Clumsy Yet True
Clumsy wouldn't be my description, but let's run with it.
National Review Online's Media Blog author Stephen Spruiell says St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial page associate editor Mark Yost's piece on Legacy Media Iraq reporting was clumsy.
If this is clumsy:
I know the reporting's bad because I know people in Iraq. A Marine colonel buddy just finished a stint overseeing the power grid. When's the last time you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid? Or the new desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings waiting to be blown up.Then this by Knight Ridder Baghdad bureau chief Hannah Allam:
I invite Mr. Yost to spend a week in our Baghdad bureau, where he can see our Iraqi staff members' toothbrushes lined up in the bathroom because they have no running water at home. I frequently find them camping out in the office overnight because electricity is still only sporadic in their sweltering neighborhoods, despite what I'm sure are the best-intentioned efforts of people like his Marine buddy working on the electrical grid.Is a joke. What Allam and others fail to ask: Is it because these journalists have their toiletry routine inconvenienced by terrorists [insurgents is such a tiresomely biased word] that they cannot look beyond the tips of their toothbrushes and report what progress is being made despite the attempts of terrorists from several neighboring countries to keep Iraq in the Iranian and Syrian and Saudi Arabian Dark Ages? I guess I don't get Allam's (or Spruiell's) point. Because their job is tough, and they have to "camp out," any criticism of their reporting is, by definition, clumsy? Give me a break (and I love National Review Online so much, I'm a subscriber). Michelle Malkin notes little tolerance for dissent from the anointed Legacy Media elite. And, thankfully, Jeff Jarvis tutors Steve Lovelady on his sophomoric chatter.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:18 PM
I clarify what I meant by “clumsy” on my blog today. I simply meant that it was sort of a personal, subjective look rather than a thorough analysis, and the only reason I think Yost wrote it that way is that he had no idea what a firestorm it would set off. Surely if he had, he would have been more careful, less personal, more sort of presenting the facts and letting them speak for themselves. I don’t disagree with Yost… I’m quite obviously on his side here.
July 15th, 2005 at 12:22 PM
“Clumsy” was probably a poor word choice. I meant “less than thorough.”
July 16th, 2005 at 4:35 AM
Stephen,
Your Media Blog is indispensable.
Keep up the great work.
Many thanks.