doesn't retract its story. Then McClellan offers his Journalism 101 outdoor seminar and blasts the magazine further. Finally, just before 5 p.m. Monday, the Dan Rather drama replaying itself in its collective corporate mind, Newsweek retracts.

I’m always warning about the logical fallacy — the illusion that just because one event follows another, the latter must have necessarily caused the former. But when I wondered tonight on Countdown if it applied here, Craig Crawford reassured me. “The dots connect.”

[...]

One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year-old tale about toilets and Qu’rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the ‘abuse’, then weren’t those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say “you can’t print this”?

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

Sorry, but what ever cred the big O had just went poof . . . and lastly, as proof, Keith goes after NeoCon windmills with this:

Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff — “Spikey” in a different lifetime; Linda Tripp’s favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isn’t just a hero to the Right — the Right owes him.

And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say ‘Newsweek put this country in a bad light.’ But they could just as easily thump their chests and say ‘See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!’

Islamic Reaction - a bit much, eh?

Miss me? Sorry it's been a while, but apathy reigns supreme with today's politics. From DeLay to Reid, I just don't give a rip.

Yet, I couldn't let the latest MSM flap go without comment. I'm not going to spend too much time on this since the fall out has yet to reach its climax. Suffice it to say Newsweek has entered that black hole from which few return. This saddens me since I happen to think Jon Meacham, some type of managing editor at Newsweek, is top notch with history.

So Newsweek acted foolishly by running with a blurb using only a single source, this is not the same as running something in the local rag implicating Uncle Steve with a drunken night of debauchery only to recant with a one liner saying 'oops, Uncle Steve was just cavorting with Aunt Betty in the back seat of the sedan. Sorry." The magnitude is not on the same level. Pls don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those espousing the WOT at every turn. In fact, I question the need to call it the War on Terrorism since we've had the War on Poverty, War of Drugs, et al and ad nausium, for the past 25 yrs. It just diminishes the importance. The WOT is more of a paradigm shift in attitude, one which Newsweek evidently hasn't caught on to.

It's one thing to disagree with whatever party is in power. It's another to willfully offer specious 'evidence' of an act which is inciteful. Yet, the mantel of 'fake but accurate' which we heard resonating from the CBS debacle, seems to be trying to take hold. The Raw Story is citing several detainees as implicating the US in the debasement of the Koran. Yet nothing can be substantiated. I'm sorry, but I don't trust a word those people say (then again I don't trust the govt, so I'm screwed, eh...)

For all the feigned anger emanating from the ME, I say 'screw `em!!'. Where was the outrage at Muslim desecration of the Church of the Nativity in April of 2002? ? ? ? Oh, wait... I think I hear it now. "It wasn't a true Muslim, it was just some fringe people." Please!!!

That same day, "More than 100 Palestinian gunmen...[including] soldiers and policemen, entered the Church of the Nativity on Tuesday, as Israeli troops swept into Bethlehem in an attempt to quell violence by Palestinian suicide bombers and militias."³⁴ The actual number of terrorists was between 150 and 180, among them prominent members of the Fatah Tanzim. As the New York Times put it, "Palestinian gunmen have frequently used the area around the church as a refuge, with the expectation that Israel would try to avoid fighting near the shrine" [emphasis added].³⁵

And in fact this was the case. The commander of the Israeli forces in the area asserted that the IDF would not break into the church itself and would not harm this site holy to Christianity. Israel also deployed more mature and more reserved reserve-duty soldiers in this sensitive situation that militarily called for more agile, standing-army soldiers.³⁶

On the other hand, the Palestinians did not treat it the same way. Not only did they take their weapons with them into the Church of the Nativity and fire, on occasion, from the church, but also reportedly booby-trapped the entrance to the church.³⁷

On April 7, "one of the few priests evacuated from the church told Israeli television yesterday that gunmen had shot their way in, and that the priests, monks and nuns were essentially hostages....The priest declined to call the clergy 'hostages,' but repeatedly said in fluent English: 'We have absolutely no choice. They have guns, we do not.'"³⁸

Christians clearly saw the takeover as a violation of the sanctity of the church. In an interview with CWNews, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's Undersecretary of State and the top foreign-policy official, asserted that "The Palestinians have entered into bilateral agreements [with the Holy See] in which they undertake to maintain and respect the status quo regarding the Christian holy places and the rights of Christian communities. To explain the gravity of the current situation, let me begin with the fact that the occupation of the holy places by armed men is a violation of a long tradition of law that dates back to the Ottoman era. Never before have they been occupied - for such a lengthy time - by armed men."³⁹ On April 14, he reiterated his position in an interview on Vatican Radio.⁴⁰

On April 24, the Jerusalem Post reported on the damage that the PA forces were causing:

Three Armenian monks, who had been held hostage by the Palestinian gunmen inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, managed to flee the church area via a side gate yesterday morning. They immediately thanked the soldiers for rescuing them.
They told army officers the gunmen had stolen gold and other property, including crucifixes and prayer books, and had caused damage....
One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, later told reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything....They stole our prayer books and four crosses...they didn't leave anything. Thank you for your help, we will never forget it."
Israeli officials said the monks said the gunmen had also begun beating and attacking clergymen.⁴¹

When the siege finally ended, the PA soldiers left the church in terrible condition:

The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. The indulgence lasted for about two weeks into the 39-day siege, when the food and drink ran out, according to an account by four Greek Orthodox priests who were trapped inside for the entire ordeal....
The Orthodox priests and a number of civilians have said the gunmen created a regime of fear.
Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold," said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.⁴²

Now, I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But let's get real. We have the word of some 'detainees' versus documented facts. Oh, let's not forget what those Taliban bastards did to the Buddhas in March of 2001!!

So I don't want to hear from the "Muslims in the street" on this one. Newsweek should be held liable for the deaths and suffer the consequenses. It's a shame, but when 'truth' is fabricated for the purpose of making the Administration of the day look bad, MSM and all of us are ill served.
(tips: Daou and LGF)

Sunni Apologist

Ya know, it never fails.... I'm in a funk and while perusing the blogsphere, come upon some major bullshit.

One of my favorite Sunni apologists, Juan Cole, has a protege, Baghdad Burning, who is quite amazing. She laments her poor life in post-Saddam all the while fretting the life in her view of a 'free Iraq'. It is a view of denial...one were the only perps are the evil Shia. Yet her blindness is enlightening with this piece of work. Where to start in this article? Let's start at the beginning, eh?

The Hostage Crisis...
I'm sure many people have been following the story of the moment in Iraq: Dozens of Shia hostages taken by Sunni insurgents in a town called Medain?

The first time we heard about it was a couple of days ago. I was watching the news subtitles on Arabiya but the subtitle was vague. It went something like this, "Sunni guerrillas capture 60 hostages in Iraqi town and will kill them if all Shia do not leave the town." It said nothing about which town it was, who the guerrillas claimed to be representing and just how the whole incident happened.

But I like the absolute denial:

The whole concept of a large number of Sunni guerrillas raiding the town and taking 60 – 150 of its members (including women and children) was bizarre, frightening and by the second day of the rumor, a little bit suspicious.

People in Baghdad didn't believe it. Most of them waved a hand dismissing the report and said, "They just want to raid Medain." It's a town that has been giving the Americans quite a bit of trouble this last year, a part of the Sunni Triangle . Many attacks were reported to have come from the area, but at the same time, it's not like Falloojeh, Samarra, or Mosul- it's half Shia. It wouldn't be as easy or politically correct to raid. [ed. emphasis!]

OK, here's the rest:

Yesterday, there were actually Shia demonstrators from the town claiming that the rumors were false and the town was peaceful and there was no need for a raid or for door-to-door checks.

The last few days, Iraqi officials have been on television claiming that the whole hostage situation was "under control" and things were going to be sorted out, except that apparently, there's nothing to sort out. There have been no reports of hostages, even from the majority of Shia residents themselves. Someone mentioned that it was possible a couple of people had been abducted, but it had nothing to do with Sunni guerrillas chasing out Shia.

Now, Associated Press is claiming,

"The confusion over Madain illustrated how quickly rumors spread in a country of deep ethnic and sectarian divides, where the threat of violence is all too real."

Uhm, no. Not really. See, this whole thing didn't start out as a rumor. Rumors come to you through actual people- the guy who brings you kerosene spreads rumors, that neighbor next door brings you rumors, the man you get your rations from spreads rumors. This came to us, very decidedly, from a news source. It first made its debut as breaking news and came from an "Iraqi Shia official who wished to remain unnamed". The official should have to answer to the rumor he handed over to the press.

And now…

Shiite leaders and government officials had earlier estimated 35 to 100 people were taken hostage, but residents disputed the claim, with some saying they had seen no evidence any hostages were taken.

We know a lot of our new officials and spokespeople are blatantly lying and it's fine to lie about security, reconstruction and democracy- we've gotten used to it. In fact, we tell jokes about it and laugh about it at family gatherings or over the telephone. To lie about something as serious as Sunni-Shia hostage taking is another story altogether. It's unacceptable and while Sunnis and Shia were hardly going to take up arms against each other over this latest debacle, but it was still extremely worrisome and for people who wish to fuel sectarian violence, it was a perfect opportunity.

We have an Iraqi government that bans news channels and newspapers because they *insist* on reporting about such routine things as civilian casualties and raids, yet the Puppets barely flinch over media sources spreading a rumor as dangerous and provocative as this one.

AND NOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BODIES FROM MADIAN:

Iraq's interim president announced Wednesday the recovery of more than 50 bodies from the Tigris River, saying the grisly discovery was proof of claims that dozens were abducted from an area south of the capital despite a fruitless search by Iraqi forces.

[....]

Terrorists committed crimes there. It is not true to say there were no hostages. There were. They were killed, and they threw the bodies into the Tigris," Talabani told reporters. "We have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes."

Shiite leaders and government officials claimed last week that Sunni militants had abducted as many as 100 Shiites from the Madain area, 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. But when Iraqi forces moved into the town of 1,000 families, they found no captives, and residents said they had seen no evidence anyone had been seized.

Funk

Man, the funk continues . . .
I thought after writing the Dowd piece and seeing the POTUS' speach plus the gak on Bolton and DelLay, I would find the fire to pen (tap the keys, I guess now) a few words. No, the malaise runs deep. It is affecting more than the Blog...but I'm trying...man, it hurts.

Apathy

It is painful.