NEWSFLASH: Greenwald Does Not Get Sarcasm
MichaelW on Aug 28 2006 at 6:41 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, MichaelW's Page
In what I am sure will come as no surprise to most of you, Glenn Greenwald takes John Hinderaker and Charles Johnson to task for their respective sarcastic remarks concerning alleged attacks on journalists in the field. (h/t Who else?). According to Greenwald['s post]*, Hinderaker and Johnson, and those who think like them, have robbed America of its morality and ruined our national character:
Becoming a nation of John Hinderakers and Charles Johnsons — those who are apologists for, even outright advocates of, “tactics” such as the deliberate targeting of journalists based on the content of their reporting — has fundamentally changed the American national character in ways that are as dangerous and counter-productive as they are morally bankrupt.
(emphasis added). Of course, any one who openly apologizes and advocates for targeting journalists in the battle zone are quite deserving of our deepest disapprobation. So what, pray tell, could have elicited such a vitriolic screed from Mr. Greenwald? Well, let’s go to the source.
First, after condemning the kidnapping of the recently released Fox News reporters, Greenwald excoriates Hinderaker:
But here is what John Hinderaker said last night in response to the report that the Israeli Air Force had fired a missile (they claim accidentally) at an armored vehicle in Lebanon (marked “PRESS”) which was carrying journalists working for Reuters — long the second-most hated news agency, after Al-Jazeera, for Bush lovers:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles.
So, those who defend or justify the kidnapping of Fox journalists are “scum” who are to be shunned and despised. Those who defend and justify the shooting at, and seriously injuring of, Reuters journalists are what? The next guest on Howard Kurtz’s CNN show.
Now lets go to the actual post by Hinderaker, titled “Reuters Alleges Israeli Airstrike”:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles. Which is what Reuters now says they did:
[snip]
I don’t have an opinion at this point about whether the claims being made by Reuters’ Palestinian stringers are true. To my untrained eye, the photos of the vehicle do not appear to depict an armored car that was hit by two missiles. The visible hole looks to me like an old, rusted-out tear or gap in the roof. But my knowledge of military ordnance is close to zero; I leave it to others to comment more knowledgeably on the photos than I can.
I will say this, however: given what we know about staged, phony incidents like the fake attack on a Red Cross ambulance in Lebanon, it is absurd for the world’s news services to simply report the Palestinian claims as fact, as they have done. More investigation will be required to find out what, if anything, happened to the Reuters vehicle, and how the Palestinians came to be injured. In the meantime, count these as unproven allegations by an unreliable source.
Hmmm … there seems to be some discrepancy here between what Greenwald condemns and what Hinderaker proposes. In Greenwald’s defense, Hinderaker did forget to include the oh-so-appreciated “[/sarcasm]” tag, or the equally helpful “[/rimshot]” after his opening sentence, but the title of the post itselfshould maybe have clued the reader in.
But going back to Greenwald’s claim, that Hinderaker “defend[ed] and justif[ied] the shooting at, and seriously injuring of, Reuters journalists,” even if Hinderaker is taken to be completely in earnest, did he really do this? Is “would be perhaps understandable” such an all-powerful and all-encompassing phrase that what ever follows it is both “defended” and “justified”? Quite the debater you are there, Mr. Hinderaker. Moreover, is his statement, taken at its most literal, “advocating” and “apologizing” for a tactic of targeting journalists? I suppose, in some universe, somewhere, it would be perhaps understandable that Hinderaker’s statement was perceived as being all these things. [/tongueincheek] (Note to Hinderaker: the preceding is also a helpful tag to use).
But here in the real world, where sarcasm exists and is in fact quite rampant at times, the first sentence of a post illuminating another potentially false claim of Israeli attacks on non-military targets should maybe not be taken so literally. This is especially the case where the sentence in question alludes to other instances of deceipt by the subject. But maybe that’s just me. I’m a realist.
Moving on to Greenwald’s second victim target example, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Glenn takes issue with a post by Johnson from three years ago:
The April, 2003 Baghdad air raid on the Al-Jazeera Baghdad office destroyed that office and resulted in the death of cameraman Tarek Ayoub. At the time, this is what media star Charles Johnson said about the fatal bombing of the Al-Jazeera office:
Was Al Jazeera deliberately targeted? Of course, their answer is “yes.†But remember that before the start of this war, the Pentagon issued a clear, unequivocal warning to journalists that their safety could not be guaranteed if they chose to remain in Baghdad. Al Jazeera not only chose to stay, they have been broadcasting a steady stream of Iraqi propaganda, anti-Americanism, and death pr0n (sic), including that hideous video of American POWs. Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack.
So they stayed in a war zone despite knowing that it was dangerous and then broadcast biased stories. Therefore, the death of one of their journalists is nothing to “weep over.” That same reasoning could be applied — and sometimes is — to justify attacks on any journalists in a war zone.
First off, let’s go ahead and correct Greenwald’s distortion of Johnson’s (alleged) argument. Johnson did not suggest, as Greenwald purports, that:
So they stayed in a war zone despite knowing that it was dangerous and then broadcast biased stories. Therefore, the death of one of their journalists is nothing to “weep over.”
Instead, Johnson specifically pointed out that:
…Al Jazeera not only chose to stay, they have been broadcasting a steady stream of Iraqi propaganda, anti-Americanism, and death pr0n, including that hideous video of American POWs.
(emphasis added). How Glenn missed this little nugget of information when it was right there in front of him (and took up nearly the whole sentence), is a bit perplexing. Nevertheless, he did not seem to understand the point, and I know why: the sentence that followed, being sarcastic in nature, obscured the entire meaning of not just the highlighted portion above, but the entire post. In scrawling “Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack,” Johnson somehow made his entire point invisible to those in Greenwald land (sometimes known as “Brasil”).
Again, here in the real world, most of us would perhaps understand [Ed.: my, that is a useful phrase!] that one who declares he is not about to get all verklempt about an attack on those who openly support our enemies is not “advocating” anything, much less “apologising,” “defending” or “justifying.” More importantly, the post itself was calling into question Al Jazeera’s breathless handwaving and whining about “martyrs.” As the first two sentences of the post tell you
Three foreign journalists were killed yesterday in Baghdad. Two of them were in the Palestine Hotel, from which grenades and small arms fire were directed at a US tank
So the point Mr. Johnson was making, and that Greenwald somehow missed entirely, was that just because Al Jazeera reporters were killed in a war zone doesn’t mean that they were targeted, especially when they were in the line of fire. As a sidenote, Johnson remarked that Al Jazeera was instrumental in spreading anti-American, pro-Saddam, and vile Islamist rhetoric and video, so the fact that any of them got hurt was not a grievous moment to him. An understandble, non-emotion to most of us.
The remainder of Greenwald’s post is, as usual, long on vitriol and short on clarity. For the purposes of this post — i.e., pointing out how Greenwald seems incapable of understanding sarcastic comments — there is not much to say about it. I can only imagine what Greenwald will read into this post should he deign to visit. Given his apparent disability, Greenwald may perceive this entire post to be written in the cyrillic alphabet, spelling out “I Hate Greenwald!” over and over again, with lots and lots of evil emoticons. He would be wrong, of course, but it would be perhaps understandable if he viewed it that way.
*[UPDATE: Edited for clarity. "Greenwald, Hinderaker and Johnson" sounded like a law firm.]
Sphere: Related Content
Okay,
Early bird gets the worm again. I’ll just move the subject enough that people will not think I am stealing your thunder.
Uh…what I meant to say was, I agree and exactly. I have no petty, competitive, jealous personality flaws. None. I mean it.
This isn’t going to affect my raise is it?
Gentlemen, thanks for the link, and do see my update.
Gee, Mona, I woulda thought your “Update” would actually have something to do with Greenwald’s prior post (of which you thought: “Greenwald (again) nails the gross hypocrisy of the death-clamoring “right”"), and maybe even a correction as to your earlier assessment. Not only did Greenwald not “nail” it, he didn’t even get a foul tip. There is simply nothing in either the Hinderaker or the Johnson piece that is either hypocritcial or untoward.
Michael — and I intend no insult — I simply find your critique so weak, and Greenwald’s post so compelling and correct, that there just isn’t anything for me to respond to regarding yours. All I’d say is Greenwald’s post stands; re-read it.
Further, I had forgotten about the more important events he spotlighted at the Firedoglake Book Salon, and wanted to amend that omission.
Well I’m intrigued, Mona. Could you help me out and point to a weakness?
Michael: Even if one were to grant that Hinderaker was “merely” being “sarcastic,” and I don’t — as with Johnson’s, there is a clear sentiment of satisfaction in his statement — that would not change the merit of Greenwald’s analysis. Or the moral status of the “sarcastic” remark.
Wow, that’s compelling! Is this where I put in the [/sarcasm] tag?
Maybe some day they will have treatment for that, Mona.
So we are supposed to cry for the enemy propagandists now? Did we cry for Gobbels? Things sure change . . .
In what way were either remarks immoral?
Lordy, you guys won’t concede how repugnant Hinderaker and Johnson’s remarks are, and the right-leaning Andrew at ObWi — a deployed soldier — does see that, but goes on to criticize Greenwald on entirely different, but equally wrong (misreading him) grounds:
Mona,
Thanks, so there are two arguments against Greenwald’s argument here now, and both accurate. I have noted that kind of argument from Greenwald before and it never seems to impress his fans that he is exagerrating his claims significance, even when he has a point and even in those few times that point itself wasn’t exaggerated. They don’t care, they just know he is out to slay the enemy. You should go talk to them about it.
That Andrew accepted the characterization in no way means Michael is wrong here. I assume since you are blustering and arguing from authority that you have nothing to say. Address specifically how Michael is wrong or leave off. No “its obvious” or ad hominem’s or Milton Friedman says Greenwald is right or any of that stuff. Show exactly how Hindraker and Johnson’s statements were more fairly characterized by Greenwald.
Other hint, don’t claim Michael is saying things he is not. Pay attention to what he wrote. Oh and another, it is not a defense to say or attempt to show that Republicans are poopyheads. That is irrelevant. I am not sure why you think that is relevant to most discussions, but it most certainly is irrelevant to most discussions.
Address specifically how Michael is wrong or leave off.
Sorry, but this is not a matter for mathematical proofs. His assertion that “sarcasm” somehow exonerates the declarants is a matter of personal perception, and I find his unreasonable, and wrong. Others do not accept that the remarks are acceptable, because they sensibly (in this subjective affair) do not read them that way. Neither does Greenwald, and neither do I.
I recommend the comments section to Andrew’s post at ObWi for insight as to why Andrew (and Michael) are wrong.
I read them already. More importantly, even if I agreed with them, none of them address the point.
Nor is it a matter of mathematical proof, it is a matter of understanding what was meant. Greenwalds attempt to paint almost everybody who disagrees with him as wanting to soak the world in blood and not care what happens to others became old a long time ago. It is ovious that you and Greenwald believe the right is filled with people who want to commit mass murder. This leads to claims such as Walter Williams wanted to nuke the Middle East.
His whole approach is Coulteresque,he uses the same type of rhetorical tricks and tactics as she used in Treason. It is no less vile when used by Greenwald. Mere assertions persuade only those who want to believe something. Many on the right fall for the same tactic. Assert that what someone wants to do is awful, provide a quote that could be construed in such a fashion, usually out of context, and the next thing you know Rush Limbaugh can claim Clinton is a radical who wants to turn us into a Soviet Union lite. Then you insult those with a more nuanced view as being unable to understand the evidence right in front of them with quips and clever asides, but never addressing the actual objection, because the other person doesn’t “get it.”
His whole approach is Coulteresque,
No. He’s bombastic and polemical, but he links to and quotes the people he is spotlighting so anyone can see for themselves. He never declares: “all conservatives are [fill in the blank with pejorative]” — that would be Coulteresque. Indeed, he not infrequently — rather often, actually — invokes right-of-center critics of his Bush-supporting targets.
We are not going to agree on the perniciousness of those whom he is targeting — sometimes I do not either, and I’ve disagreed with his views regarding several of his targets, and loudly said so — but preponderantly I endorse his efforts. There are some prominent voices uttering positions that need to be pulled out those voices’ adoring echo chambers, and held up to the light of critical examination.
Those who have either agreed with, or passively accepted, the proclamations of Greenwald’s targets are, indeed, going to be jolted by these efforts. This is to be expected
From UsingEnglish.com:
Here’s another word you should get used to seeing, Mona:
There is simply no merit to Greenwald’s argument. He came up with an idea for a post (how the Right has undermined America’s moral authority) and picked two people to use as his examples. Nevermind the fact that neither one actually committed the atrocities they’re accused of. For Greenwald, and apparently you, it is sufficient that they are both nominally on the Right, and that some words can be construed by the narrowest of minds as being “immoral.”
Here’s the context, Mona (and anyone else who is sarcasm-impaired):
(1) Two media outfits make claims of victimization at the hands of the U.S. (Al Jazeera claim) and Israeli (Reuters claim) militaries, respectfully. Both outfits openly seek sympathy for their plight, and condemnation of their alleged attackers.
(2) In the first case, Al Jazeera in 2003, Charles Johnson notes that, not only were the reporters in a war zone about which they had been warned, they were also in the line of fire when hit, occupying the same space as those who had just attacked U.S. troops. The fact that they got hit, while lamentable, should have been expected. Instead, Al Jazzera imputed evil intentions to our troops, and claimed that they were targeted, even going so far as to call their slain reporter a “martyr.” Johnson then went on to point out that Al Jazeera was directly responsible for spreading the lies and propaganda of our enemies. His response, therefore, is to reject Al Jazeera’s request for sympathy (i.e. his sarcastic remark “Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack.”)
(3) In the second case, Reuters makes an unsupportable claim that one of its vehicles was hit by two Israeli rockets, and as with Al Jazeera, begs for sympathy for itself and condemnation for its alleged attacker. John Hinderaker makes a wry (look it up) comment which alludes to the myriad evidence of faked news from Reuters, all of which news has been critical of Israel and supportive of Hezbollah. Hinderaker’s sarcastic comment leads off a piece that calls into question Reuter’s claim by pointing out the fact that the vehicle it claims was hit by two Israeli rockets sports only minor damage in the form of a rusty hole in its roof that is no bigger than a jar of mayonaise. Glass intact, roof (mostly) intact, no other damage to the vehicle. In other words, Reuter’s claim of an attack by Israel is entirely unsupportable at best, and downright Hamas propaganda at worst. Hinderaker points all of this out and sarcastically comments to the effect that, Reuters has tended to act like the enemy as of late, it shouldn’t surprise them if they were indeed mistaken for the enemy.
(4) Neither comment apologizes, defends, advocates or justifies attacks on reporters. Indeed, both comments are meant to be a rejection of pleas for sympathy based upon spurious claims of victimhood.
(5) Greenwald purposely mischaracterizes both bloggers to make his own point. The fact that Greenwald used two innocuous statements to do so, turning them into vile and indefensible comments without cause to do so, completely undermines the point of his post. Ergo, Greenwald’s post has no merit.
Finally, before you start huffing about upon all that moral highground you seem to occupy, Mona, maybe you should tune your moral compass to this little tidbit:
Greenwald equated two sarcastic comments meant to be rejection of illegitimate sympathy pleas with an entire article claiming that the captured Fox News reporters were legitimate targets:
What Greenwald did was not just dishonest and underhanded, it was calumnous.
Mona,
You are spending a lot of time here writing, so obviously you have the time to specifically argue Michael’s point. As usual you resort to smears instead such as:
So we don’t misunderstand Hindraker and Johnson, we are jolted because we accept or agree that targeting journalists is okay. Therefore we are not worth explaining how we are wrong. I have been in several of these little dust ups with you and that is what you always do. See my previous comment where I diagnosed your method. This comment falls easily into the method as I described.
You also ignore a specific example of him doing just what I am claiming here. It is typical, and eventually you have to decide, as the most consistently derided commenter at QandO, here and Inactivist, is it that everybody who keeps making these points unreasonable, or are your tactics and manner the issue?
I disagree with people all the time. I think I try hard to be fair. Most people seem to feel even when they disagree with me that I am trying to be fair. I may not succeed, but I am trying and they see that. It may be that you have an issue with understanding other viewpoints, that you read into what other people say what fits your argument. Notice, most of our dust ups and those you have with others isn’t over the substance, say whether targeting journalists is a good idea, or if they were targeted (an unsubstantiated claim Greenwald sees fit to throw out there) but on how you characterize what people are saying, both on the original issue and in debate afterward. Take what you will from it, but you persuade no one who doesn’t already agree with you, not even a bit. Think on that before you come in and say what benighted fools we are and that is why we disagree. Think on that before saying (which is a different and contradictory argument) that we do not disagree but actually approve of or accept the deliberate targeting of innocent journalists. Think on that before attacking us on unrelated grounds, or by attacking people who are unrelated to the discussion but show what awful people your opponents are. Think on that before claiming we are arguing something we are not.
Well Michael, your contempt for Greenwald and his “calumnies” is duly noted. I obviously do not agree with your assessment, and believe it is not the one held by most reasonable others in this subjective matter.
But I lack time to address all of your specific dissections, because I’m preoccupied with other things.
All that typing but she is preoccupied and unable to deal with “unreasonable” people. See above, pattern repeated. Lots of time to misrepresent and lots of time to insult and demean, no time to substantively discuss.
But, but… don’t you guys get it? Greenwald is just brilliant and he instantly knows what those right wing bigots are thinking even if they say something else! And Charles and John are just vicious hate-mongers who want to see reporters killed, especially reporters who expose the vicious lies of BushCo.
The fact that Charles has already humiliated two worldwide news organizations is just coincidence, really. He’s just a hate-mongering, Muslim-bashing, lie-spewing… something, uh, conservative I guess, though a bicycling jazz musician is a bit out of the template of the fat-cat businessman GOP influential, but hey, he’s probably doing it just to throw us off!
If you guys would just see the light! Libertarians need to ally with people like Greenwald and Kos to defeat Bush, even though he’s never running again. Oops, I mean we need to ally with them to defeat nasty Republicans who want to send our sons to be slaughtered by a quagmire. And all that stuff about universal mandatory health insurance that’s failed so miserably in Canada? They don’t really mean it. Or at least we can talk them out of it when they’re in control. Really we can. Or if not, it’s worth it if they’ll just impeach Bush so the whole world can see how bad he is!
And Mona is so smart herself that she can instantly see how stupid the arguments of proles like you guys are. How can you possibly have the temerity to resist her superior argumentative style and her towering intellect? Besides, she’s just relaying the wisdom of Glenn Greenwald, who has published in the New York Times! Good day, sir!
This is MY blog, Mona. (OK, fine; it’s our blog). I hold court here, not you. My “contempt” was “duly noted” in my post.
That’s fine that you don’t agree. It sure would be illuminating if you could clearly express what you don’t agree with, but alas, it is not to be.
As to your “belief”, there’s not much I or anyone else can do about that. You may “believe” that you know what is and who are reasonable, but that does not make it so. Your inability to debate the issue with any civility or substance belies your belief, but that’s your cross to bear.
In addition, there is nothing subjective about the matter. Greenwald falsely accused two people of doing something they did not do. That is not an opinon, but a fact.
Generally speaking, mathematical proofs don’t come into play in political debates. And no one was asking you for one, but it would be nice if you presented an argument with merit.
Charles did that with CBS and Reuters.
Looks like MichaelW is doing it with Greenwald.
Of course, the Mapes and Monas will continue on believing their false narrative.
Jealous, much?
Out Damnum spot, out before I Absque with your Injuria!
Did you know that Glenn Greenwald had a New York Times bestseller? And that Russ Feingold quoted him on the Senate floor? Rick Ellensberg agrees with Mona – Greenwald is “compelling.”
Good DAY, sirs.
/ sarc.
Interesting spin on reality, done quite well. As a Republican who posts regularly at Glenn Greenwald’s blog comment section, I must say that your description of Mr Greenwald is a patent lie. But then, so is most of what has been said by others in this thread of scathe. Mona’s the only one who spoke fairly honestly, although her bias in favor of Glenn was made apparent and not hidden like yours is, “Lance.”
Your phallic handle probably wins you lots of prizes at the stud farm, huh?
Don (replying to “Lance”)…
But if “Lance” had merit to his argument, he wouldn’t have to resort to lies and scathe then, would he?
I bow to the obviously superior wit and intellect of “Lance.” Now if we could just introduce “Lance” to “Boyle” we might have a pus-fest on our hands over here in Lie-Land.
Scathe isn’t a noun, is it?
“Brazil”? ROTFLMAO
Well, Kos himself gives an example of hateful eliminationist rhetoric from June, 2006.
Jules Siegel, diarist at dKos posed a question to Markos regarding the banning of a frontpager at dKos. Siegel emails Markos asking a question -
Markos sends back a reply:
Strong stuff. Conditions worse than Guantanamo and Supreme Court Justices, not enemy combatants. And from the most prominent blogger on the Left, including Greenwald.
The rest of the quote shows that Markos is being sarcastic
Words. Context. Some assembly required.
Maybe Greenwald just doesn’t know that Kos wants to be the kind of unitary executive that Greenwald is so afraid of.
But, in the meantime, we on the right have a lovely direct quote from Kos should the topic of conversation turn to hate speech:
Source of Quote
And go figure, Scooter has nothing but an ad hominem attack. Hmmm…
Wait … Scooter was being serious? I thought that was a parody.
Y’know, I guess those tags ([/sarcasm], [/rimshot], etc.) really do come in handy.
Hmmmm…..,
Well, Mcrooter, I don’t know what rock you crawled out from under, but my name is Lance. No handle. I am not sure what lies I have told, but if you are going to accuse me of them I would at least like them labeled clearly and defended. Otherwise this is not a place for extended flame wars and I’ll ban you period. I have never had to even warn anyone before, and I hope to not have to in the future.
By the way, if you are going to engage in such juvenile discourse in the future I suggest at least being funny.
Greenwald, is that you?
“Michael — and I intend no insult — I simply find your critique so weak, and Greenwald’s post so compelling and correct, that there just isn’t anything for me to respond to regarding yours. All I’d say is Greenwald’s post stands; re-read it.”
Ok let’s pretend for a moment that Greenwald knows what the flying fock he’s talking about.
The two Fox News journalists were not pushing enemy propoganda when they were kidnapped, and have not known to be in the past. The journalists for Al-Jazeera, etc who were mentioned here were in fact pushing enemy propoganda.
There’s no moral equivalance between the 2 groups, one was shilling for the enemy, the other was not. If guys like Centanni are captured or killed, I feel bad for them, the other one’s, who cares, I don’t. There are two sides in this, one is right, the other wrong. We are in the right, they and their propogandists are in fact, WRONG. If they get bombed or taken prisoner while in the service of the enemy, willing or unwilling, they had it coming.
@Lance,
“By the way, if you are going to engage in such juvenile – intercourse – in the future I suggest at least being funny.”
Fixed that for ya! Now it’s funny…(Grammatically correct too!)
In reviewing the thread, what comes out clearly is the weak argument of the Greenwald sycophants. Mona can’t put forth an argument, but she is sure someone else’s argument will do, and Scooter never gets past crude ad hominem attack (this is assuming I’m not missing sarcasm on Scooter’s part).
What I’m having trouble with is why anyone would waste effort defending Greenwald. As a contrast, Charles Johnson delivered the goods several times; not so much by clever debate but by visuals that can even destroy the claims of CBS. What has Greenwald done? Who cares what he writes or what he thinks?
Greenwald’s incessant bull and Mona’s incessant regurgitation are the left’s unwitting aping of “Dumb and Dumber” — meanwhile, they accuse conservatives of being the real idiots. Shocking, I tell you. *rolls eyes*. The greater context here is the typical liberal feint, duck, and weave tactic of smearing the enemy over a sentence or two misconstrued, while letting the plot get away from them. Why fixate on dragging others down? Can’t they provide any solutions or insight for these troubled times? Of course not. All they can do is maim, tear, and destroy, and they’re all salivating for another chance to rebuild their utopian fantasies in ‘08. It’s so predictable.
Scooter Mcrooter:
Allow me to (very far) distance myself from your gross commentary here, and to also note that modeling yourself on the behavior of the LGF thugs invading this blog, is not the best way to defend either me or Greenwald — if that is what you are actually intending to do.
Lance co-blogs with me at Inactivist, and we have exchanged email in which his name shows up in my mailbox as…Lance. He’s not happy with me on a variety of issues, but he sincerely believes in his positions, however difficult it may be for me (or you) to understand that. Your juvenile sexual observations about his name and invocations of pustule imagery & etc., are truly foul; I cannot emphasize strongly enough that, in contrast to what will regularly be found at LGF, there is very, very little of that at Greenwald’s. Discussion there tends overwhelmingly to be cerebral (and yes, you can find exceptions if someone wants to go hunt a passel of them down).
Please, don’t “defend” me any further. Should you continue like that, I’d have as much to say to you as I do to these LGF creatures, which is to say, nothing at all.
He doesn’t get the use of “pr0n” either. What can you say? Some people live to be offended.
Mona,
Not necessary, though I know your heart was in the right place. I promise you, nobody who is a regular reader here considers you anything like Scooter. Wrongheaded maybe, but unlikely to discuss my handle.
“I’d have as much to say to you as I do to these LGF creatures, which is to say, nothing at all.”
Nothing to say, huh? Why do you keep posting, then?
LGF has a the scalps of a number of disgraced “journalists” safely notched under its belt. Greenwald has dirty socks strewn all over the internet. And Rick Ellensberg.
Jealous much?
Mona, none of us “LGF thugs” were a model for Scooter, unless I’ve overlooked someone’s post. Perhaps you can point such a post out?
S’okay, Russ. We’re listening. Hit us with your best ideas.
-Gil
Wow, how stiff. You need to relax. Drink some Jack Daniels or such.
Incidently, LGF has linked to this blog:
Good going, MichaelW.
OK, I’ll try again:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22316_When_Sock_Puppets_Attack#comments
Greenwald and Mona are right. Michael W and his defenders are both wrong and offensive to me. Both John Hinderaker’s and Charles Johnson’s statements are absolutely morally repugant and absolutely qualify as justifying and defending the use of deadly force against journalists who disagree with you. I’m disgusted with this blog for putting it forward.
Hinderaker:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles.
I don’t see this as sarcastic at all. I see is as justifying the killing of journalists from western news agencies who don’t follow your political line.
Let’s try a simple test of reversal:
Given all the not nice things MichaelW says about liberals, it would be understandable if liberals took potshots at MichaelW, if they saw him on the street.
Gee. Seems a lot like justifying it now, don’t it? It’s a textbook fit for justification. There’s nothing in the following staetments, no deliberate parody or exaggeration, to indicate that he doesn’t really believe this. All there is a faith-based, ad hoc dismissal of the story as a pack of lies. That’s the first thing every nasty Middle Eastern government says when they get caught commiting an atrocity: pack of Zionist lies.
Charles Johnson’s post is less of a blatant justification, but still expresses and indifference tinged with contempt at the deaths of non-combatants at the hands of the US army. I find that to be a morally repugnant, as well as strategically dangerous, attitude.
You’re more concerned with the alledged allegations and gray-area percieved innaccuracies of one liberal blogger than you are with the undeserved deaths of journalists trying to do their job.
Outside of the military, when you kill innocents without deliberate intent, it’s called “manslaughter.”
So we are supposed to cry for the enemy propagandists now?
So Reuters = Joseph Goebbels, Don? How bout, the next time you see your local journalist at a school fair or something, why don’t you just unzip his guts with a big old hunting knife? I mean, his newspaper might have used a Reuters wire story or something at some point. It’s practically your duty to kill enemy propagandists where you can find them. Right? Or only in war zones?
Yawn.
Er, I mean, HOW DARE YOU!
Glenn Greenwald has become a highly succsessful blogger in a mere 10 months, having his blog quoted on the Senate floor and having broken front page stories in major newspapers! He also has a NYT bestselling book, and his integrity and brilliance are unimpeachable!
Good DAY, sir!
Psst, Mona! Ease up a little, or they’re going to catch on! Get it right and I’ll let you rub my feet.
Glasnost:
You’re anology is a little off, and I’m wondering whether or not you read the entire post and the comments. I give you credit for addressing the issue head-on though. At least I can actually have a discussion with you about it.
Maybe its all the jumping with glee over my (much deserved IMHO) rhetorical swipes at Greenwald that makes you want to take the opposite POV (you seem to adopt a contrarian position on a consistent basis), but I usually find that you provide better commentary.
If you don’t see how either Hinderaker or Johnson were being sarcastic, there’s not a lot anyone can do to convince you otherwise. To honestly suggest that either one of them was being serious is just ludicrous, however, which I think I’ve amply shown.
Reuters lies to support Islamic fascists, effectively becoming their propagandists. And frankly, I don’t care when propagandists for Islamic fascists die.
Why don’t you learn some history so you can formulate a reasonable debate.
Well, let’s see:
1) We know Reuters has been producing pro-Islamic images and stories in Lebanon et al.
2) We know they have lied to enhance the anti-Israel propaganda of these stories.
3) We know the Red Cross has lied about Israeli attacks.
4) We has reason to believe that latest Reuters claims in Gaza are lies as well.
Sorry, I’m jaded with respect to Reuters. It appears they have picked sides–and not our side.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, we think Reuters is lying, and that they are working for the other side. I have no reason to think Israel intentially targeted them, even if they were hit. And, if they were hit we have no reason to think, just ’cause they are working for a “western” news agency, that they are innocent.
None of that means we think IDF should target Reuters. Frankly, the correct response to Reuters is that of LGF et al; expose their lies.
I have to say that I would have felt worse if we hit Bagdad Bob than hitting any Reuters guys pushing propaganda. At least Bob was amusing, and I think he would do a good job hosting Saturday Night Live (assuming its still on the air).
You lost me, Don. Yes, Reuters seems to have a serious problem keeping their house in order, but providing a conduit for propaganda through inattention and incompetence is expressly different from intentionally doing so. Are you saying that Reuters employees are legitimate military targets? I certainly hope not.
Glasnost,
Don’t get so worked up. Michael is saying that Greenwald distorted what they said. He did, end of story. I think you know that which is why you speak of the grey area’s and inaccuracies. If you feel that johnson was insufficiently upset at the thought of the killing of journalists, fair enough. Those however are two different things. I would suggest that the Al jazeera journalists were not Goebbels, but they might be pretty close to his employees. None of that suggests that a journalist at your neighborhood fair should be murdered or that we should target journalists. If Johnson were advocating such a thing I would think he wouldn’t have spent all that time arguing that we didn’t. There would be no need. A simple they deserved it would do. I don’t hear Johnson arguing we didn’t target various actual terrorists. Why? Because who cares, they are terrorists.
More importantly Johnson has said quite clearly that he wasn’t advocating what Greenwald claims he was. He should know. Charles isn’t exactly known for being delicate with other peoples sensibilities. If he meant what Greenwald said he did I have no doubt he would say so.
Anyway, the comment about Reuters was sarcastic hyperbole as well. Otherwise why the discussion about it as an unreliable report? Even if you lose the sarcasm and want to take Hindraker literally, the literal reading is still not what Greenwald is arguing. Literally all Hindraker did was say he understood why the IDF might want to do so. I understand the urge to do lots of things I disapprove of, don’t you?
I have no problem with you disliking these two, or saying they should feel deep remorse over these two incidents, but I also have no problem with people not being upset either about journalists in a war zone such as the Al Jazeera reporters who are producing material that glorifies the death of our soldiers and justifies actual mass murder in instances such as this. You dislike their opinions on a number of issues, but that doesn’t mean you shouyld give a pass to Greenwald for making it look like they were advocating the deliberate targeting of journalists. Insensitivity or insufficient empathy is arguable, muderous callousness no.
spmat,
I think Don just said they were not, and that LGF provides a good example of how to deal with the lies of Reuters. We are not talking about sloppiness, but purposeful manufacturing of news.
Mike, for only a partial addressing of what you’ve said, I seem to be only motivated to speak by contrarian positions. Sometimes at a commenter instead of the blogger himself. I pretty much read blogs I agree with without comment unless they leave an open question.
Why is a mystery of my psyche.
I have more to say, but i’m out of time, weak as that always sounds. Briefly, though, I’d use Don (sorry, don) as a case study of the sort of thinking that Greenwald has a legitimate fear of (Reuters is the enemy?)
and I think that Hinderaker does everything he absolutely can *short* of openly endorsing the IDF blowing up journalists with missiles, to encourage that form of thinking.
As for me, I’ll side with all types of genuine journalists, without and even with biases, in any conflict with any military force, pretty much, when said conflict involves the journalists being shot at. For *whatever* reason.
Maybe more later, maybe not.
Reuters has a long and well documented history of America/Israel bashing and biased reporting, including the use of local Arab stringers with scant oversite and no attempt at verifying their work. It goes well beyond sloppiness and incompetence when it’s endemic and no attempts at corrective action are taken. They also have a more recent history of directing some very intolerant language at Charles Johnson, and following it up with an amazing lack of transparency in their handling of the situation, aside from having the prime suspect blame it on Zionists.
Any word from Greenwald on that? And any opinion on whether a propagandist for your enemy is also your enemy?
Oh, and any thoughts on whether someone who longs for the day you get your throat cut is your enemy? That one seem to be a no-brainer.
Hmmm…It seems to me that Greenwald gets mad at C. Johnson and J. Hinderaker, but mysteriously forgets Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl.
I guess they weren’t deliberate targets, just acts of sarcasm to Greenwald.
Very sarcastic. And compelling.
Post 16: Micha El asserts in plaintext the definitive argument, and does so in a non-sarcastic manner, somewhat as One Who Resembles God.
Mona Greenwald and others have been effectively shown where they might improve, develop or CREATE rational skills in discourse, should they choose.
But I’ve never heard of Glenn Sockpuppet…
Who he?
[...] (link added). But wait. Is Scheie’s outrage real or sarcastic? Lucky for us, he provides this important clue: URGENT CAVEAT: Please bear in mind that it’s sometimes tough to distinguish real life from satire in San Francisco. [...]
Mike,
frankly, when you get down into the weeds, language requires a lot of care to use with precise accuracy. I can see your case for saying that Charles Johnson wasn’t “justifying” the deaths of Al-Jazeera reporters at the hands of the US-military, but I can see a case that he was. “Justifying” is quite a low bar. I’m not going to bother with dictionary.com, but it roughly means providing explanations for someone’s actions with implied intent to dispute that these actions are wrong, offensive, evil, etc.
Hinderaker is not even close, to me. He’s clearly not only justifying, but instantly dismissing the reports of the IDF firing missiles at Reuters journalists.
Now, I think that justifying actions is part of intellectual debate, and I wouldn’t see it prohibited, but Greenwald is not in any wrong to rail against it. That’s just pushing back.
I respect your concern for Greenwald not misrepresenting Hinderaker’s or Charles Johnson’s positions while he pushes back, but I personally don’t find your case convincing that he has done so. I can see your case for Hinderaker being sarcastic, but the first time I read it, I read it as a straight statement. And I think the average reader read it and came away basically thinking, yeah, go ahead, they deserve it.
Frankly, Greenwald sees Hinderaker engaged in a campaign to systematically shame, delegitimitize, and if possible, all-around ruin the lives and businesses of news agencies that don’t report news events with the slant he prefers them to be reported on. I find that reprehensible in a general sense, but there’s another level involved when he’s trying to crush accountability for those who physically harm journalists.
Is Retuers ‘biased’? Well, according to whom? Are they more biased than Fox News? Are they more biased than Powerline? I personally prefer agencies with as little ideological predisposition as possible, but if the self-appointed Treason Watch here has designated Reuters as the “enemy”, count me an active opponent. Reuters’s customers deserve factual accuracy, but beyond that, they can have any opinions they like. That’s a free country. I don’t consider people my enemies for the opinions they hold. That sort of thinking is for fascists and Islamic fundamentalists.
First, no one has said that they are legitimate military targets, at least to my knowledge. However, it is clear that Reuters employees on the ground HAVE BEEN intentionally pushing pro-Islamic propaganda.
The break in the link is that we have no reason to think a GIVEN Reuters employee is pushing Islamic propaganda (until specifically identified). Consequently, IDF and the US military HAS TO treat them as if they are not viable targets. And, even if you could identify a Reuters employee as part of the Islamic fascist threat, that doesn’t mean you should target him with a military strike. The LGF approach of shinning a light on the cockroaches is the proper approach.
But, on the other hand, at this point I’m skeptical of any Reuters’ claims, and if I hear they are hit I’m not inclined to cry about it unless I hear more that suggests the given Reuters employee was indeed innocent. Think O.J.: I KNOW he’s a murderer, but I have no right to take the law into my hands, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna cry if I hear he’s walked in front of a truck . . .
glasnost-
This is not a response to what you’ve said, just a statement of fact: I want to know when you have your own blog. It will be a place to visit, for sure.
-Gil
glasnost,
Get a clue. Charles nailed CBS and Reuters. You don’t like Fox? Fine, nail ‘em.
Reuters doctored photos, staged photos of dead children, etc., to maximise the propaganda effect. They got caught.
If you think Fox does the same, by all means call them on it. I really don’t care what your opinion is, but if you can back it up with something, then put up.
Glasnost,
Thanks for stopping back in and clarifying. We like having you around and I far prefer the last comment to you just being flat out disgusted.
Was Hindraker being sarcastic? I think so, but as I said, understanding something is different that endorsing it. So it really doesn’t matter. Greenwald needs more than that to justify claiming Hindraker was okay with journalists being targeted. I suggest we ask Hindraker. Johnson has made it clear he was not endorsing the targeting of journalists, if Hindraker was, Greenwald could have asked before hand to make sure.
So I will ask and see for you.
I suspect the reason Greenwald feels justified in saying that Hindraker is guilty of it is as you say:
I have my issues with Hindraker as well, and given the view you ascribe to Greenwald, and yourself(which I think is accurate) might that not explain the willingness to assume the worst about what someone is writing. Many times in my life I have said or written things which it never occurred to me could be taken the way some people have, (including something recently where I clumsily attempted to be sarcastic with Dale Franks) because it never occurred to me that people could possibly think I was suggesting such a thing. That is all the more likely when dealing with someone who is already disposed to see the worst in someone, unlike Dale who is relatively familiar with my general views.
Hindraker is very suspicious of journalists as you say, but his concern with Reuters is not unfounded. Reuters has been caught actively staging and falsifying news reports in the Middle East. In this instance at least much of Hindrakers criticism is justified. I don’t think his little jab about the IDF’s justified anger at them has to be read the way you insist without some kind of confirmation. That it was sarcastic is supported by his feeling that it is likely a fabricated story. My guess is that he is right on that as well.
By the way, if you do get a blog, I’ll be there as well. Heck if you want to interview Hindraker and Johnson on this I’ll let you guest blog even if it takes Michael down a peg or two. I might even enjoy that;>}
The news agencies that LIE to obtain their desired slant? Those news agencies?
The ‘journalists’ are doing that themselves, by carrying water for the enemy. And, furthermore, IDF and the US have not been shown to target these ‘journalists’. And further yet, it isn’t clear that the claim of ‘journalists’ being hit is even true.
For IDF to have done wrong in this case, we need a series of things to be true:
1) ‘journalists’ hit by IDF fire.
2) The IDF fire had to have targeted the ‘journalists’.
3) The ‘journalists’ have to be viable journalists, not tools of the enemy.
Once upon a time, we would have taken Reuters at face value with respect to 1 above. That’s no longer the case, and from my reading that’s a key Hinderaker point.
But no one, including Don (me) is endorsing blowing up Reuters. I think you probably COULD (in theory, but probably not in the reality of the battlefield) justify blowing up selected Reuters employees, but even then I don’t think you SHOULD. The proper way to deal with them is the way LGF and zombie ARE dealing with them; perhaps that’s what got Greenwald’s and Mona’s panties up in a bunch?
I have to note, Glasnost didn’t grasp my perspective on the issue with any clarity. This isn’t surprising, in his defense I didn’t make my position clear. But, OTOH, he should have realized that my posts were not intended to define “Don’s position” on handling Reuters. A bit of jumping to conclusions, but it does make for more viable strawmen arguments. And, of course, the origional Greenwald argument is really a form of strawman, of similar nature.
Lance,
on the lines of what you were saying, well, it’s amazing, with people in general, how much ambiguity and nuance is built into the English language (all languages?). Furthermore, there are no uniform agreements, not only on what is offensive, but the lines between explaining a point of view, ‘justifying’ it, defending it, endorsing it, advocating it… doing none of these but talking about the topic in such a way as to concentrate on the weaknesses of the people asking the question instead of the question… and when any of this is “wrong”.
Usually, if everyone involved is interested in seeing differing opinions on a subject as reasonable, they usually can. If they’re interested in demonizing people, others will buy into that as well. It’s all a function of motivation.
I haven’t followed the Reuters issues, but for the moment, it’s beyond my suspension of disbelief that Reuters, as an organization, has deliberately chosen to fabricate news events for the purpose of making Israel look bad. A comparable scenario is Haditha: it is clear that the Haditha massacre was committed by US soldiers and that the US Army bureaucracy was involved in covering it up. That does not mean that the US Army is institutionally committed to massacres or to covering them up (although the second one is not, sadly, beyond imagination, most organizations on the planet do it).
If you want to give me a link that demonstrates that Reuters has organizationally chosen to deliberately fabricate or genuinely misconstrue the factual events of the news (NOT place their own emphasis on the selection of relevant facts, or use publish unproven statements)
for the purpose of making Israel look bad, by all means, show me the link. Otherwise, I suspect we’re looking at the odd greedy, lazy, and-or, possibly and regretabbly, ideologically driven journalist who slipped through the cracks. That’s bad, of course. Point out the factual innaccuracies and demand corrections, but those who attempt to misrepsent or accuse without substantiation, the much graver picture I laid out up there,
I question their motives as well as their grip on reality.
Reuters has been caught actively staging and falsifying news reports in the Middle East.
Is this the picture with the extra smoke? Can the journalist, but a) I have no reason to believe this was a deliberate organizationally-sanctioned effort, quite the opposite, and b) I don’t think that qualifies as falsifying a news event.
Or is it Qana? Folks, however Hizballah manipulated and/or exaggerated the event, the kids were real, and they’re really dead. Compared, to say, the Kuwaiti propaganda placed in U.S. media by the U.S government in 1991, no one credible suggests the event was *fabricated* or that it wasn’t really the IDF.
Shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the organization Citizens for a Free Kuwait was formed in the US. It hired the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton for about $11 million, money from the Kuwaiti government. This firm went on to manufacture a fake campaign, which described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and letting them die on the floor. A video news release was widely distributed by US TV networks; false supporting testimony was given before Congress and before the UN Security Council. The fifteen-year-old girl testifying before Congress was later revealed to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States; the supposed surgeon testifying at the UN was in fact a dentist who later admitted to having lied.
Whatever Reuters initially or even ultimately got wrong about Qana, whatever Hizballah manipulation they passively accepted – this is not anti-Israel bias. News organizations get suckered. It happens. Sometimes they have hard choices between ignoring an important story completely or accepting the limitations of their ability to sort out the facts with 100% accuracy.
So, my opinion remains: Sure, call out innacuracies, but give Reuters a rest with the claims of being on Osama Bin Laden’s side. It’s not believeable, and personally, it makes me angry.
Lance, I know that you haven’t said anything to that effect. I don’t know about Hinderaker – I’d have to do research that I don’t feel like stomaching, with no real reason to do it.
Anyway, the civility and all is appreciated. I’ll try to reciprocate. I’m suspicious of maximalist arguments- not as suspicious as Hinderaker is of Reuters, but close.
Don, I recongnize that you don’t endorse the bombing of Reuters employees. As to whether Retuers is the enemy, we disagree, and you probably understand the rest of my feelings on that by now.
oh, Lance, BTW:
Greenwald needs more than that to justify claiming Hindraker was okay with journalists being targeted. I suggest we ask Hindraker
To, I guess, his credit, I’m fairly sure that Hinderaker won’t go on record with that statement. I think the question of whether one is justifying something or not is a genuinely slippery question, possibly inherently subjective.
I’ll give you that Greenwald did not source any advocacy for the deaths of Retuers journalists, nor any direct apologies (although apologists rarely apologize, oddly!), but frankly, I’m agnostic on concluisvely having proved anything specific on either Hinderaker or Greenwald.
Politicians and pundits are masters of the subtextual.
They don’t have to meet such a high standard to be vulnerable to the disdain that Johnson, et. al., have for them. They merely have to be repeatedly negligent in allowing news events fabricated or staged by others to be unverified, and widely disseminated.
They have clearly done this, multiple times, and have not made any indication that they are confronting this problem internally. In essence, they are accused of disseminating enemy propaganda, there’s strong evidence to back up the charge, and they are not defending themselves or making any attempt at rectifying the policies that led to this point.
They might be doing it all unknowingly. They may honestly think they are guilty of no more than some mistakes in the heat of a war. But in the face of multiple incidents that all favor one side, namely the enemies of their own countrymen, and incidents that could seriously affect the outcome of the conflict, such a defense is not tenable.
Reuters starts from the viewpoint that they are reasonably impartial reporters of the news. If they hold one side to higher standards than the other, then they can reasonably be construed to favor the side they are not holding to a high standard. In that case, they are not what they claim to be. They deserve to be severely and continually criticized for that until they admit that they have a systemic problem and attempt to address it.
Hey Billy,
I have to agree with you there.
Glasnost,
Your last two comments are taken as intended. I agree with most of what you say. I guess that is why I am very wary of the Greenwald/Mona style of debate. It is their interpretation that matters, not what it is reasonable to believe about others. I sent an e-mail to Hindraker, and I made a point to say I am asking what he meant by the comment, not what whether he actually thinks such an action might be justifiable. My point and Michael’s is not about what evil might lie in the mans heart, but what he actually is saying. I feel the same about Coulter. She often takes people and strings together statements about people or their beliefs and suggests that it means that they mean or believe something sinister. This is not an ideological point. God knows all sides (including those who label themselves as some form of libertarian) do this kind of thing. I don’t know what lies in John Kerry’s heart, but I am not going to take a statement he makes and pretend it definitely means he wants the terrorists to win or cheers when our troops suffer losses. I have seen those kind of arguments and hate them as well. I disagree with him, I don’t trust him on a number of issues, but I don’t argue he is in favor of our troops being defeated.
I sometimes wonder whether he is more concerned, subconciously with Bush looking bad than what will help us have the best outcome possible in Iraq, but I certainly don’t think he has said anything that proves that. It is suspicion, that is all. It would actually be “understandable” but wrong. To actually claim such a thing is his real agenda would be unfair however and I feel the same with Hindraker. We all have petty emotional urges, I don’t hold them against Kerry, Hindraker or anyone else unless they act on them.
By the way, I know I am not above such instincts myself, I am trying to control them.
As for Reuters. I have surveyed the issue, but I have no links at this moment. Hopefully the LGF guys can help you there or you can Google “pallywood” for a start. These are not people being snookered. These are journalists caught on film staging events that did not happen. Your argument on Qana is well taken, but purposely exaggerating what happened there is wrong, regardless of the fact that some people died there. It may not excuse the attack (there are other excuses for that, but I’ll let you make up your own mind) but neither does the underlying event excuse falsified reporting. Same with the smoke or journalists filming perfectly healthy individuals on stretchers over and over again to get a good anti-Israeli shot. Yes, that happened and more than once from what I have seen.
It’s been noted that Reuters stories were slanted for some time, including their inability to label terrorists “terrorists”. More recently, a Reuters London employee made threats against Charles Johnson, and yet more recently Reuters photos were proved to be altered or staged.
What is clear is that Reuters has a number of employees covering the Middle East who are pushing Islamic facist propaganda, and that the organization only acts to change that under external pressure. What is also clear is that they have long had an institutional bias. The bias per say isn’t the main problem, but it does suggest the problem they face with specific employees is wide spread in Reuters.
Haditha was USMC, not soldiers. And this is odd, as USMC has a good record with respect to these sort of things, compared with the US Army (and compared to other armies, ours has a good rep).
The Haditha killings are currently undergoing investigation, and so far there is no indication of a higher level cover up by USMC or the military. I’ll wait for the final result before I conclude Marines are guilty.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only
Glasnost,
The third link, above, leads to Reuters-specific incidents which then triggered Reuters taking offline more than 900 of Adnan Hajj’s photos, supposedly factual, but NOW HIGHLY SUSPECT as propaganda!
EU-Referendum, #2 above, leads to a factual, dispassionate and near-exhaustive critical analysis of a Qana Incident in which Reuters was an active participant.
The first link gives several Reuters-related aspects of this case.
Finally, “…the actual post by Hinderaker, titled “Reuters Alleges Israeli Airstrikeâ€:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles. Which is what Reuters now says they did:
[snip]
“Understandable” does NOT mean “justifiable”,
and cannnot be justly construed as such! Much of the Islamo-fascist terrorist headhacking and child-killing and misogynist honor-killing is ‘understandable’ within the framework of Islam and the Koran, but it is NOT justifiable, no matter how they rationalize it, and whether or not they know of or accept the Advent of Baha’u'llah, the Glory of God.
The photos indicate that the dead kids were posed for the camera. Lots of pictures, with the same dead kids in different locations/poses, making it clear that it was staged. The photographers had to know what was going on, and they went along with it. Reuters and AP as well.
It’s sick, cynical, and lying propaganda. And the fact that editors didn’t catch what the blogs caught suggests that it isn’t only the photographers at fault, but editors are either willing to pass on propaganda or else lack basic competence.
Glasnost,
Respectfully, Sir, what we’re saying here is more important than one fiskable or defensible instance by Greenburg or Hinderaker or Johnson.
PLEASE, I implore you, look at the Big Picture. Look at the LIST OF INCIDENTS provided by Johnson; a list which tops ever post at LGF and which is now 16 links long and includes Zombie’s excellent dissection of the ‘Red Cross Ambulance’ fiasco and EU
Referendum’s critical debunking of Mr Green Helmet’s Terrorist Theater With Dead Children.
The problem here IS NOT JUST Reuters’ obvious bias for the terrorists; it is NOT JUST AP and AFP and BBC’s bias and CNN’s mis-reporting…
It is ALL of these, coupled with to-this-moment REFUSAL BY THESE “News Agencies” to acknowledge or remedy their bias, that forms a REAL PROBLEM to truth-seekers around the world.
The BIG PICTURE, Glasnost… if Greenwarb and his apologists can start seeing the Big Picture, it won’t be productive to engage in wordy dissections at the syntax-level of his posts and pronouncements, at least in part because he will no longer be culling 3-year-old out-of-context statements by (one who sees the Big Picture of Islamo-fascist anti-freedom terrorism) and re-casting that tiny iota of information AS IF it supports an assertion of Mr Johnson’s hateful, bloodthirsty bent.
At top LGF has links to “Fauxtography Scandal updates”:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Don,
Thanks for the link.
Regarding the Reuters scandals, I linked to them in the post:
Glasnost:
I can understand how, if you are already wary of taking someone at face value, you may not get the sarcasm at first pass. But does that justify the high dudgeon Greenwald (and Mona) worked themselves up into over it?
In both cases the sarcastic remarks were intended to reject an unfounded plea for sympathy as a victim. In both cases, the underlying foundation for such victimhood status was questioned. In neither case did the commenter call for the targeting of journalists, although the status as jounalist of the putative “victims” was called into question.
Most importantly, Greenwald was attempting to show Hinderaker and Johnson (and by proxy, the Right) as hypocritical for finding this guy to be “scum”:
while uttering, in Greenwald’s view, equally pernicious statements about other journalists. Aside from that fact that, AFAIK, neither Hinderaker or Johnson ever even commented on the guy above, the sarcastic comments they made had nothing to do with approving of jounalists as targets. And to compare two offhand comments to an entire screed about how Fox News reporters are “legitimate targets” is positively ludicrous.
Aw, come on. The news agencies support the leftist narritive, so they can’t be wrong. And even if they are lying in specifics, it is only to correctly paint the larger picture . . . (fake but accurate).
I might try to eventually respond to Billy Hollis, because I thought his argument was logically stronger than its predecessors.
Hey, you guys know you’re featured at “BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com”?
[...] Last week Michael started a bit of a dustup over the analysis of statements by Charles Johnston of Little Green Footballs and John Hindraker of Powerline by Glenn Greenwald. Michael does a great job of pointing out how Glenn sets up a distressing narrative and takes two statements out of context and accuses the two of them with not only sanctioning, but advocating the murder of journalists. If you haven’t read it, and the comments, do so. In the end, even if you wish to argue that their statements could be inferred so as to endorse such things, the question is does it? Michael and I didn’t think so, but a better question, and the crucial one, is do they? This seems to some ridiculous. “of course they will deny it.†My question is why would they? If they feel that journalists who report, or fabricate news to support terrorists are worthy of not just condemnation, but killing them and supposedly they have said so, why would they say otherwise now? If it is so obvious that that is what they are advocating then they must obviously have no trouble with advocating it? So my simple response is, why don’t we ask them? Luckily in Charles Johnston’s case we have no need, he says here: [...]
[...] As anybody who has read this blog knows I have a couple of pet peeves. One is that while you debate, at a bare minimum one needs to keep your criticism to what a particular person believes. I hate straw men. I am not being holier than thou, we all do it, but an attempt at least should be made to debate in good faith, to attack someone for what they believe rather than what is easy for you to criticize. Where this crosses the line for me, as argued previously, is when the person in ones rhetorical sights has specifically said what they believe and it is ignored. It is all the more egregious when the suggestions are especially vile such as Walter Williams wanting to commit genocide, Charles Johnston and John Hindraker sanctioning the murder of journalists or as in this weeks interviewee Michael Ledeen being “one of the most crazed neoconservative warrior (sic) anywhere.†[...]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank u for humaniterian work u are doing and it\’s God will reward u and your organization.I need secondhand clothing to be given to needs children on the street and hope u will not dissapoint me.
Thank u.Tajudeen iddrisu from Ghana.
[...] Michael Wade had our last Newsflash on the Sock Puppet king here. [...]
[...] Newsflash: Greenwald Does Not Get Sarcasm [...]
[...] of caterwauling from the lefties, and some pretty unfair accusations. At one point, I brilliantly defended Johnson from completely unjustified attacks by none other than everyone’s favorite harlequin, [...]