Discuss amongst yourselves
L'Affaire Hiltzik has two aspects
1) What we know
2) What he and Dean Baquet said to one another.
I really admire the way that Baquet couched it in purely professional terms. What Hiltzik did was unprofessional. And apparently his defense (or was it a further attack? ) was even more unprofessional.
David Kipen tucking in at that panel was pretty amusing. But the Karen Finley-Craig Ferguson contretemps was even funnier.
Extra points to Bacquet: He burst out laughing when I quoted a line from "Sweet Smell of Success." Any editor who DOESN'T know "Sweet Smell of Success" isn't worthy of the job.
What do you think of his interest in a gossip column, Cathy?
"I think our readers representative said that maybe 20 people wrote in about HIltzik," Baquet said, adding that a lot of readers may be awfully confused by what happened to Hiltzik's business section column, which was cancelled late Friday afternoon."
Going way out on a limb here, but that confusion just might be related to the Times' nearly non-existent coverage of the issue.
Ah, stirring controversy. It's a lot easier than making cohesive arguments, I suppose.
John Kerry se la come.
Heh. Kicked over to the sports section. That amuses me.
during which Baquet repeatedly called the Michal Hiltzik affair a "tragedy."
If Hiltzik's biases leaned right instead of left, and he'd been caught playing juvenile games with liberal blogs and bloggers, the description applied to his circumstances by many of his colleagues in the media (in which around 80% of them favor people like John Kerry to George Bush) would be "c'est la vie!"
This brings up a theological question: if Jill Carroll had been killed, would her superiors have claimed that she was just "in the next room?"
It's a lot easier than making cohesive arguments, I suppose.
Considering how distorted is the mind of many liberals, I'd think you'd have a soft spot in your heart for non-cohesive thinking and opinion.
But I read the Times for the Sports coverage. Now I have to pass over Hiltzik's stories?
I'm guessing Hiltzik will be assigned to the sumo wrestling beat.
I'd think you'd have a soft spot in your heart for non-cohesive thinking and opinion.
I guess that would explain why I continue to frequent this site just to read your delightful posts.
OK, so wht you're saying is the Christian Science Monitor only gets 70,000 readers, not counting the other 1.7 million readers, which is less than LGF gets anyway, so they shouldn't have sent a reporter to the Middle East.
What the hell are you talking about, woman? Could you at least TRY to make a coherent point?
I say we cede all our Middle East reporting to LGF. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Two million readers sounds like an awful lot to me. How many readers does YOUR web site get?
The Soupster returns....
As explained in this post, that's 70,000 readers of the physical paper per day. Who may be entirely different from those 1.7 million online readers per month (or about 56,000 per day) but probably not. In any case, still substantially less than Little Green Footballs' readers.
I know, I know...math is hard.
Well! My make-believe newspaper has at least 4 million readers - that is at least worth two bus loads of children being killed to insure we have a reporting "presence" in Iraq. And make that two bus loads of adorably cute crippled children - who were studying to be ... uh, pre-school teaching journalists! Yeah! And those gimpy dead kids? Pulitzer prize winners! EVERYONE OF THEM!!! (opps sank into Larry-land)
The point was, and is, does it justify having the interpreter lose his life over the coverage?
The outrage about calling Jill Carroll a "girl" was amusing. The difference between a woman and a girl is not age. She's a girl.
Saw United 93 today. Terrific !
I've never been one to mind of someone calls me a girl or a woman. Although, sadly at my age, i don't get called a girl as often as i used to.
But Mike K, what an idiotic thing to say.Clearly by your comments, you don't think of the terms are different, not synonymous like i do.
So tell us, what exactly is the difference between a girl and a woman? And what exactly do you know about Jill Carroll to qualify you as an expert to decide what she is?
To me, she's a 30-year-old adult who was kidnapped by vicious thugs while trying to do an important and dangerous job -- trying to bring us information about a place where we're at war, a war i support 100 percent.
You want to stick your head in the sand and not know what's going on (or worse, believe what you read on little green footballs), go ahead. But then let's not hear from the rest of you about how stupid and lazy reporters are for not leaving their cushy hotel rooms to get the story, while ignoring the fact that so many of them have died on the job.
And i always assumed her interpreter made his own grown-up decision about the job. He knew it was dangerous, but i don't think his murder was anybody's fault but his murderers.
I'm sure your criteria for that distinction is well documented and objective, as opposed to being completely made up by yourself.
> Heh. Kicked over to
> the sports section.
> That amuses me
Yes. Not quite death, but not quite literacy, either.
> Whatever I just said
> Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 1:33 pm | #
I admire the finely-grained approach to blog identity that Welch has brought to the new Opinion L.A. page... Mainly because I think I fall into one of the bold and couragous gradations. Also, can we call it OLA in shorthand from here on out, kinda like we call Roderick's site LAO? Thanks.
> Considering how distorted
> is the mind of many
> liberals
Considering how fractured is the syntax of many conservatives, Yoda, I'm wondering if there's one human being on the surface of our globe who's been persuaded by your thoughtless, reflexive rhetoric. Just asking. Gotta name? Email address? Anything?
BTW, was Kaus at this Book Festival thang? He's the preeminent agitator for sensible gossip in the LAT.
Gonna have to disagree with Cathy about the murder of Jill Carroll's translator. That is the responsibility of his murders and hopefully we here in the States remember the courage it takes for Iraqis to fight for their country. Courage most of us will never have to exhibit in a lifetime.
peace
I think CSM is becoming more comfortable with amatuer content on a daily basis. It's always been a place that would publish writers who had no other clips. While I'm not quite so hard on Jill Carroll, I don't know why she didn't hire her own bodyguard. I've been in Belfast and Beiruit (missed the other big B--Bosnia) and I hired my own armed driver in Belfast.Cuz I like the boyo-s
I didn't see Kaus. But finding anyone there is like looking for a needle in a haystack. However I have no idea of what you mean by his "sensible gossip."
Can't wait to see his hysterical blather over today's march. Yes Mickey, Consuela's gonna short-sheet your bed!
"But Mike K, what an idiotic thing to say.Clearly by your comments, you don't think of the terms are different, not synonymous like i do."
They are as different as the word "boy" and "man." Or as alike.
"So tell us, what exactly is the difference between a girl and a woman? And what exactly do you know about Jill Carroll to qualify you as an expert to decide what she is?"
I could ask you the same question but I fear you have no clue.
Bernard Lewis' 90th birthday approaches. I fear we shall not have him much longer. I felt the same way about Peter Drucker. I'm sure "a different Cathy" has no idea who those people are.
Can't wait to see his hysterical blather over today's march.
The "Pinko de Mayo" protests/boycotts were an absolute flop here in San Antonio. However, the Hispanic population of South Texas has never been politically radical.
"So tell us, what exactly is the difference between a girl and a woman?"
I am sorely tempted to say "Maia."
Mike,
I could ask you the same question but I fear you have no clue."
I'm not the one making the assertion. Back up what you said instead of throwing meaningless insults.
I could ask you the same question but I fear you have no clue.
Has anyone ever said that in response to a question and not been completely full of BS?
Even though I'm a Christian Scientist, I feel rather ambivalent about the Monitor. I think it's a high quality product and something to be proud of, and yet I recognize there is minimal demand for what it offers. And I know it's becoming a financial drain on the church. Even though I would be very sad to see it go, if it were up to me, I'd probably phase it out over the next few years...
No really, how many hits do you get here?
Cathy, I'd like to offer my thoughts on two specific issues:
1. Calling the female reporter a girl. You are welcome to call her anything you want: a slut, a whore, a dingbat, a slimeball, a dimwith, or whatever else suits your fancy. But why engage in such behavior in the first place? If you wish to disparage her actions, then do so. Explain what she did that was wrong. Then leave it to the intelligence of your readers to draw their own conclusions.
2. On the question of her presence in Iraq, I have two points to make. You suggest that she was wrong to risk the lives of other people in pursuit of her story. I disagree. So long as the translator who died understood the risks he was taking, the responsibility for his death cannot be laid upon her doorstep. She apparently had some sort of implicit contract with him; if that contract had involved some sort of duplicity or failure to disclose important information, then some moral onus would apply to her. But you have offered nothing to suggest that this was the case.
Second, you seem to believe that the number of readers determines the magnitude of the risks that a reporter can take. I would suggest that, in a free world, the assessment of risk should be made by the individual taking the risk. Jill Carroll made her own assessment and took her own chances. Did she miscalculate, or was she merely unlucky? That is not for your or me to say.
You go on to say that the kind of reporting that Jill Carroll had done was of insufficient significance to justify the risks she took. Again, that kind of risk assessment is a personal decision, something that you are not qualified to make for her.
Lastly, there seems to be something distasteful about your comments regarding the kind of news we get from Iraq. Is it a kind of professional snobbery that believes that only reporters from big news organizations should gather news information? I don't know. Is it due to resentment that this woman was reporting news that you find politically distasteful? I don't know. What I do know is that Jefferson was right in his reliance on large, heterogenous groups of people to discover the truth. Everybody has a complaint about the mainstream media these days, and I have certainly noticed that some stories that I thought important did not get much attention in the mainstream press. That's why I rely more heavily on the Internet for news these days. I get better news from a larger and more heterogeneous set of sources.
Best wishes.
And now for something totally off-topic to really drive all parents of young kids crazy (as it did to me) and to provide Cathy with a whole new blog/NRO topic - "Pimpfants" - stylin' clothes for toddlers:
http://www.pimpfants.com
One (large) step beyond "Baby Bratz"
Saw United 93 today. Terrific !
Here's another movie for the left to hate. Way to go, Andy Garcia!
Also, in the latest issue of New York magazine, Daniel Okrent has some choice words for our friend David Cay Johnston.
Wait, let's get this straight. A news organization that has reporters and translators in the field is beat on its coverage of the Middle East by some blogger sitting in LA. Please...
This really should be posted under Cathy's entries about health care, but since it's just been run in Tuesday's Washington Post, I'll insert it here, keeping in mind all those people ("Too bad John Kerry and his wisdom didn't make it into the Oval Office!!") who get dreamy eyed over the joys and wonders of Euro-socialized policymaking:
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt is also under fire for her comments last week that Britain's National Health Service, which is in deep financial trouble and cutting personnel and services, had just enjoyed its "best year ever." Critics, including nurses who shouted her down during a speech, said Hewitt's comments were arrogant and out of touch with reality and that she should resign.
How exactly does one refute an "implicit contract?" Telepathy, as far as I know, is still years away from practical use, and short of a taped NSA recording, there isn't much of a contract to be reviewed.
"Girl" was used to connote immaturity. That is to say, blindly going into a dangerous situation, without regard to the welfare of others, and then, when put in peril, relying on others to be brought forth from peril, endangering their lives and causing a substantial allocation of resources to be shifted from the war to a rescue effort. Not to mention the propaganda effects of what appeared to be a very sympathetic view of savages.
Girl: a child, of the female sex.
Blindly? She learned the culture and wore a burka at all times. To claim that anyone involved was not fully aware of the dangers of what they were doing, I guess you'd have to be telepathic.
Relying on others to be brought forth from peril? You mean like every kidnap victim ever? I guess by not spitting in the face of her captors while yelling "USA forever!" and thus getting her throat cut, she was being childish?
Lots of advice today. No doubt worth every penny paid for it.
"I'm not the one making the assertion. Back up what you said instead of throwing meaningless insults.
A Different Cathy"
Some people are easily insulted. Who is Bernard Lewis ? If you don't know, your questions aren't worth answering. The girl went out on her own. She didn't speak the language. She refused to be embedded with troops and thought she could find out things that no one else saw.
Not bloody likely.
Steven Vincent was writing insightful articles about what was going on in Basra. Do you know where Basra is, different cathy ? Do you know who Steven Vincent was ?
No, of course not.
Did anyone read anything of value that she wrote ? I get the CSM daily by e-mail. I didn't know who she was.
"she wore a burka at all times."
I guess that's like the burkas that non-Muslim women wear to go out of the house in Holland to avoid being harrassed by young Muslim men hanging around street corners.
God, what insight!
Put away your tinkertoy assumptions of that "the left" thinks.
No reason to hate Andy Garcia's movie whatsoever. Its original screenplay was the very last work of the great Guelliermo Cabrera Infante, a novelist and screenwriter (Vanishing Point) about whose extensive career I'd wager you know next to nothing, Mike. Try and score a copy of his matchless book of film criticism A Twentieth Century Job.
fortiori Tomas Milian is featured in the cast. That's quite a culural event in itself as this Cuban actor became a major Italian film star (utterly sensation in the Visconti episode of Boccacio '70)and now returns to his Cuban roots for the very first time in this film.
PLUS the great Millie Perkins -- in a role that had Rex Reed grabbing for the superlatives.
Mike, so if you ever got in trouble with criminals, you wouldn't call the police for help?
I applaud people like Jill Carroll. And reading some of the comments about her (not here, on other comment sections) calling her a slut and worse, was to my mind the low point of blogging history.
To the other Mike,
Why would the left hate United 93? Is it becausee somehow you've become to believe that the 9-11 tragedies somehow belong to the right?
God, what is it with guys named Mike around here. Or should I call them "boys?"
"No reason to hate Andy Garcia's movie whatsoever."
He was also great in the HBO film , "The Arturo Sandoval Story."
I believe he directed and produced that one as well.
David, rented Nine Lives last weekend - awesome, even better than his first film. That guy is going to create a masterpiece shortly, I think.
Your definition of immature basically applies to any journalist who puts themselves in harm's way to persue a story. It's ridiculous. Her only "crime" was being the kind of attractive female that our media goes nuts for. If she was a man in the exact same situation you certainly wouldn't be claiming "immaturity" on a whim.
The case against Ms. Carroll rests on two assumptions, neither of which stands up to examination:
1. That she took foolish and immature risks.
2. That she endangered others.
The first assumption is easily dismissed by asking the question, how would one assess risk in such a situation? If you were presented with a list of precautions that some hypothetical reporter was taking while pursuing a story in Iraq, would you be able to make a determination from those precautions as to the degree of risk that the reporter was taking? Except at the extremes (such as waving an American flag or being a native), I very much doubt that such an assessment is within the purview of any of the commentators here.
The argument has been presented that she should have remained embedded within military forces. While this would have vastly improved her security, it would also have vastly diminished her effectiveness. Yes, she took a risk by eschewing such protection -- but how do we know that it was an excessive risk? We don't.
Of course, some will argue that the fact that she was captured proves the risk. This is nonsense. The fact that some people have been struck by lightning while playing golf does not prove that golf is a dangerous sport. If we had a broad statistical database of journalist casualties in Iraq (I believe that more than a hundred journalists have been killed in Iraq), correlating deaths with the circumstances of the deaths, then perhaps we could draw reasonable conclusions as to the risk taken by Ms. Carroll. However, relying on anecdotal evidence such as this can easily be abused. For example, you will recall that several (three? four?) journalists were killed by an American tank which fired into their hotel. The same logic that condemns Ms. Carroll would conclude that Americans are more lethal to journalists than terrorists. This is nonsense.
The second assumption is more difficult to dismiss. Clearly, the fact that her translator was murdered establishes endangerment. However, I have already pointed out that he took the risk as willingly as she did; therefore, no moral onus attaches to her in his death.
The more difficult question concerns the amount of resource that was devoted to her rescue. Nobody here has made any attempt to measure the magnitude of that resource. Just what was expended in attempts to rescue her? Did the Army mount an expensive and dangerous offensive to free her? Was money paid to ransom her? As I understand it, there were some diplomatic and political efforts; how much is hot air worth these days? In the absence of some reliable assessment of the cost of her liberation, this assumption is speculative.
I will conclude by offering the speculation -- and I emphasize that it is speculation -- that there are some people, perhaps nobody here, who would permit their anger at Ms. Carroll's videotaped "confession" under duress to prejudice their assessment of the merits of this case.
Erasmussimo,
i would add to your assumption the general (and in my view, unpatriotic) anomisity toward and mistrust of the American press among the readers here.
See, according to the prevailing wisdom around here, the press is liberal, hates GW Bush, roots for the enemy etc.
They are either cowards who never leave their hotel rooms or, if they get kidnapped, they're foolish girls who brought it on themselves.
Unless you're a neocon like Michael Kelly or dusty like Ernie Pyle. Then they want to erect statues of you.
Imagine that Ms. Carroll was a missionary instead of a journalist. This should not "change" the analysis of whether she was "justified" in how she conducted herself - but I suspect it would color the responses of observers herein. As to a journalist pursuing a public good - well, many missionaries seek to communicate their message through direct public good directed at their target audience - namely the people in-country. At what point does the Westerner's "passion" vitiate their culpability for what insues? Cannot our collective "passion" to (insert putative altruistic motive here) in Iraq then be persuasively used to absolve us as well? Or do we only absolve those whose ideology we agree with?
"Or do we only absolve those whose ideology we agree with?",/i>
That's certainly the case with you.
If you want to claim she was misguided, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But the proclaimation that she was "immature" in her actions is a ridiculous trivilization of anyone who has ever been held hostage.
Man but that boy Richard Pearl sure was immature.
It needs repeating: blaming the victim is scummy. Jill Carroll's kidnappers are responsible. If people who take unnecesary risks are to be blamed, that would include every Westener in Iraq.
It's really disheartening to see how every incident imaginable is being used as a political pawn.
On that note, thank you, Californio, for your sensible, non-political observation.
No reason to hate Andy Garcia's movie whatsoever. Its original screenplay was the very last work of the great Guelliermo Cabrera Infante, a novelist and screenwriter (Vanishing Point) about whose extensive career I'd wager you know next to nothing, Mike. Try and score a copy of his matchless book of film criticism A Twentieth Century Job.
Well, you got me regarding Guillermo Cabrera Infante. However, you might want to reconsider your assertion that the left does not hate The Lost City after reading these reviews.
To the other Mike,
Why would the left hate United 93? Is it becausee somehow you've become to believe that the 9-11 tragedies somehow belong to the right?
Here's one example of the left's dislike of the movie, and here's another.
God, what is it with guys named Mike around here. Or should I call them "boys?"
Flattery will get you nowhere, darlin'.
As the NYT is part of "the left" to you this excahnge isn't getting anywhere. Continue to jerk that knee.
Any minute now Mark will be in here speakign of my abiding love for Fidel Castro which, in that my "brain leans left," is de rigeur.
Meanwhile in ohter news,The Doctor is IN!
Mike K,
So two critics not liking "United 93" is proof of lefty film critics? How do you respond to David Denby, a film critic who loved "Syriana" by the way, who applauded "United" in the New Yorker? How about this from Peter Travers another liberal:
http://www.rollingstone.com/revi...5/rid/10146749/
peace
I know Carroll's anti-US comments voiced on a video during her captivity were made under duress, but I wonder if her biases in normal circumstances mean she's also a bit more likely to lean in the direction of the typically clueless, do-gooder-liberal, blame-America-First member of the media (eg, "Too bad Bush beat Kerry. And are you sure Fidel Castro----he's provided free health care, after all----and sad, downtrodden, Third-World, anti-imperialist Islamists, and felons like Tookie Williams don't deserve a bit of benefit of the doubt?")?
I ask that based on the following, which was written by a friend of Jill Carroll:
She is working in Iraq for three years now. She is a freelancer. And because she has no newspaper to belong to, I always tried to convince her to leave the country. It is very dangerous for foreigners to travel in one soft car in this country now. She wouldn’t listen to me. “I am not afraid. I write about people and they read what I write. They wouldn’t hurt me,” she always replied when I asked her to leave.
She loved this country and its people. She sympathized with its sufferings and committed to tell the truth. When I talked to her about how the Iraqis live, she always cried. She cried for the sufferings of Iraq more than Iraqis. She has the nicest heart in this world. When I blamed Iraqis for what is happening in the country, she said “don’t blames the Iraqis. You should blame the governments for what they do.”
I remember once we were chatting and I asked her, “so where is home for you?” And without hesitation or a moment to think, she said “This is home. Iraq. Why? What’s wrong with that?” and as the chat goes on, at some point she smiled and said “I know my fate is in Iraq.”
Mark, are you really saying that statements such as:
"They wouldn't hurt me"
and
“This is home. Iraq. Why? What’s wrong with that?”
imply that this woman gives Fidel Castro , Third-World anti-imperialist Islamists, and Tookie Williams the benefit of the doubt? Don't you think that's quite a logical leap on your part?
Erasmussimo,
It's Mark and unless you abide by all of his talking points then you are a supporter of "Fidel Castro , Third-World anti-imperialist Islamists, and Tookie Williams."
peace
Yes, mark the people of iraqi do deserve the benefit of the doubt, because they are not all insurgents! The vast majority of them are normal people caught in extrodinary circumstances, and that's probably who Jill Carroll sympathized with.
Don't you think that's quite a logical leap on your part?
Not if her sentiments line up with those of many on the left, certainly as reflected in limousine-liberal Hollywood (or west LA, or media-hub Manhattan), which nurtures people like, well, Arianna Huffington and Michael Hiltzik, and large portions of the Democrat Party.
and that's probably who Jill Carroll sympathized with.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably the latter if she's the type who thinks: "My heart bleeds for people sentenced to death. It's cruel and barbaric to have capital punishment, even for murderers. As for the victims of murderers? I'll worry about them at some future date."
Mark's ever-ready to put words in other people's mouths that fit his version of reality.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably the latter if she's the type who thinks: "My heart bleeds for people sentenced to death. It's cruel and barbaric to have capital punishment, even for murderers. As for the victims of murderers? I'll worry about them at some future date."
Do you have any evidence for this remarkable telepathic feat other than sheer speculation?
If not, would you please expand your commentspace to include events of which you have some direct knowledge?
ever-ready to put words in other people's mouths
It's impossible to exaggerate the foolish biases (and rantings, including the following that I heard broadcast yesterday) of liberals in the media, in which at least 80% of its members, based on surveys, tilt left:
Yesterday at Hot Air, we linked the incredible audio of an interview by KFI'S John and Ken with Tony Valdez at the illegal alien protest in Los Angeles.
Valdez rants about 1846, invokes “manifest destiny” as a rationale for supporting the sabotage of our immigration laws, recycles the “We didn’t cross the borders” nonsense, inveighs against the war in Iraq, and exclaims:
“You took this country. You killed people in order to take this country for yourselves.”
Veteran broadcast journalist Tony Valdez is a general assignment reporter specializing in reporting breaking news, crime and minority affairs for KTTV FOX 11’s top-rated FOX 11 10 O'clock News. Valdez joined the station in June 1980, and served as weekend news anchor from November 1991 to January 1993.
Bradley,
But it's easier for Mark to make up what Carroll thinks because then he can accuse her of being the liberal he hates. All rather easy and neat if you ask me! :-)
peace
sheer speculation?
I never claimed otherwise.
However, if I saw the way Jill Carroll has marked her ballot in many elections, and learned more details about her social and political philosophy, I'd have greater confidence in guessing who she's more likely to sympathize with or condemn, or if she can even truly differentiate the bad from the good.
IOW, when she says "you should blame the governments for what they do," will that lead to something like, "Yes, Saddam Hussein was a butcher, period!"
Or: "Yes, Saddam Hussein was a butcher, but Bush has blood on his hands too!"
Worse of all, how about: "I can't worry about Saddam Hussein when the specter of American imperialism bothers me far more!"
"However, if I saw the way Jill Carroll has marked her ballot in many elections, and learned more details about her social and political philosophy, I'd have greater confidence in guessing who she's more likely to sympathize with or condemn, or if she can even truly differentiate the bad from the good."
Since you don't know any of this, all you're doing is using Carroll's ordeal as a prop to say what we already know you think.
Clearly, the fact that her translator was murdered establishes endangerment. However, I have already pointed out that he took the risk as willingly as she did
How do you know this? How do you have access to their "implicit contract?" How do you know the circumstances surrounding his hire and any deviations, from a committment, that may have occurred in the field?
Man but that boy Richard Pearl sure was immature.
Did Pearl bring anyone along for the beheading? Pearl was working with American Intelligence, but was on his own. He endangered no other lives.
It needs repeating: blaming the victim is scummy.
Yes. But Carroll was not a victim: she was willing to go into a war zone, unarmed, and whe was willing to bring along an innocent civilian who happened to die in the process. She put herself in the situation. She was in way over her head, and nearly lost hers in the process.
And then when rescued by the American military, gushed about her captives....
A girl, an immature woman who "went native."
Moral preening doesn't make it otherwise.
Since you don't know any of this, all you're doing is using Carroll's ordeal as a prop to say what we already know you think.
And I bet you wouldn't be resentful if a liberal were mentioning that a reporter's conservative biases represented one facet of the entire story of his or her ordeal.
> Not if her sentiments line up with those of
> many on the left, certainly as reflected in
> limousine-liberal Hollywood
Mark, tell the truth. Is this a con? You're so enthusiastic in offering these very general, qualified principles here three times a week. It starts to seem like a joke. These aren't insights into the fault in anyone's thinking, it's always just a clumsy nudge to push people into a folder called "Liberal"... Which, you want us to know, is not as good as being something else.
It's so guileless, it starting to seem like guile. It's sing-songy like a PBS children's series:
"Liberals often support more money for schools!"
Um... Right.
"Liberals are often more fearful about environmental concerns!"
Well, that's true.
"Liberals are, in the broadest possible sense, less supportive of second-amendment rights!"
Gosh, we can't deny it.
You're just fucking with us, aren't you?
"And I bet you wouldn't be resentful if a liberal were mentioning that a reporter's conservative biases represented one facet of the entire story of his or her ordeal."
You just did it again.
Yes. But Carroll was not a victim: she was willing to go into a war zone, unarmed, and whe was willing to bring along an innocent civilian who happened to die in the process. She put herself in the situation. She was in way over her head, and nearly lost hers in the process.
And then when rescued by the American military, gushed about her captives....
. . . until she was safely out of Iraq and possible retaliation.
But mentioning that fact wouldn't fit your sliming of Carroll, so you just ignore it. Charming.
Not a victim? Your logic reminds me of people who used to say women who wear miniskirts are "asking" to get raped. Well, I guess the militant islamists still say that.
A crime was commited against her and her translator. This was not a friendly fire or collateral situation. How that qualifies anyone as immature is beyond me.
And you seem to be arguing that the translator was somehow not in a position to understand the risks of his activities. Do you think any translator in Iraqi believes their safety is ever guaranteed?
You trivialize his death by assuming he was "coerced" into his situation instead of making his choices by his own free will.
Kevin B,
Can you please find in here any gushing from Carroll for her captors:
http://www.csmonitor.com/
earlyed...world040106.htm
Let's be honest about this: if Carroll worked for the WSJ or National Review no one on this site would be calling her a girl who had "gone native."
peace
You just did it again.
And----if you're being honest with yourself----the hypothetical reaction I describe you'd have in a flipside situation wouldn't be true?
Which, you want us to know, is not as good as being something else.
Uh-huh, it isn't:
Yesterday at Hot Air, we linked the incredible audio of an interview by KFI'S John and Ken with Tony Valdez at the illegal alien protest in Los Angeles.
Valdez rants about 1846, invokes “manifest destiny” as a rationale for supporting the sabotage of our immigration laws, recycles the “We didn’t cross the borders” nonsense, inveighs against the war in Iraq, and exclaims:
“You took this country. You killed people in order to take this country for yourselves.”
Veteran broadcast journalist Tony Valdez is a general assignment reporter specializing in reporting breaking news, crime and minority affairs for KTTV FOX 11’s top-rated FOX 11 10 O'clock News. Valdez joined the station in June 1980, and served as weekend news anchor from November 1991 to January 1993.
if Carroll worked for the WSJ or National Review no one on this site would be calling her a girl who had "gone native."
It certainly would have helped if she weren't so naive to be described by a friend as saying:
“I am not afraid. I write about people and they read what I write. They wouldn’t hurt me,” she always replied when I asked her to leave [Iraq].
And----if you're being honest with yourself----the hypothetical reaction I describe you'd have in a flipside situation wouldn't be true?
mark,
That reply got messed up. I would equally condemn any such attacks on a supposedly conservative reporter who was kidnapped. The tactic is slimy.
But as for you trying to judge my honesty -- it would help if you would stop obsessively projecting your own political view onto people and actually listen to what they say.
Don't you have anything else to say besides four-legs good, two-legs bad?
I would equally condemn any such attacks on a supposedly conservative reporter who was kidnapped.
I'm not dealing with the point that someone may be rationalizing away, or certainly justifying, the violent circumstances that Carroll faced because of her sex, career or politics. However, just as it would be ironic---and worth noting---if, for example, a person who always avoided visiting Watts because of its high crime rates got mugged in Beverly Hills, the same irony applies to the situation of Jill "they wouldn't hurt me" Carroll being kidnapped in Iraq.
My point is I suspect you resent the irony of that being raised as part of Carroll's story, whereas you wouldn't be quite so resentful if someone (in the media, for example) pointed out that a woman who got viciously robbed in Beverly Hills often spouted off about a place like Watts or East LA being full of crime and danger.
Mark,
Thank you for explaining that polnt. However, I don't see how your example is analogous to Carroll's. If a social worker went to Watts, full of concern for the people, (whoever they are) and was viciously robbed, that would be more to the point. And of course, the villains of the piece would be those who robbed her.
So your suspicion of my response is falsified by the facts. I don't interpret the situation like you do. That's the danger of trying to read someone else's mind.
Obviously, there are people in Iraq who love to kidnap and kill Westerners. Carroll had to have known that. She took precautions for that reason. But she didn't think the mass of Iraqis would be hostile. She and many other reporters have risked (and some lost) their lives there.
Even more to the point, if Michael Fumento were to suffer misfortune while reporting in Iraq, I would blame the assailants, not the victim. using someone's ill luck to advance a political agenda is a vultureish tactic.
If a social worker went to Watts, full of concern for the people, (whoever they are) and was viciously robbed, that would be more to the point.
But how would you perceive that person and the story around him or her----and the way it was covered by the media----if he or she was on record as criticizing the dysfunctional culture of Watts, of underclass America in general, as proclaiming "I may be a social worker but conservatives/Republicans deserve full attention when it comes to the effects of the breakdown of family values!"?
"But how would you perceive that person and the story around him or her----and the way it was covered by the media----if he or she was on record as criticizing the dysfunctional culture of Watts, of underclass America in general, as proclaiming "I may be a social worker but conservatives/Republicans deserve full attention when it comes to the effects of the breakdown of family values!"?
The way you throw out hypotheticals is making my head spin worse than Linda Blair's. No projectile hurling, thankfully, just confusion.
This one seems rather far-fetched. I can't imagine anyone uttering your quote. (Which is impossible for me to make sense of, btw.)
Why don't you find an analogous example in the real world, and we can then talk about it? I already gave my counter-example.
Why don't you find an analogous example in the real world, and we can then talk about it?
Okay, let's say someone who's disputing the theory of global warming is on record as admiring John Kerry. Let's say someone else who's also challenging that theory is on record as despising John Kerry. You mean to tell me this tangential information wouldn't affect your impressions of that person and his or her credibility, or at least be a fact that would be, depending on the reader's agenda, either worth taking into consideration or not?
Depending on the reader's agenda, any random information about any person might be used to discredit them in the reader's mind. The solution to that problem is for readers to judge an argument on it's own cohesiveness and logical progression rather than how well it conforms to their preconceived agenda.
. . . until she was safely out of Iraq and possible retaliation.
You don't believe there are radical Islamists in the US? Well, that is a widely shared opinion. And there are many in that crowd who believe 9/11 was the work of Mossad. Just ask Charlie Sheen, or Chomsky, or any of the other high profile progressive luminaries.
Carroll recanted her avowed multiculti sympathy towards her captors because of the media firestorm that followed her original anti-American comments.
You, nor anyone else, have defended her actions, because you cannot. So you smear. I don't need to unwind that tactic. So you go big guy. And please write again that you voted for Bush. Very iconoclast of you.
Mark,
"Okay, let's say someone who's disputing the theory of global warming is on record as admiring John Kerry. Let's say someone else who's also challenging that theory is on record as despising John Kerry. You mean to tell me this tangential information wouldn't affect your impressions of that person and his or her credibility, or at least be a fact that would be, depending on the reader's agenda, either worth taking into consideration or not?
Judging a scientist's credibility by his or her political views is just silly. I judge a scientist's credibility on his or her handling of science and understanding of the scientific method -- not on politics.
There are objective ways to determine someone's scientific credibility, such education, academic affiliation, the publication of peer-reviewed articles and what his or her peers think of the research. The Institute for Scientific Information http://www.isinet.com does a report on high-impact research, that is, research which gets most frequently cited by peers.
Also, I watch how scientists deal with contrary arguments. If they don't deal with them fairly, I conclude their credibility is not very high. This is important, because as a science writer I am not, and cannot possibly be an expert in all the fields I write about.
You have to develop a sense of what experts to trust. Some experts believe in wacky things. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of polymerase chain reaction, also said he believed there was a "face" on Mars made by aliens and that while taking LSD, he saw a glowing raccoon that might have been a space alien. (Reminds me of Michael Crichton's peyote experiences).
Here's your specific example: I have harshly disparaged global warming contrarian Richard Lindzen's recent Wall Street Journal piece on global warming as disinformation. I do not know whom Lindzen voted for, or whch party, if any, he belongs to, nor do I care.
What I do know is that Lindzen misrepresented the evidence on global warming to make it seem weaker than it really is. He ignored research conducted by, among others, his MIT colleague Kerry Emanuel. Lindzen said the theory of tropical storms intensifying with warming waters was a "casual" suggestion, when the evidence is much stronger.
Lindzen also pulled a sleight of hand in throwing in a digression about extratropical storms, which is not where the worry about global warming-caused storms is at.
So there you have it. I do not know Lindzen's partisan affiliation, or his voting record, nor do I care one iota. I have not even thought about it until you posed this question. I do care that Lindzen misrepresented evidence and used deception.
Now Mark, how would you answer your own question?
Kevin B:
"Carroll recanted her avowed multiculti sympathy towards her captors because of the media firestorm that followed her original anti-American comments.
How do you know this?
"You, nor anyone else, have defended her actions, because you cannot. So you smear. I don't need to unwind that tactic. So you go big guy. And please write again that you voted for Bush. Very iconoclast of you."
I have no idea whom you're referring to, because your description certainly isn't of me.
Now Mark, how would you answer your own question?
Bradley, you must have super-human levels of objectivity or neutrality, because I have to admit in my case I'm affected by several aspects of a person, either for good or bad.
I hope you're not similar to someone like Michael Hiltzik or various members of the media who either refuse to admit many in their profession lean left or that such people's biases affect coverage.
Washington Post:
The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly politically polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what drives these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-Iraq war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have begun to study political behavior using such specialized tools as sophisticated psychological tests and brain scans.
The new interest has yielded some results that will themselves provoke partisan reactions: Studies presented at the conference, for example, produced evidence that emotions and implicit assumptions often influence why people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs.
Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed. When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated.
Appearently a smear tactic is when someone points out a fallacy in Kevin B's own statements.
When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats
Mark, you must be high as a kite.
Mark,
I don't take any credit for being super-neutral. I am simply not as obsessed with politics as some. For example, I just finished writing an article about the thumb for my health care section. That subject fascinated me far more than any discussion of Kerry or Bush ever could.
This is not to say that I have no opinions on politics. But I don't dwell over them. Cathy wrote a few weeks ago that she doesn't get up every day thinking about how to advance the great right-wing conspiracy. I likewise don't wake up trying to find ways of injecting politics into my writing.
Funny you should mention Hiltzik. Take a look at my blog (under the URL) and you'll find out what I think about what he did.
Mark, you must be high as a kite.
Uh-huh, anon, and your knee doesn't jerk quite a bit based on your liberalism. Yea, right.
This is not to say that I have no opinions on politics.
I do recall your not wanting to be more specific several weeks ago about the way you've voted on election day.
Hello Cathy,
I had some "Interesting" Word Exchanges with Patterico (AKA) Patrick Frey Just Recently:
Mr Patterico (AKA) Assistant Los Angeles County District Attorney Patrick Frey hs "BANNED" me from his Website, Because of The TRUTH I said about The Pulitzer Prize???? winning Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Chuck Philips.
Patterico�s Pontifications
They might then notice that blogger Patrick Frey�s charge was _not_ that Hiltzik
... I know that Patterico�s Hiltzik posts have been all the rage lately, ...
http://patterico.com/ - Cached
Is Patrick Frey and The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and The LAPD CRIMINALLY and ILLEGALLY Covering up something for Chuck Philips and The Los Angeles Times in The OJ Simpson Case, and/or The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment, and/or The Wallace's Families (Notorious B.I.G.) Federal Civil Lawsuit against the City of Los Angles and MORE?????? Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Chuck Philips????? Hmmmmmmmm?????
Why would Patrick Frey "BAN" me from his Website for telling THE TRUTH????UNLESS.......??????
And Why did Mr Frey NOT answer My Questions that I Directed to Him?????
Patterico’s Pontifications » It’sa “New Low” for New York Times ...
Mr. Patterico. My name is Mario G. Nitrini 111. I was Personally involved in The
OJ Simpson case. I read Your Post of Febuary 24th, 2004 about The OJ ...
http://patterico.com/2005/05/21/...-times-editors/
- Cached
About Michael Hiltzik:
Patterico’s Pontifications
They might then notice that blogger Patrick Frey’s charge was _not_ that Hiltzik
... I know that Patterico’s Hiltzik posts have been all the rage lately, ...
http://patterico.com/ - Cached
Something else!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Michael Hiltzik and Chuck Philips?????? Hmmmmmmmmmmm???????
Mario G. Nitrini 111
I do recall your not wanting to be more specific several weeks ago about the way you've voted on election day.
Indeed. One reason, it's impossible to prove how one voted, and you could simply affect not to believe me if you didn't like the answer. Two, I draw the line at publicly advocating candidates. I don't contribute to candidates or political parties, and never have.
Mario G. Nitrini 111,
Perhaps Frey banned you because you're babbling nonsense.
Mr. Fikes,
What you call my Babbling Nonsense, I CALL THE TRUTH, And I can Prove EVERYTHING I Say and Do in The OJ Simpson Case and MORE. It appears that Patterico (AKA) Patrick Frey doesn't want ANYTHING to do with Me and What The OJ Simpson Case Touches,
Wouldn't you say Mr Fikes????
Mr Fikes,
Do You Know ANYTHING about me at all????
Please Read:
The OJ Simpson Case and MORE 123» 8 105 Mario G. Nitrini 111 2536 Today, 05:27 PM
Last post by: Mario G. Nitrini 111
You can "Google" me also.
Just type in Mario G. Nitrini 111.
It's not that Hard.
Mario G. Nitrini 111
I know this because of her own statement:
I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word.
Appearently a smear tactic is when someone points out a fallacy in Kevin B's own statements.
Naw. A smear is when you start name calling cause ya aint got nuttin to say.....
James, the gushing was in the above mentioned video, and immediate post release words and actions, including wearing a burqua for several days while under US guard. She did not gush in her statement delivered in the US (which was released following heavy criticism of her actions.) Honestly, if it was the WSJ, conservatives would have gone out-of-orbit ballistic. What Carroll did was wrong, and immature. She endangered someone's life pursuing some wack multiculti agenda and it got him killed. Pointing that out transgressed PC piety, thus the gasp in the crowd in Westwood (yes, a very leftwing enclave.) In the public square, Carroll got off way too lightly IMHO.
Again, you seem to assume that translators normally enjoy some sort of impunity in Iraqi unless they're accompanying liberal reporters. Stop blaming the victim of a kidnapping for the actions of criminals.
Again, you seem to assume that translators normally enjoy some sort of impunity in Iraqi unless they're accompanying liberal reporters. Stop blaming the victim of a kidnapping for the actions of criminals.
Oh, Gawd, I have provoked a loony intruder who identifies himself like an AOL screen name.
Being interrogated by Mark is much preferable. . . .
Let's be honest about this: if Carroll worked for the WSJ or National Review no one on this site would be calling her a girl who had "gone native."
Had she been working for the Wall Street Journal or National Review, she would have been more circumspect in her actions.
It's true. Only careless people get killed or kidnapped in Iraq, I guess.
Being interrogated by Mark is much preferable. . . .
You're that uncomfortable revealing your voting record? You've said repeatedly that it's not worth answering either because no one would believe you or because you can't prove what you say. Well, how about a few hints, and to make things easy, limit it to the election of November 2004.
including wearing a burqua for several days while under US guard.
Based on that, I may have pegged Jill Carroll better than I thought. Yep, it still is only speculation about what makes her tick, but the pieces of the puzzle (eg, "They [in Iraq] wouldn't hurt me," "This is home. Iraq. Why? What’s wrong with that?"----and now her possibly saying something like "I prefer to wear a burqua!") may fit together more predictably after all.
Mike in SA,
Did you think the same kind of thing when Daniel Pearl was murdered?
Jeesh. I'm sort of amazed that instead of putting the blame on the folk who kidnapped and killed (the terrorists), the conservatives here spend their time dogging out Carroll.
peace
James, Jill Carroll was a naif who thought her left wing views would protect her. I know, I know, I can't read her mind. Still, she avoided the US military which could have protected her and let her see parts of ther country unreported.
She got kidnapped and created a firestorm when she made that video. I know it was coerced but she put herself in harm's way through ignorance.
Michael Totten has driven through Iraq in the north and provided really great reporting, far beyond anything Carroll did. He is careful; she was not.
"Well, how about a few hints, and to make things easy, limit it to the election of November 2004."
Jeesh! Okay, I confess!!: I voted for president in November 2004, but I did not vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader.
"James, Jill Carroll was a naif who thought her left wing views would protect her. I know, I know, I can't read her mind. Still, she avoided the US military which could have protected her and let her see parts of ther country unreported."
Mike K., a journalist gets a limited perspective traveling with the military. It's a valuable perspective, to be sure, but you miss a lot, such as what people say when the American guns are out of reach.
And what did Carroll ever say that makes you think she is was a left-wing naif?
As for Michael Totten, he went to Kurdistan, where the population is pro-American, and largely immune from the sectarian violence. What did Totten tell us that we didn't already know?
I voted for president in November 2004, but I did not vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader.
A-ha! Someone from the Green Party, perhaps? Based on your comments over the past several months, I'd guess you wouldn't favor one of those peculiar type of populists/far-rightists. That gives me a better sense of what makes you tick.
And what did Carroll ever say that makes you think she is was a left-wing naif?
Makes me think of those members of the media who claim their profession isn't dominated by a liberal bias, or that even a high percentage of editors and reporters lean left.
Mark,
Uh, Nader was the Green candidate in 2004. They endorsed him. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
And what did Carroll ever say that makes you think she is was a left-wing naif?
"Makes me think of those members of the media who claim their profession isn't dominated by a liberal bias, or that even a high percentage of editors and reporters lean left."
But what did she say that gave you that impression?
Of course, a high percentage of editors and reporters lean left, at least in social views. But we're talking about a specific individual here.
Mike K,
Oh, I see. So the only time you care about terrorists is when they do harm to someone whose politics you agree with? Come on brother! We both know if I were to take the same line for a reporter who you liked, you would accuse me of blaming the victim or not understanding what terror is! Heck you probably would tell me to go see "United 93."
Bottom line is this: she was kidnapped by terrorists. They killed her translator.
peace
ps: I promise not to yap about this topic anymore.
But what did she say that gave you that impression?
I guess you have to read between the lines:
wearing a burqua for several days while under US guard.
She wouldn’t listen to me. “I am not afraid. I write about people and they read what I write. They wouldn’t hurt me,” she always replied when I asked her to leave [Iraq].
She loved this country and its people. She sympathized with its sufferings and committed to tell the truth. When I talked to her about how the Iraqis live, she always cried. She cried for the sufferings of Iraq more than Iraqis. She has the nicest heart in this world. When I blamed Iraqis for what is happening in the country, she said “don’t blames the Iraqis. You should blame the governments for what they do.”
I remember once we were chatting and I asked her, “so where is home for you?” And without hesitation or a moment to think, she said “This is home. Iraq. Why? What’s wrong with that?” and as the chat goes on, at some point she smiled and said “I know my fate is in Iraq.”
James,
Blaming the victims, or their real or imagined politics, is horrible. This is what happens when partisanship runs rampant. It's the same despicable attitude exhibited by those verminy Kos contributors such as the slimy "Mabu" who wished Cathy a painful death.
Just to be clear, Mabu was on the extreme, and some of the Kossacks wished Cathy well despite their partisan differences. And no one in this crowd has experienced happiness over Carroll's experience or wished she had been killed.
Uh, Nader was the Green candidate in 2004.
Yea, I was trying to think of one of the fringe candidates who wasn't super fringe, or even more fringe than the Greenies. Therefore, the only alternatives in that election I can imagine would have to be entering super obscure, super peculiar territory.
"Yea, I was trying to think of one of the fringe candidates who wasn't super fringe, or even more fringe than the Greenies. Therefore, the only alternatives in that election I can imagine would have to be entering super obscure, super peculiar territory."
Not at all, Mark. As David Friedman might say, Atlas shrugged his shoulders while reading about man, eonomy and state. Of course, it usually begins with Ayn Rand and ends with Dave Barry.
Bradley,
Good points.
peace
Not at all, Mark.
So you still don't want to simply come out and state who you voted for?
Mark,
You offered me a deal. I took it. Don't try to go back on it.
Now let's move on to Carroll:
"I guess you have to read between the lines:"
wearing a burqua for several days while under US guard.
She wouldn’t listen to me. “I am not afraid. I write about people and they read what I write. They wouldn’t hurt me,” she always replied when I asked her to leave [Iraq].
"She loved this country and its people. She sympathized with its sufferings and committed to tell the truth. When I talked to her about how the Iraqis live,