Point me to the outrage

DinoDoc · January 18, 2005, 19:46

Originally posted by GePap
Good to see your "gives a ****" is consistent....

What exactly do you want me to say in light of the investigation being launched by Powell?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 12:24

Originally posted by GePap
Where was the poly thread about this conservative commentator that got paid $250,000 by the Department of Education to speak for No Child Left Behind? Anyone?

I mean, with all the salivating we had from the right about CBS, one would think the keepers of "journalistic integrity" would have loudly jumped out to denounce such a grievous act, like the Government paying commentators with taxpayer dollars to shill for their own policies...

So, where was the thread?

Typical lefty response. Expecting conservatives to do all the work for the feckless lazy lefties.

I'm glad you finally rose to the challenge. (Likewise I finally rose to the appearance of a response)

Now that you have finally brought this travesty to life, Boo to Armstrong and more importantly to the crooks in the Department of Education

Happy?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 12:33

However speaking of outrage, and outrageous behavoir of the press. Why has there been no degree of outrage over Sarah Boxers NYT article where in she outs possible/potential CIA agents in Iraq when the whole establishment wanted the Bush admins head on a platter for outing Wilson's desk jockey wife.

Whose side are they on?

• January 18, 2005 | 5:04 PM ET

I was going to write a piece on media ethics, involving both the story that Armstrong Williams took money from the federal government to support its education policy and the not-really-comparable story that the Howard Dean campaign hired important lefty bloggers in the hopes of getting good blog-press. But you'll have to read this column and this blog post for more on what I think about Armstrong Williams, and this blog post for the skinny on the Dean story.

That's because the breach of media ethics that has me really exercised today happened not at a blog, or on talk radio, but at The New York Times. It involves this article by Sarah Boxer on the pro-American Iraqi blog Iraq the Model, and it features Ms. Boxer repeating speculation that the bloggers in question -- Iraqis whom she names -- are really CIA plants. This has some more respectable journalists upset.

Jeff Jarvis is deeply critical:

Sarah Boxer's story on IraqTheModel in today's New York Times Arts section is irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and -- worst of all -- dangerous, putting the lives of its subjects at risk.
...
So here is a reporter from The New York Times -- let's repeat that, The New York Times -- speculating in print on whether an Iraqi citizen, whose only apparent weirdness and sin in her eyes is (a) publishing and (b) supporting America, is a CIA or Defense Department plant or an American.

Ms. Boxer, don't you think you could be putting the life of that person at risk with that kind of speculation? In your own story, you quote Ali -- one of the three blogging brothers who started IraqTheModel -- saying that "here some people would kill you for just writing to an American." And yet you go so much farther -- blithely, glibly speculating about this same man working for the CIA or the DoD -- to sex up your lead and get your story atop the front of the Arts section (I'm in the biz, Boxer, I know how the game is played).

How dare you? Have you no sense of responsibility? Have you no shame?

Apparently not. Ed Cone observes:

Just in time for the conference on blogging, journalism, and credibility, a not-very-credible piece of journalism about blogging from the New York Times.
...
The credibility of the Iraqi bloggers -- of any bloggers -- is a reasonble subject for journalism. The Times could have written a credible article on this subject. But it didn't. Why not?

Why not, indeed? Is the Times guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy, by putting the lives of pro-democracy and pro-American bloggers at risk? Some soldiers in Iraq are charging the media with that sort of thing. I'm reluctant to level charges of treason, though, as I subscribe to a higher standard of proof than the New York Times. I think the real problem is that too many people are stuck in the 1960s. That's a point that Michael Gove makes in a different Times, the Times of London, today:

There is a particular point at which knowledge appears to end and a huge black hole begins. It seems to occur somewhere in the 1960s.

The specific event beyond which most commentators now find it difficult to see is the Vietnam War.

It has become the dominant reference point for discussion of any current military campaign. The war to liberate Afghanistan had barely begun before sceptics were suggesting that a "Vietnam-style quagmire" loomed. And from the moment plans were laid to topple Saddam's regime, cynics were certain that the Iraq war would lead, if not to Apocalypse Now, then to the quagmire to end all quagmires. . . .

The demand that we should learn from history makes sense. But, sadly, none of the comparisons so far drawn with Vietnam display a full sense of the nature of that conflict, or the one we face now.

One of the popular media myths in Vietnam was that there were no good guys on our side. The communists were authentic; our guys were all crooks and dupes. That assumption seems to have carried over here, as the only evidence Ms. Boxer seems to be able to muster for claims that the Iraqi bloggers are bogus is that they are pro-American -- and at the conclusion of her article, she makes clear that criticism of the Bush Administration gets automatic credibility as "genuine." (What must it be like to think so little of your country that you assume all praise of it is bogus? It must be... like working for the New York Times!)

At the moment, the New York Times is in court, demanding constitutional protection for its sources. If they're exposed, it fears, they may suffer consequences that will make others less likely to come forward in the future. That, we're told, would be bad for America.

But the New York Times has no compunctions about putting the lives of pro-American and pro-democracy Iraqis at risk with baseless speculation even though the consequences they face are far worse than those that the Times' leakers have to fear. It seems to me that doing so is far worse for America.

When journalists ask me whether bloggers can live up to the ethical standards of Big Media, my response is: "How hard can that be?" Not very hard, judging by the Times' latest.

Write a letter to Glenn Reynolds

Slate

DinoDoc · January 19, 2005, 16:40

I predict a

from GePap.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2005, 16:55

Wow, what a bad article. Let's see, comparing a journalist getting secretly paid $250,000 of our money to hawk the Administration's policy to two bloggers who either shut down their website or made a declaration about the fact they they were working for the Dean campaign. Oh, and comparing the government deliberating outing a CIA agent as punishment for someone pointing out the Administration lied to a reporter doing investigation (or speculation) on her own.

What ever happened to the conservatives opposing the government doing what it's okay for private citizens doing?

And now, having read the original article I can see the Slate article is total BS.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 16:56

What???? Certainly his gives a f$ck is now again working after his initial OP.

DinoDoc · January 19, 2005, 17:01

GePap is kind of a hypocrite when it comes to these things.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2005, 17:10

And where did the real danger to these men come from? Well, from one of the blogger's own mouths.

His views took a sharp turn when his two brothers met with the president. There wasn't supposed to be any press coverage about their trip to the United States, he said. But The Washington Post wrote about the meeting, and the Arabic press ended up translating the story, which, Ali felt, put his family in real danger.

So it wasn't the NYT but the Administration turning this into a photo op, that put those men in danger. I love how conservatives take something and turn it into its opposite. This whole article is nothing more than an attack on Freedom of the Press and part and parcel of the whole conservatives arguing that liberal = traitor BS.

Why do you conservatives so hate the principles upon which this country was founded?

DinoDoc · January 19, 2005, 17:14

Ogie is a Libertarian IIRC

GePap · January 19, 2005, 18:24

Originally posted by DinoDoc
GePap is kind of a hypocrite when it comes to these things.

No, I know when something is stupid, versus CRIMINAL.

What CBS was stupid. It was not even close to criminal.

What the administration did along with Armstrong- that may be criminal.

The difference is clear, obvious, and important. But I guess that kind of simple differences get lost once you cross into Dixie.

Oh,a nd good to see Che already handle ogie's bull.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 19:05

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And where did the real danger to these men come from? Well, from one of the blogger's own mouths.

His views took a sharp turn when his two brothers met with the president. There wasn't supposed to be any press coverage about their trip to the United States, he said. But The Washington Post wrote about the meeting, and the Arabic press ended up translating the story, which, Ali felt, put his family in real danger.

So it wasn't the NYT but the Administration turning this into a photo op, that put those men in danger. I love how conservatives take something and turn it into its opposite. This whole article is nothing more than an attack on Freedom of the Press and part and parcel of the whole conservatives arguing that liberal = traitor BS.

Why do you conservatives so hate the principles upon which this country was founded?

I call complete and total BS. Thre is a significant difference between a voluntary meeting of the President and being involuntaryily libeled as a CIA agent. This yellow journalism escalated whatever danger these men may have self inclficted on themselves. Trash journalism at its finest, without the slightest bit of evidenciary proof being offfered to substantiate the inuendo. Glad however that you feel the need to defend them.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 19:07

Originally posted by GePap

What CBS was stupid. It was not even close to criminal.

Collusionof Mapes with Kerry campaign borders on criminal. Thankfully the whitewash that was an investigation glossed over any pretense of real investigation as it didn't even dare to state the obvious political bias underlying the Mapes/Rather 5 year obsession.
.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2005, 19:12

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I call complete and total BS.

I see you still haven't bothered to read the original article then. Too bad, otherwise you say things that don't appear in the article, instead of just aping the Slate article. You might want to do that to keep yourself from looking like a complete idiot, which I know you aren't.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 19:17

I read the entire article 3 times and still see the implied slime of Boxers article on the three brothers. Implying that 2 of them are paid for shills and/or agents fromthe CIA. Absolutely the wrong thing to do. The least she could have done to 'break the big story' is use aliases.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2005, 19:35

They used their real names on their blogs. She didn't out them, first. She isn't the one who started the rumour there was something fishy about them. That was another blog. She isn't the one that gave their names to the Arabic press, that was the Washington Post article which did a story on the two bothers meeting the President. Now, how did the Post find out about the meeting unless the White House told them.

Boris Godunov · January 19, 2005, 21:38

I find the comparison of Boxer's column to Novak's outing a known CIA agent to be laughable. What Novak did was probably illegal, after all.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 19, 2005, 21:42

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They used their real names on their blogs. She didn't out them, first. She isn't the one who started the rumour there was something fishy about them. That was another blog. She isn't the one that gave their names to the Arabic press, that was the Washington Post article which did a story on the two bothers meeting the President. Now, how did the Post find out about the meeting unless the White House told them.

This from the person who lauds the crediblility of the press and disparages the inuendo of sources like Drudge. When a national press resorts to repeating slime and inuendo and potentially exacerbates/causes people in hostile land (Unlike Wilson's wife) to come into further harms way because it doesn't fit the agenda of the news agency that is wrong with a capital W. (to borrow a Sesame street reference from the Kerry campaign).

As for the meeting with the president, who really cares. If the Post got hold of the story I'm sure it was the White House who was making good on the PR side of things. And yes it probably put them at odds and in danger with the locals of Iraq, but thats a whole different matter than trying to imply they are paid operatives of the CIA. And as I earlier indicated the two brothers apparently of their own volition met with the President and were willing to have press coverage of their meeting. I'm sure that decision was carefully weighed as to their own security issues vs. the strength of their convictions. OTOH, that does not in any way imply they were signing up to be slimed by bloggers or have those allegations so prominantly echoed by a hack NYT reporter. A charge you have more than once leveled against the bloggosphere and the likes of Drudge, No? Highly improper to say the least.

Ted Striker · January 20, 2005, 00:40

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Ted Striker is a bra?

No but I'd like to be!

GePap · January 20, 2005, 10:22

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

This from the person who lauds the crediblility of the press and disparages the inuendo of sources like Drudge. When a national press resorts to repeating slime and inuendo and potentially exacerbates/causes people in hostile land (Unlike Wilson's wife) to come into further harms way because it doesn't fit the agenda of the news agency that is wrong with a capital W. (to borrow a Sesame street reference from the Kerry campaign).

For the first time you sound like a total hack. Sad.

As for the meeting with the president, who really cares. If the Post got hold of the story I'm sure it was the White House who was making good on the PR side of things. And yes it probably put them at odds and in danger with the locals of Iraq, but thats a whole different matter than trying to imply they are paid operatives of the CIA. And as I earlier indicated the two brothers apparently of their own volition met with the President and were willing to have press coverage of their meeting. I'm sure that decision was carefully weighed as to their own security issues vs. the strength of their convictions. OTOH, that does not in any way imply they were signing up to be slimed by bloggers or have those allegations so prominantly echoed by a hack NYT reporter. A charge you have more than once leveled against the bloggosphere and the likes of Drudge, No? Highly improper to say the least.

Improper? Fine, you think it improper. Like we care. Was it possibly criminal?

In the end, you have not even addressed the Williams issue at all.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2005, 12:17

Originally posted by GePap

In the end, you have not even addressed the Williams issue at all.

Yes I did.

Now that you have finally brought this travesty to life, Boo to Armstrong and more importantly to the crooks in the Department of Education

Happy?

In fact my hope is that this further emphasizes the rampant corruption of said agencies warranting cutback to the respective budgets as they apparently have an excess that can be funnelled to illlegal activities.

mindseye · January 20, 2005, 12:46

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I find the comparison of Boxer's column to Novak's outing a known CIA agent to be laughable. What Novak did was probably illegal, after all.

You said it! And yet, while two NYT reporters are looking at jail time over refusal to reveal sources, Novak remains completely and mysteriously outside the Valerie Plame investigation. Seems mighty odd to me.

I wonder what Michael Powell would have decided if instead it had been Novak exposing Ann Coulter's breast during Superbowl Halftime?

Probably George Will would have penned a prosey piece poo-pooing the brouhaha, chalking it up to Liberal Hysteria, and doting on the innate American-ness of a woman's breast ("as natural to Americans as apple pie and Baseball Itself") ... and the topic would have passed.

I was just reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today how the entire subject of torture by US armed forces has pretty much vanished from television news reporting, even as the investigations document orders from admin officials. As the author notes, if it's not on tv, it's not on Americans' minds - or consciences.

This administration has sorely taxed the outrage-secretion abilities of my spleen.

<-- still a little left

chequita guevara · January 20, 2005, 13:53

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
OTOH, that does not in any way imply they were signing up to be slimed by bloggers or have those allegations so prominantly echoed by a hack NYT reporter. A charge you have more than once leveled against the bloggosphere and the likes of Drudge, No? Highly improper to say the least.

What I read was not an indictment of the three brothers as CIA agents. I'm still trying to figure out how you and the Slate hack came up with this. The article I read was a story about three brothers who had a blog and what they've gone through. She does not charge any of them with being CIA agents, but reports that some other blog makes that charge, as part of the story about them and what they are going through.

You conservatives just see what you want to see, don't you?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2005, 14:07

Gee wow! Apparently so does the afore mentioned brother, Ali, who left Iraq the Model in Favor of Free Iraq blog site

Wednesday, January 19, 2005
I feel I should give my opinion on the NY times article about me and Iraq the Model that has created some variable reactions on the blogosphere. The article was, despite Ms Boxer's kindness, a bad piece of journalism. I had around 45 minutes long phone call with the reporter about my journey with Iraq the Model, my new site, the elections, the general situation here in Baghdad but she (or the paper) seems to have a certain agenda and managed to change the whole issue into a very silly gossip (going as far as quoting trolls!) that is way beneath any respectable paper and certainly beneath me so I won't give it more attention but lesson learned and I won't make the mistake of talking to anyone from the NY times again. It's important to note though that my feelings of respect, gratitude and love for the American people have never and will never change.

Also before I turn to discuss more important issues that I created this site for, I'd like to ask the people who are coming from the site of the very informed Dr. Cole a favor. Can you please ask him to show us his sources (regarding the Fallujah myth) that he consider superior to mine? The funny thing is that he links to my site but continue to ignore linking to Iraq the Model! Maybe he thinks I'm on his side now? I'm sorry, I've changed my mind a bit but not to the degree of standing against America and my own country! Also he seems to not remember that it was me who pointed his little 'slip' about Fallujah, not my brothers, and the fact that he insist on this issue can only turn his slip into * gasp* a lie? Now could it be possible that higher beings like Dr. Cole are actually capable of lying!? I hope not but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to show us his credible sources.

posted by Ali | 10:28 PM Comments (82) | Trackbacks (6)

Free Iraq Link provided courtesy of NYT article.

I refer you to his specific comments about the compelling need of MS. Boxer to reference "silly trolls" obviously Ali's reference to the CIA allegations.

chequita guevara · January 20, 2005, 14:23

And his comments in no way substantiate the ludicrous claims of you or the Slate hackery. No one is saying the NYT article isn't a gossip piece or that it is Putlitzer material. What the Slate article does is accuse Boxer of outing CIA assets in Iraq, treason, and general all-around anti-Americanness

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2005, 14:46

Au-Contraire both my posts and the slate article are very careful in indicating that the NYT article does not definitively state these three as CIA or other paid operatives of the US.

Which to my mind is an even worse thing. In a witch hunt laden territory why would one use baseless speculation( or even refer to baseless speculation) in the article to describe these men.

The entire gist of the NYT article is these 3 men have been said to be CIA operatives, (now We the NYT's don't go so far as to say that) but isn't it suspicious that one of them had a change of heart and the other two were seen with the president. Come on, thats slime of the lowest sort towards innocent (at least until proven guilty) men.

One can say at least Novak told the truth. (Granted the leaker needs to be found and prosecuted)

chequita guevara · January 20, 2005, 14:53

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Au-Contraire both my posts and the slate article are very careful in indicating that the NYT article definitively state these three as CIA or other paid operatives of the US.

Which it does not do. It even helps Ali explain one of the reasons that people thought they were CIA, which was because of their ISP, hich had CIA in its name.

The entire gist of the NYT article is these 3 men have been said to be CIA operatives, (now We the NYT's don't go so far as to say that) but isn't it suspicious that one of them had a change of heart and the other two were seen with the president.

No, the gist of the article is, this is one of the stories going on in the Iraqi blogging world. It was, as Ali correctly called it, a "very silly gossip" piece.

Again, you see only what you want to see, rather than seeing what is plainly there.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2005, 14:58

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Au-Contraire both my posts and the slate article are very careful in indicating that the NYT article definitively state these three as CIA or other paid operatives of the US.

Which it does not do. It even helps Ali explain one of the reasons that people thought they were CIA, which was because of their ISP, hich had CIA in its name.

My very bad. What I meant to say was

"Au-Contraire both my posts and the slate article are very careful in indicating that the NYT article does not definitively state these three as CIA or other paid operatives of the US"

Whoops I editted accordingly above.

DinoDoc · January 20, 2005, 16:16

Originally posted by mindseye
I wonder what Michael Powell would have decided if instead it had been Novak exposing Ann Coulter's breast during Superbowl Halftime?

I think he'd be to busy throwing up to have much of a response.

Ramo · January 20, 2005, 17:21

I refer you to his specific comments about the compelling need of MS. Boxer to reference "silly trolls" obviously Ali's reference to the CIA allegations.

Ali specifically calls Boxer kind. He doesn't in any way say that she was trying to call him a CIA agent. I agree with him, it was a bad piece of journalism and a gossip column (it was in the Arts and Leisure section after all), but it wasn't endangering any lives. Seriously, if he thought that she was really endangering his life, don't you think he would say so?

The NYT column was gossip, but the Slate column was alarmist hackery.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2005, 17:30

Originally posted by Ramo
[q]
Seriously, if he thought that she was really endangering his life, don't you think he would say so?

Absolutely not. Obviously his intention is to try to as best as possible ignore this in order to make the attention drawn to himself as well as his brothers go away.

He obviously feels she misrepresented the three of them (by inuendo and gossip thereby perpetuating the paid for BY US rumor) and simply at this point wants it to go away.