« Scott Thomas Bull | Main | Notes to Congress »
Harpers v. the Blogger's Roundtable; The Left v. Petraeus
Ken Silverstein at Harper's Magazine has published an attack on the Pentagon's "Blogger Roundtables," to which I suppose I ought to respond. I'll start with his summation.
Before these bloggers start to complain that they’ve done nothing wrong, I’d like to ask how they would feel if a group of handpicked, administration-friendly liberal bloggers had done the same thing during the Clinton years. I believe they would have objected vociferously–and I would have agreed with them. No one, on any side, should let themselves be used to spread the administration’s gospel. At least not anyone who can pretend to journalistic standards.
Mr. Silverstein didn't read far into these writings before he decided it was about "parroting" the administration; I recall David Axe titled one of his posts about a Blogger's Roundtable "Lies my leaders told me." (BlackFive.net's response to that same discussion is here.) But that, of course, is not the point.
Mr. Silverstein is a professional journalist, and is here mostly attempting to defend his guild. There is, Black Five readers well know, no weight to the charge that these Roundtables are about parroting Administration anything. For the one thing, we don't talk to Administration officials, but to career military men. The journalist is the one in error, by treating career servicemen as if they were political figures. The journalist is also in error by suggesting that it is a disservice to the public to let the public read the actual words of military officers, instead of our filtered narrative. We ask them questions, often questions that readers have asked us to ask them; then we post the transcript, and readers can judge for themselves.
"You're not a real journalist" is his way of saying "only professionals like me should be allowed to talk to high officials, not uncredentialed folks like you." This is about protecting the idea that "the press" has a special status or stature, and that mere bloggers or citizens do not deserve access to important people. That should be reserved for the journalists, the gatekeepers of our Republic.
In a sense that is highly amusing. I am delighted by the idea that I might wish to "pretend to journalistic standards," as if that were some high and fine thing to which I ought to aspire. Let me illustrate what I mean: if military operational security secrets came into my possession, I would feel none of the tension that journalists claim to feel between printing the story and protecting national secrets. I notice that this "tension" is almost always resolved in favor of printing the secrets; but for me it would not exist. What I would do with those secrets is what a citizen ought to do with them -- which would not include publishing them for the convenience of our enemies.
I feel an actual, personal loyalty to our fighting men on the ground. They protect us: the loyalty works both ways. In other words, I am not a journalist. I am an American citizen, engaged in our healthy national debate. I don't need credentials for that; and if the price of the credentials is adopting some sort of "neutrality" between America and her enemies, I don't want them.
Again, we don't talk to Bush or administration figures. We talk to military officers, who are brother Americans and who have taken the same oaths to our Constitution that we have, at points in our lives, also sworn. I'll give America's military men a voice and a platform to talk directly to Americans anytime they want it. They are also citizens, and have every right to speak directly to me or to any other citizen they choose. Whether speaking in an official capacity of their office, or as a private citizen, they owe absolutely nothing to "the profession of journalism."
But I notice that Mr. Silverstein's attack is only one prong of a two-pronged attack on the US military coming this week from left-wing journalists. The other wing is an attack on General Petraeus, whose thoughts on the effectiveness of the Surge must be discredited by the Left for explicitly political purposes. This was brought to my attention by The Commissar, who may be the most manful blogger writing today.
The response, and an education in the true nature of blogs, in the extended entry.
As some of you will know, The Commissar was a pro-war blogger in the early days of the war, one who later decided that the Iraq war was a mistake, and became unabashedly anti-war (and anti-Bush). A deeply thoughtful man, however, he engaged the discussion over several months with bloggers like myself and former Special Forces blogger BloodSpite of Technography. He is everything I ask in a political opponent: thoughtful and well educated in military science. As a result, he not only knew about and had read, but was impressed by the new COIN manual. He remained anti-war, but knew enough to see that real changes were underway.
When the initial statistics began to come in from the execution of the new COIN policy, The Commissar said the most impressive thing I've ever heard a blogger say: 'I admit that the truth of many questions of current events is not clear to me; so instead, for a time, I'm going to convert this blog to the study of the classics of ancient Greek.' He has begun a remarkable series on the Anabasis, Xenophon's epic tale of how he and ten thousand Greek mercenaries were on the losing side of a civil war in Persia, and had to fight their way home. I recommend it to you all.
Nevertheless, he does offer occasional posts on topics of the day. As an education in "new media" for our Mr. Silverstein, or other journalists who may come this way, I'm going to reprint an entire comment thread below. Perhaps after reading it, they will understand what blogging is actually about -- not journalism in their sense, but about free citizens engaged in a robust debate about the nature and proper function of our democracies.
Those who are only interested in the attack on Petraeus should skip to comment 13, where that part of the debate begins. The initial discussion is on the nature and role of the citizen.
-
There are really only two things to know about [Matt Yglesias]. The first is that he considers the American Revolution a sorrow for the world; and the second, that he was born an American and has had every advantage of his nation, up to and including a Harvard education (which, sad to say, isn’t the advantage it was a hundred years ago).
In keeping with your new theme, I think Plato captured the sense of what a man like that owes his country in the Phaedo.
-
Gee, Grim. From your dark hinting I was expecting an anti-American screed, but this:
In that light, it seems to me that while the Revolution should not be condemned, it is something to be regretted: a failure of Imperial policy and an inability of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to work out some thorny governance and burden-sharing issues. Not much of an occassion for fireworks.
Seems more like a common-sensical regret expressed by somebody who actually studied the history of the American Revolution. Remember, the Americans were loyal subjects of King George III until his (and Parliament’s) obstinate folly goaded them past patience. and when he suggests that a united empire of Britain, Canada and the USA would have stopped Hitler much sooner, he’s probably right.
Seems more like a common-sensical regret expressed by somebody who actually studied the history of the American Revolution.
Actually it sounds more like wild unfounded speculation based on a historical “what if.” If the American Revolution had not occurred there’s no telling what the world situation might have been like by 1939.
when he suggests that a united empire of Britain, Canada and the USA would have stopped Hitler much sooner, he’s probably right.
Again, ridiculous speculation on all counts. There’s a 160+ years between the American Revolution and the start of World War 2 to account for. It’s equally possible, since we are speculating, to concoct a scenario wherein the absence of a strong, independent U.S. leads to the crushing defeat of the Allies in WW2.
-
It sounds to me like somebody who thinks that the principles of the Founders are dispensable; which is a fine principle for a Canadian, but an unworthy and unfit one for an American who has enjoyed every advantage of his nation. He ought to have learned to love her above all, and her history and traditions. That he has not done so points to a basic moral failing in his character, one that I hope age and experience will help him overcome.
One notes that, in the British system he prefers, the rights of men are not guaranteed except by tradition, unlike in the Constitutional system where they are codified. There are no formal limits on the power of government; and no notion underlying the system that mankind is equal in creation, and made up of people who have a right to be free of Kings, or to constitute new governments in response to tyranny.
The American Declaration of Independence relied on an earlier declaration, that of Arbroath, which was likewise a rejection of English tyranny (Edward’s instead of George’s). The English have proven good at inspiring men to think about liberty — the Magna Carta being another example of a reaction against their tyrants, this time John, who managed to inspire his barons to rebellion and his yeomanry to create similarly inspiring tales in the legend of Robin Hood.
All of those documents are compelling and admirable, and they all point to a longing in a single direction: to depart from the Greek for the Latin of the Declaration of Arbroath, “Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul *** vita amittit.”
That is, “It is not for glory nor honors nor riches that we fight, but for freedom alone: for that freedom that no good man lays down but with his life.” The American calling is to defend that principle, as it is expressed in our Declaration of Independence and in the best traditions of our nation. We are free men — free, even as Yglesias, to turn aside from that duty. We are also free to despise him for his choices.
which is a fine principle for a Canadian, but an unworthy and unfit one for an American who has enjoyed every advantage of his nation
One notes that, in the British system he prefers, the rights of men are not guaranteed except by tradition, unlike in the Constitutional system where they are codified. There are no formal limits on the power of government; and no notion underlying the system that mankind is equal in creation, and made up of people who have a right to be free of Kings, or to constitute new governments in response to tyranny.
So which of us lives in a country with a right of habeus corpus, and which lives in a country where citizens can be declared “enemy combatants” and jailed and tortured in offshore prisons at the pleasure of the President?
-
One of us lives in a country in which habeus corpus is formally protected in this fashion: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”
That would appear to suggest that the right is being correctly protected: those who are engaged in either rebellion (i.e., an American joining a movement that aims at the actual destruction of the American government) or invasion (i.e., a foreigner entering the country with the intention of carrying out acts of war) are not protected by it.
That, too, is the outer limit of the argument — the courts are considering even tighter limits on how that provision of our Constitution may be applied. We shall see how it turns out, but it is clearly the case that the government takes the issue as seriously as the Constitution demands, and is considering what limits that document imposes on its power to address the problem of international terrorism.
As I said, a Canadian is right to love his country and its traditions, as we are right to love ours. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on Canada at all; I just mean that, if you are born an American, and grow up enjoying every advantage your country has to offer, it is rank ingratitude to regret she ever existed.
-
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
-
Well, as I said, it fits right into your new theme — it’s an excellent segue into the Phaedo. Since we’re talking about Classical Greek concepts, here’s one that was quite important to them: the duty of a citizen.
That would appear to suggest that the right is being correctly protected: those who are engaged in either rebellion (i.e., an American joining a movement that aims at the actual destruction of the American government) or invasion (i.e., a foreigner entering the country with the intention of carrying out acts of war) are not protected by it.
2 problems -
1) We aren’t talking about those engaged in rebellion, we are talking about those who are accused of engaging in rebellion
2) This:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
That’s “all men”, not “all citizens not engaged in rebellion”
A written constitution isn’t any good if you don’t pay attention to what it says. You may as well live in the USSR, where they had the best bill of rights anywhere which only applied to law-abiding citizens.
Or in some Persian monarchy with an absolute king.
Yes, I know it’s the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. But the priciple is the same isn’t it?
Sorry commissar, politics is still seething beneath the surface here. I’ll be good now.
-
It’s fine, Canuck.
I’m still interested in politics, and at times even have something to say. Have at it.
-
No, the principle isn’t the same. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of grievances and intentions; the Constitution was a functional document laying out how to create and protect a space in which liberty can flourish.
That second type of document is necessary if the ideas are going to be more than ideas, if they are instead to be made real in the world. A space for liberty has to be won, and it has to be defended. Within those walls, men can be free, because they are protected from the world without.
You must, however, use all necessary force to prevent those walls from being torn down. This is true whether the attempt to destroy the Constitutional order is coming from within, or from without.
Thus, “invasion” and “rebellion” constitute two special cases that threaten the whole project. They are not like normal crimes in that they threaten to collapse the space in which men can be free. For that reason, the Founders rightly recognized that those cases require a different set of responses from the responses used to address normal crimes. They included the exceptions in the Constitution. Far from ignoring the document, we are applying it.
We disagree at times on just what the document requires, which is why we have several court cases about those questions. We will eventually reach a resolution of the questions, however, and that resolution will be applied. You should not allow the heated quality of the rhetoric between Americans to confuse you on the subject. The fact that some Americans are screaming “The Constitution is being ignored!” doesn’t make it so. The maximal argument being put forward by Bush etc. is in fact a perfectly reasonable reading of that clause of the Constitution I cited. Other arguments are also reasonable readings. We’re debating, in our courts, which reading is the right one. There is no chance, however, of us adopting a reading that is plainly unconstitutional — indeed, there isn’t one on the table.
You should not doubt American devotion to the Constitutional order. Except, of course, for Americans who feel the whole project is a mistake… but thankfully, they rarely appear outside of places like Harvard. Americans as a whole have a reverence for the Founders and the Constitution, and many of us have formally sworn an oath to protect and defend it against its enemies.
I think Socrates would have approved. I think he would have approved of the whole argument, in fact: that freedom requires winning and defending a space in the world; that tyranny is to be resisted; that serious debates about the proper role of the government are to be resolved through debate; and that, in spite of the heated nature of those debates, a citizen owes love and service to the home that reared him, educated him, and defends the space in which he prospers.
-
I should have written, “disagreements about the proper role of the government are to be resolved through debate,” above. But you understand what I mean.
This may also help you understand the particular vehemence I have for anti-patriots like Yglesias. For liberals who love the American project as much as I do, I have a deep and true respect. We disagree about many things, but I know that we are equally devoted to protecting and upholding the space in which our liberty flourishes. We are true countrymen, who will fight for each other.
It is only for anti-patriots that I have real disdain, for the ones who are actually opposed to the American project itself, or who feel it is sad for the world that there is an America. Even then, I have true disdain only for the ones like Yglesias, who have reached their antipatriotism on a road of privilege. They have had all the best, and do not say: “Thank you fathers, and brothers, for these special gifts of freedom and plenty; and now let us hold these gifts for our children.”
They say instead, “Hmph. It could have been better.”
-
Grim,
Many of the lefties, including people I generally find reasonable (John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Steve Benen) are raking Petraus over the coals for appearing on Hewitt’s radio show. I dunno. What do you think?
-
Why shouldn’t he talk to Hugh? It’s not like he only talks to Hugh. If he weren’t willing to talk to anyone except Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, I could see an argument that he wasn’t willing to take hard questions, or whatever; but he and his fellow generals hold press conferences at least weekly.
I think the military is increasingly interested in new media: the office of the SECDEF (OSD or OASD, depending on who you ask) has opened an office to deal with new media outlets. It’s run by a guy named Jack Holt, who’s a good lad, and offers bloggers regular access to general officers, colonels, sergeants major, and so forth. I talked to Gen. Holmes this morning on one of their roundtables, and Gen. Bergner last week.
They are mostly interested in the military bloggers because (as Bergner said in the last conversation) we’re the ones with the background to understand their answers. The problem with the press (and the Congress, to a large degree) is that their membership has little grounding in military science or military history. As a result, communicating with them is a problem, as they don’t appreciate the importance of what you’re saying, and you don’t know what gaps they have in their understanding until they print their article (and the correction, if you can get one, shows up on page A25 or whatever).
Milblogs are a useful way to talk to Americans through bloggers who really can understand what’s being said in the half-hour the general has to talk to the press (what with that war they have going on and all), and who can then convey that information to readers with the appropriate background explained.
I think Hugh’s show is similar in that regard. He seems to understand what is going on far better than most of the journalists and even many new-media writers today (for example, the folks at Pandagon, who reduced the strategy of the new COIN manual to “?”). So, yeah, of course Petraeus would want to talk to him and his audience. Why not?
If he weren’t willing to talk to anyone except Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, I could see an argument
I think that’s the beef. Allegedly he hasn’t appeared on Meet the Press.
-
The beef is that Fox News is widely regarded as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and that the appearance of a senior military figure there is seen as military interference in civilian affairs - i.e. endorsing the political line expounded by Fox.
(ed. — I assume canuckistani means “Hewitt.”)
-
Well, “he hasn’t appeared on the particular tv show Meet the Press” isn’t quite the same thing as “he won’t meet with the press.” The guy holds regular news conferences with the press himself, and has also deputies whose job it is to do little else but take questions from the press and get answers for them.
But let’s talk about the military interference in civilian affairs problem. Where does that come from?
It comes from here: the President says that the war is showing progress; the Senate Majority Leader says the war “is lost,” and the Surge has “failed.” That is now a political question, and political questions are to be handled (in the American system) by the civilian branches of government.
Yet it isn’t only a political question. It’s also a factual question, one that is susceptible to empirical evidence. Petraeus is the guy who is best positioned to explicate that evidence. He has his own view, which he has clearly advocated on his own, that the surge is working, and that our COIN policies are producing a “sea change” in Iraq.
As far as I know, he’s arrived to that conclusion based on observation of actual conditions in the field. His observations are in agreement with everyone I’ve talked to in Iraq, from Marine sergeants in Anbar to Army Corps of Engineers officials in rebuilding projects. I don’t think Petraeus is trying to sway the civilian debate for political reasons, but trying to get the facts out.
He’s tried to get them out through traditional media outlets — like I said, he has a PAO who does little else. He has deputies who do little else. That’s their full time job. So he’s tried talking to them.
If he wants to try some of the new media outlets too — to see if they’re a better method of getting the facts out, to answer the factual question of whether the Surge is working — why shouldn’t he do so? Why shouldn’t he talk to the American people in whatever mode seems to work best?
The goal is to communicate the facts. Nothing gives Helen Thomas or Meet The Press a special monopoly on being the conduit. They’re not constitutional officers; they’re creatures of the free market.
So yes, there is a political question here, and the military has to be very careful to ’stay in its lane.’ On the other hand, there is also a factual question. The general has every right to communicate the facts to the American people using whatever means is most efficient. Hewitt let the general speak for himself, and then the transcript went to the blogs, who carried the General’s actual, full-text remarks to the most engaged citizens.
That’s pretty efficient service — and it’s service that determines who wins in the market. If the guys on MTP want to have a sinecure, they can run for office like everybody else. Otherwise, they have to compete on the basis of the quality of their services — even with journalists who happen to be Republicans.
The beef is that Fox News is widely regarded as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and that the appearance of a senior military figure there is seen as military interference in civilian affairs - i.e. endorsing the political line expounded by Fox.
Yes, if you are left-winger. Otherwise Fox is regarded as a news channel that is generally pro-Republican and leans right, as the other channels are generally pro-Democrat and lean left. Left-wing sniveling about Fox never ceases to amaze me.
July 21, 2007 • Permalink
Categories and Tags: Weblogs
• Technorati Links
Technorati Tags:
Comments
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/20232592
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harpers v. the Blogger's Roundtable; The Left v. Petraeus:
» Blogging, Politics and Citizenship from Fuzzilicious Thinking
The Blackfive coterie has been hitting it out of the park this last week, but Grim may have topped his brother writers with a post entitled "Harpers v. the Blogger's Roundtable; The Left v. Petraeus." [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2007 2:36:44 PM
» H&I Fires July 21, 2007 from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. You're advertising here, we should get an... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2007 3:55:57 PM
» 2007.07.21 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup from Bill's Bites
Kinder, Gentler Treatment of Terrorist DetaineesJohn Hinderaker The long-festering issue of how far the CIA can go in questioning terrorist detainees has been resolved, for now at least, with a new executive order that authorizes resumption of the use ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2007 4:32:02 PM
» http://instapundit.com/archives2/007397.php from Instapundit.com (v.2)
A PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST defends his guild by attacking bloggers. That's so 2003.... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2007 6:30:08 PM
» Harper's high horse from THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER
There's really very little more pathetic than when a professional journalist at a self-important glossy like Harper's Magazine attacks bloggers by pretending that he's anything more than an ink-stained wretch plying a not-very-reputable tra... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2007 12:37:52 AM
» Harpers Mag gets their knickers in a knot from Wizbang
I have been tuning in to a lot of the Blogger's Roundtables that the Pentagon has been offering up lately. I used a number of them as raw material for... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2007 9:47:34 AM
» Coffee Snorters: "That's Harsh" Edition from Villainous Company
Zing! That's gotta leave a mark. Poor Dennis Kucinich isn't finding it any easier going. Varifrank links an AP article which briskly informs us that: Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is a vegan, has been hospitalized with "severe"... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2007 1:48:59 PM
» Chewing On The Information Fat from Chapomatic
I saw a little of the guild defense in the Yon-Prine debates a couple of years ago on this blog. Grim over at Blackfive finds another example of thisand his argument is not only spirited but erudite.
Halo effect candidate the Commissars ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2007 3:39:43 PM
» No Respect, No Respect I Tell Ya from MilBlogs
We'll just never reach sink to journalistic standards. We're only out to tell positive stories, and we're so transparent (sigh). AND we were hand picked by the Pentagon...who knew? Ken Silverstein at Harper's Magazine says this: Before these bloggers s... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 24, 2007 8:54:28 AM
» Updating the blogger outreach posts from MountainRunner
Briefly: It took 23 minutes forNoah to connect Jason and myself with the PAO in charge of the "exclusive" Blogger Roundtable. We're in and already information is flowing. This morning, the PAO sent details on the Center for Combating Terrorism... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 26, 2007 10:43:16 AM
An outstanding post Grim. What the guild doesn't like the curtain pulled back on is the entire concept of freedom of "the press" since even journalistic histories note that it meant free access to a/the press (no prior restraint) and not to a class of individuals or organizations. As has been noted on this site before, "the press" as a select group came out of the meatpacking scandals of early last century, and was firmly wrapped around the media technology and costs of same as they existed then. It is also worth noting that the Founding Father's did not necessarily like the media of the day, but they almost completely embraced the concept of citizen journalism (via that freedom to use the press) to support a robust, healthy, and even raucous debate on the issues of the day -- by all citizens. Little thing called the Marketplace of Ideas, which was a key underpinning to the great experiment that is America. The whole idea of "journalists" as an elite and privileged class exempt from common law (and decency) comes primarily from that time (though the seed can be seen in the famous "Fourth Estate" speech of the French Revolution). Members of the guild might want to read and think about this as they strive as hard as any robber baron to maintain a monopoly on selective presentation to and interpretation of facts, speeches, etc. As for me, I don't claim to be a journalist in the modern twist of definition, for I am not a citizen of the world above the common and not subject to common law (and decency). Rather, I am a Citizen of the United States of America, with the rights and responsibilities of same.
Posted by: Laughing Wolf | July 21, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Excellent post, Grim, especially including the commentary from the comments section at the end.
There is so much to comment on and I don't have time to do it right now, but I wanted to commend you on the post.
One thing I will say is that I don't understand the complaints about the Blogger RoundTables and the interview with Hugh Hewitt. And the comment about not appearting on Meet the DePressed (as Rush likes to call it)? Please. The great thing about the RoundTables and the interviews is that you get to ask relevant questions and we, the readers, get to read the FULL answers, in FULL context. The MSM, FOX News Channel included, NEVER does that. They each have their agendas and will write articles and put forth soundbites in an effort to spin the interviews to fit their agendas. But here, on Milblogs in this RoundTables and with the Hewitt interview of Petraeus, we get to see the FULL story, in proper context.
That is simply invaluable. And I consider those who are complaining about such things to have an agenda and are not truly interested in educating the public and having an informed public, but rather, they want a propagandized public, which only knows what the agenda-driven media feeds them.
That is dishonest and lacks integrity.
Again, great post and I look forward to reading others' reactions to this.
One last thing, you mentioned the Left's efforts now to attack not just the war effort, but also GEN Petraeus. You are spot on with that. That was the whole reason for the coordinated efforts of the Democrat Party and the MSM to start calling for withdrawal, because they had to shield the American public from all the progress and success of the surge. We are all going to have to work hard to make sure they do not succeed in undermining this effort.
Posted by: MICHAEL in MI | July 21, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I find Mr. Silverstein's comments about us bloggers completely disingenuous, and of course, completely self-serving. He's only trying to protect 'his' turf- that which affords him his lifestyle, whatever that may be.
I find it disturbing that he apparently didn't talk to a single one of the bloggers to find out their backgrounds- Journalism 102 stuff, if I remember my classwork correctly (don't ask me about 101; I don't remember showing up). If he'd asked, not only would he find out I/we don't 'parrot' anything or anyone, we have actually WORKED at many of us write about; we have actually BEEN there, not just as observers, but participants. With as many years of experience as he in journalism.
My views here are based on personal observation, experience, talks with people there, and what I KNOW, as well as what I feel. If I disagree with POTUS or anyone else (and I do quite often), damn straight I'll let that fly. Left or right, it doesn't matter to me. That's what makes us more dangerous; we are more willing to be forthright and less 'blind'.
What would it mean if we agreed with someone else? Would that put us as 'wafflers'? Or just far more fair and objective?
I can clue you in on many of the conversations we've had with 'big name' journos who have an agenda when they arrive, and no matter what they see or hear, if its not fitting to that agenda, 'it didn't happen'.
The MSM is becoming less and less relevant; with the upcoming elections, you may see the real beginning of their end-times, and the advent of the blogger/internet writer as 'mainstream' (YouTube included).
Mr. Silverstein, all you need is ask. We'd be glad to clue you in...
-Wolf
Posted by: The Wolf | July 21, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Holy crap, that's gonna leave a mark.
Posted by: Blackfive | July 21, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Assuming (?) that most of the comments posted here represent the beliefs of our Armed Forces can anyone forsee any future difficulties when the views of our "military" and our citizens are so different ?
Posted by: john Ryan | July 21, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Responding to the main quote at the beginning ..
The Clinton Administration didn't need a bunch of left-leaning bloggers to spread the administration's line because they had many MSM reporters, especially Eleanor Clift at Newsweek, who were more than happy to take it an run with it.
The truth is that if the Clinton Administration was still running today, they would be doing their best to subvert the left-leaning bloggers because even they won't get down on their knees nearly as much as Monica.
Posted by: Neo | July 21, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Originally posted by John Ryan:
"Assuming (?) that most of the comments posted here represent the beliefs of our Armed Forces can anyone forsee any future difficulties when the views of our "military" and our citizens are so different?"
Well, you're making a few assumptions there that are pretty extreme. Specifically, your assumption that "our citizens" views currently are so different from our military's views. There's lots & lots of contradictory evidence out there on that one. But that's a far different debate.
I actually think this whole debate is really between the MSM and the "New Media", and bluntly, all the military is trying to do is reach out to the "New Media", because bluntly, every time the reach out to MSM, they either get their hands bit or Pi**ed on. Learn that lesson pretty quickly.
The point is, there's more media players out there now with the advent of "New Media". And moreover, the "New Media" has growing market share, while MSM is at best going nowhere in terms of market share.
Our military is into marketing - they have to be. Well, Marketing 101 tells you to look for emerging/growing media markets to advertise your "goods and services". Which is what they are doing.
If they weren't doing it, they would be failing at their most basic responsibility - recruitment. And getting their POV out is part of that overall process.
This guy's whining because his cozy, private world is being invaded and upset by the horde of "New Media" barbarians. Too bad - welcome to the Marketplace of Ideas, version 2.0.
Btw, how many hits per day do you think B5 gets? Or Hugh Hewitt get? Probably as many as a lot of small size newspapers. Reality is that Hugh Hewitt might have as many daily viewers/readers as Harper's Ragazine. Something to think about.
Posted by: Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper | July 21, 2007 at 03:49 PM
"I am an American citizen, engaged in our healthy national debate. I don't need credentials for that"
And therein lies the rub. Journalists have for decades presumed they possessed a special talent that alert, articulate citizens could not possibly replicate. If Halberstam had not already written a book about such hubris in another fallen industry("The Reckoning") I would claim use of the same description here.
Posted by: hvs | July 21, 2007 at 04:40 PM
So much talk,but why aren't
solutions searched for,instead?
Posted by: liyak | July 21, 2007 at 05:51 PM
He has begun a remarkable series on the Anabasis, Xenophon's epic tale of how he and ten thousand Greek mercenaries were on the losing side of a civil war in Persia, and had to fight their way home. I recommend it to you all.
Surely you can't learn too much from some 2,000+ year old barbarian, Grim?
I mean, wouldn't folks be happier watching this for knowledge? World Trade Towers, demolitioned in explosion
One notes that, in the British system he prefers, the rights of men are not guaranteed except by tradition, unlike in the Constitutional system where they are codified.
it is funny that Yglesias is trying to advocate some kind of Aryan-Trans-Pacific-Empire.
No, the principle isn’t the same. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of grievances and intentions; the Constitution was a functional document laying out how to create and protect a space in which liberty can flourish.
I like to think of it as the Constitution is the written form of the law while the Declaration of Independence represents the spirit behind the law.
many of us have formally sworn an oath to protect and defend it against its enemies.
The All enemies bit, currently now all enemies, foreign and domestic, was always an interesting advancement. Usually the military owed its allegiance to the Emperor or King, and thus didn't care a fig about the system or the people. Getting the oath of duty down correctly, is more important than most folks realize.
It is only for anti-patriots that I have real disdain, for the ones who are actually opposed to the American project itself, or who feel it is sad for the world that there is an America. Even then, I have true disdain only for the ones like Yglesias, who have reached their antipatriotism on a road of privilege.
Ah, so it wasn't just the harvard education? ; )
They say instead, “Hmph. It could have been better.”
I think they really mean, "I could have made it better".
I could see an argument that he wasn’t willing to take hard questions, or whatever;
I think their point is that their "access" is being undercut, which is similar to terrorists losing state sponsorship and Iranian gadgets. It is a very important aspect to their campaign that they must maintain, for the media cannot afford to lose their sources, the source being the military, to their competitors and mortal enemies, the blogosphere. Especially not to Hugh.
The goal is to communicate the facts. Nothing gives Helen Thomas or Meet The Press a special monopoly on being the conduit. They’re not constitutional officers; they’re creatures of the free market.
As you noted first, they don't think so. The press often says that what they do is for the best of America because America deserves to know. What they really mean is what they do is best for the press and America gets to know what they believe America deserves to know.
Grim is almost always pleasantly reasonable, which is why it is always a surprise when he lays down a few bricks on folks. A pleasant surprise, though.
He's only trying to protect 'his' turf- that which affords him his lifestyle, whatever that may be.
What's the point of protecting astro turf though?
That's what makes us more dangerous; we are more willing to be forthright and less 'blind'.
Also known as less willing to concede to bureacratic or career pressures.
Holy crap, that's gonna leave a mark.
See, Matt thought so too.
Reality is that Hugh Hewitt might have as many daily viewers/readers as Harper's Ragazine. Something to think about.
Right, and he just has to pay for bandwidth, not publication. Not sure how those fixed costs compare.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | July 21, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Mr Silverstein, Thou Doubst Protest Too Much.
As a secondary primary point, if the Media has to attack the Blogging community, it can only be because the Media feels it has something to hide and or that the blogging community represents a threat to them.
Honesty cannot be threatened, Right? So what do they have to be threatened by? In my opinion, Much.
Media is a facet of society whose voice has gone un-challenged certainly in my lifetime. No wonder it hurts them so much to know they no longer are/or may be soon, considered as the last word.
About damn time. Wolf Blitzer's Romper Room for example. Dan Rather's 'Let's forget the document is forged for a moment and examine its contents.' What???
My God, It is about Damn Time. Got a long way to go though. The morons who inhabit the space called Media are still revered by many.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | July 21, 2007 at 07:34 PM
liyak
"So much talk,but why aren't
solutions searched for,instead?"
Solutions are served up here almost daily.
You didn't address my point;so,what is yours?
Posted by: hvs | July 21, 2007 at 07:52 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Grim. They made my whole day!
Posted by: Commissar | July 21, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Here's a question "real" journalists can ask themselves over their martinis:
Have they gotten any stories right about Iraq?
Going back to 2003, we were assured by "real" journalists that Iraqis hated Saddam but would fight for him tooth and nail because they hated us more;
we had the bogged-down, quagmired defeat of the invasion after two weeks;
we had Peter Arnette tell us that the Iraqis had fought so effectively that the panicked Pentagon had to change the entire strategy;
we had that whole "We didn't train to fight this enemy" crap from whatever outspoken two-fisted general who said he was misquoted;
we had the Baghdad national museum looted in an act of "cultural genocide" that never happened;
on and on, all the way up until today, with beheadings that didn't happen, suicide bombings that didn't happen, and now made-up boorish behavior by our "shock troops."
I've got an idea for "real" journalists: Stop making up the news out of whole cloth.
Verify your reports and publish them, even if they run contrary to the fantasy world you wish existed.
We all get steamrollered by reality at some point in our lives, as heartbreaking as it is.
You're not five years old anymore. Stop acting as if you were.
Posted by: Tom W. | July 21, 2007 at 08:13 PM
I have always seen the Declaration as a Preceptual basis for government: it did not create government, but was a Declaration that government is based upon the self-evident right of individuals to have freedom and to form society and give its assent to have government. Of all the rights we have, that to actually organize ourselves as we see fit and discriminate on that basis to have Nations is foundational. Governments rest upon those Rights granted by the People to govern them, not rule them.
The Continental Congress did not *govern* by the Declaration, but by the Articles of Confederation. Those lasted until the problems of the Confederation were so great that major changes needed to be made and *that* document also had to get consent of the governed. In the modern world we would call the Declaration the 'Mission Statement' for what our goals, as a society are. The Constitution is how we implement those goals and adhere to them, and those go by various names in companies but are the basic outline of authority within an organization, the accountability system within that and the means for changing it by those that are the basis of its formation. That change in outlook is Revolutionary in mankind as it removed all basis of government granting rights downwards and emplaced the People granting rights to government to govern. It is, unfortunately, still as Revolutionary today as it was in 1776.
Amendment I, as a governing concept, implements the freedoms seen in the Declaration in this manner: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is addressing the law making body of the Nation and telling it that it may NOT do these things. That is what the Congress is prohibited from doing, by the People of the United States. It is a listing of things it may not do and note that freedom of the press is not granted to the press but is an inherent right attached to the freedom of speech as it is demarcated as such by the semi-colons used as idea separators in the listing. This is not a grant to have a free press, but the freedom of the People to have speech and ensure that the press is always seen as part of free speech, not a limitation of the freedom to the People to have a separate press organization: the People may communicate by any means they so please and a primary and principle one is via the Press, which may not be limited by Congress. That is not a separate press entity, but freely formed associations within the Nation to speak in the manner of the press, no matter how that changes over time.
That said, this press concept being held by the Citizenry is accountable to the responsibilities the Citizenry laid out for themselves in the very same document, known as the Constitution of the United States. It cannot be called that, however, until the People state their outlook for themselves to have that document. The structure of the Constitution follows the format of: 1) Responsibilities, 2) Just means to run those responsibilities, 3) Rights to empower those responsibilities. That is repeated in the three major sections outlining National government, but is also done for the document as a whole.
Those responsibilities of the Citizenry to have common Nation between them includes not putting that Nation at danger or risk with the utilization of the rights we have, save for the limited few granted to government. My main concern with 'journalists' today is that they feel that they are a 'fourth estate' and no longer Citizens held accountable to the Nation. The majority of 'journalists' have decided to jettison their responsibilities, act without regard to the Nation so as to utilize their rights in a way that erodes the entirety of the Nation and no longer seeks to form 'a more perfect Union' with their fellow Citizens.
That is not establishing Justice nor a Just society, but putting the ability to broadcast above the prime right of the People to have common society and government: who elected the press to decide what is or is not a secret to be kept for the Nation?
This puts the domestic Tranquility at risk by sowing doubt in commong government and common society and proclaiming that what is seen on television or printed on paper as the ONLY way that the People shall have a press system to communicate. By attempting to invalidate any other means, the press acts in a way that is contrary to the rights of the People and place themselves as an authority in a system where authority clearly rests with the People, who grant governing by election, not by self-selection of a group because they are 'professionals'.
Nor does this promote the general Welfare of the People as it removes the concept of Justice as something that is discussed and debated in the freest form possible, not limited by 'gatekeepers' who decide what is or is not 'professional opinion'. The health of debate, opinion and outlook is not to be delimited by any segment of the People and the freest exercise of all sides to be heard in civil discourse is a basic guarantee within society. By attempting to de-legitimize and delimit discussion to that of 'professionals' the common discussion is reduced and the society is no longer one that is free to discuss everything, but limited to discuss very little.
That is an erosion of the Blessings of Liberty as it passes on a less free society to our posterity over time and sinecures rights that were once held in common and invests it in the few. That is undemocratic in the extreme and authoritarian in outlook, to try and convince the People to give up common rights and let a few decide for the many.
'Journalists' who have forgotten these things put freedom of speech at risk and our ability, as Citizen, to bring forth speech that would put 'professionals' at risk. These unaccountable few were the 'gatekeepers' of speech, and they have now found that folks are removing the *fence* that allowed the gate to exist. So sorry! That is a fundamental right of the People, to have unruly discourse and to let reason find its way out of that chaos so as to gain adherance by more and more until it guides the Nation. Bottom up, not force fed by the media to the People. Because the highest title in the United States is not one granted by election, nor that of a self-appointed 'profession': it is Citizen. Those things we elect folks to do? Those are 'job titles'. It is by good grace of volunteering that We the People honor those that step forward without coercion to defend us, and we feel humility at their sacrifice. They honor us with their service to the Nation, and we honor them to best use their rights to guide that sacrifice, so the Nation may be sustained.
That is Citizen-Soldier.
I am humbled and honored that they think my life is worth defending and the way of life is also worth that sacrifice of their time, their effort and, their lives. Of all the things the press of today lacks it is humility. As a whole, it is missing. Apparently they think they are better than the rest of us as they are humble about nothing.
Posted by: ajacksonian | July 21, 2007 at 09:05 PM
Tom gets it right...
"Verify your reports and publish them, even if they run contrary to the fantasy world you wish existed."
Sounds simple and straightforward, as it should, except for some very formidable barriers: character and integrity.
Posted by: hvs | July 21, 2007 at 10:07 PM
I keep asking the lefties who condemn Fox News as "right wing" to cite for me the conservative hosts, co-hosts and "regulars" appearing on the Major 3 networks, and PBS, CNN, MSNBC.
I get.....Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs (a populist), George Will, and Pat Buchanan.
Maybe a few more "regulars" , but not many. Matthews has Coulter on now and then, mainly to bushwhack her as he tried to do with John Edwards' wife's ambush a few weeks back.
That's for SIX networks.
Then I look at Fox, where liberals Greta van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera, Chris Wallace (a card-carrying Democrat) and Alan Colmes all host or co-host their own news and commentary programs.
TO THEIR GREAT CREDIT they generally do not soapbox for the left (except for Geraldo, esp. on the illegal immigration debate. But fine: commentary programs are about opinion, not news.)
But if you want hosts delivering liberal opinion you can sure find it one Fox. That's on ONE network.
Since David Brinkley left ABC in 1994, what conservative has hosted a Big 3 news show? What conservative hosts a news & commentary show on the majors or PBS?
(cue up the sound of crickets on a lazy summer night)
Then I look at the liberal "regulars" on FNC such as Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Eliot Henican, Susan Estrich, Bob Bickel, Charlie Rangel, Revrun Al, Mandy Grunewald, liberal pollster Pat Cadell, and I ask.... what's the beef?
Juan and Mara offer POV but are not propagandists. Some of he others offer partisan POV --- and so what! that's what they are there for.
If anyone should complain about "unfair and imbalanced", it is conservatives.
You want "unfair and unbalanced" -- try posting conservative ripostes on Kos or MoveOn. You'll be off the board in a heartbeat.
p.s. Grim is awesome. Keep it up!
Posted by: effinayright | July 21, 2007 at 10:45 PM
", I’d like to ask how they would feel if a group of handpicked, administration-friendly..."
Where is this goofball Silverstein coming up with this nonsense? Did he read the David Axe post above? Axe is 'handpicked', 'administration friendly'?
BTW 7 weeks ago Axe was hysterical that Turkey was ready to rumble into Northern Iraq and it was being downplayed by the Pentagon.
Axe wrote then:
"The armed standoff between Kurdistan and Turkey is Iraq's problem and Baghdad is sure to handle it just fine. "
"These are some of the half-truths I was fed during today's blogger teleconference with U.S. Army Major General Kurt Cichowski, "
Since Kurdistan hasn't become a part of Turkey, I guess it was NOT a half-truth, was it?
Posted by: liontooth | July 22, 2007 at 01:53 AM
Once upon a time, freedom of the press meant people like our founding fathers, many of whom were both writers (often of pamphlets, which bear similarities to blogs today) and politicians. So this ludicrous idea that 'the press' should have some distinction from politicians is as silly and wrong as the idea that there should be a separation of church and state.
There's a reason journalism isn't a profession, it's a trade. They aren't supposed to see themselves as a class of elites, yet they do.
A little while back, a protest over the immigration issue got ugly in L.A.- instigators throwing bottles at the cops and such, and the Police broke it up, forcing everyone out of the park, including the journalists present. Some people were injured, including at least two journalists. On their own tape you can see and hear them objecting to the order to evacuate to the advancing line of officers. Obviously (and in their defense, probably reinforced by years of permissive and privileged treatment) they fully expected to not be accountable to orders to the public as you or I would be. It's the perfect example of 'press privilege'. For the record, I'm not sure the event was handled as well as it could be, so it's not that I'm saying the journalists deserved to be injured, it's just that, had they seen themselves as the simple citizens they are, they would likely have escaped injury.
Posted by: douglas | July 22, 2007 at 02:45 AM
Silverstein is typical of journalists who call themselves professional. . . his grammar isn't even correct. It should be 'himself' not 'themselves.' Has he ever heard of singular vs plural or is he so discombobulated by political correctness that he's eschews the usage of any general term: himself or herself is replaced by the innocuous and incorrect themselves?
No journalist takes a test to allow him to call himself that. . . he just wakes up one day and adds 'journalist' to his resume. We should remember its self-nominating nature whenever we see the word.
Posted by: kiwikit | July 22, 2007 at 05:25 AM
Douglas wrote:
...they fully expected to not be accountable to orders to the public as you or I would be. It's the perfect example of 'press privilege'.
Speaking of privilege, did Silverstein ever ask to be included in the Blogger's Roundtable? Or was the Pentagon supposed to hand deliver an invitation on a silver platter with a Godiva chocolate begging him to participate?
Posted by: liontooth | July 22, 2007 at 05:46 AM
himself or herself is replaced by the innocuous and incorrect themselves?
It is sort of like the Royal "We". Also the Left has had multiple personality disorders for awhile now. It is the only way they can cope with the inconsistency of their beliefs.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | July 22, 2007 at 07:26 AM
The media have gotten few stories right on Iraq, and yet their narrative has been accepted by the American people because they, in the main, are where we get our news.
And so they have managed to shape the public's perception, both by what they choose to report and what they choose not to report, of what this war is about and how it is going. And opponents of the war, who are always blathering on about "Questioning Authority" (which is - laughably - the bumper sticker plastered on Dana Priest's husband's car) consistently fail to question the Fourth Estate.
I'd laugh, if I could manage it through the tears.
Posted by: Cassandra | July 22, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Hmmm... do I smell fear?
Posted by: MaryAnn | July 22, 2007 at 05:21 PM
MaryAnn said
"Hmmm... do I smell fear?"
Yes, that is fear emanating from the "journalists" in this debate. Or should we call them Luddites?
Having been a consultant for many years, I will share a secret: The only thing a consultant has to sell is the validity and usefulness of his ideas. That’s all there is in the bargain. The client/customer wants ideas and solutions; the consultant either has them or not.
The dinosaur media is crashing into this dynamic at high speed. What the dinosaur media has never contended with until the advent of new media is that the guy around the corner may have an idea equally as useful…at no charge, or at a charge so nominal as to destroy the dinosaur business model. This fear, and hubris, is at the heart of this debate.
I mentioned this up the thread earlier. Read Halberstam’s “The Reckoning”. It is a brilliant treatise on how the Japanese utterly decimated the domestic auto makers in the 1970’s. It’s happening now with the dinosaur media. And they hate it. That’s why they call themselves “journalists” and consider bloggers the equivalent of pre colonial savages.
Posted by: hvs | July 22, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Feeling left out...
what part of the truth is absent from the OPA conference calls that a simple guy like me can't be in on?
Posted by: Cannoneer No4 | July 23, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Feeling left out. . .
what part of the truth is absent from the OPA conference calls that a simple guy like me can't be in on?
Posted by: Cannoneer No4 | July 24, 2007 at 12:03 AM