Posted on 03/31/2008 7:38:22 PM PDT by SeafoodGumbo
When reporters write in the first person, the result is rarely good. There are exceptions (such as Peter Kann’s Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the war in Bangladesh in 1971 for the Wall Street Journal), but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. Take today’s New York Times dispatch from Basra.
Today’s coverage of the Iraqi government’s fight for Basra is a clear example of the rule.
First of all, who is Qais Mizher, who owns the byline on the piece? Well, he tells us this in passing: “Calling on my experience as a captain in the Iraqi Army before the 2003 invasion and essentially a war correspondent since then…” Got that? The New York Times reporter was an officer in Saddam’s army. Nice. By the way, officers were not drafted (that’s how the enlisted ranks were filled). Officers had to be selected and regularly vetted for loyalty and effectiveness. So Saddam decided that he could trust our intrepid correspondent and so did the New York Times.
Makes you wonder: Would the Times have hired former Nazi officers to cover the three-year insurgency against the American presence in Germany in the late 1940s? Even if they spoke the language, knew the countryside well and said they “never really believed” in that evil ideology?
And is it smart to send an Iraqi Army captain from the Saddam era to cover the actions of the new Iraqi army? Are they likely to welcome him? Is likely to view them fairly?
But the bigger problem with this piece is that it tells the reader nothing. It is simply a traveleogue meant to convey that Basra is a dangerous and confusing place. The reporter makes no attempt to clarify anything. He does not interview any Iraqi army officers, whom, he admits, are holed up 50 feet from his hotel.
Nor does he interview the hotel staff or his two taxi drivers.
He just hears some gunshots and sees some shattered glass. Sounds like a night in Detroit. But it tells us nothing we didn’t already know: there is fighting in Basra. Frankly, there are bloggers who do better than this. Much better. See Michael Yon or Michael Totten.
As for his statement that the Mahdi Army can strike anywhere in Basra and the Iraqi Army really controls nothing, well, how would he know? He is not quoting an expert, say a American or Iraqi commander with access to maps and satellite imagery that shows the Mahdi Army striking at will across the metropolis. He cites no independent named source at all. He just retails Mahdi Army propaganda as fact.
This is Seinfeld reporting—“news” about nothing.
As for the New York Times, one wonders why they didn’t embed a reporter with the Iraqi forces streaming south. Like Dr. Zaius, were they afraid of what they might find?
Why is that rag still in business????? They hate America!
So this guy’s boss was Baghdad Bob. No wonder the Slimes jumped at a chance to hire him.
One of my great disappointments with Pres. Bush is that he didn’t slap the treasonous msm, especially the nyt, in chains. How do you convince the sheep that the country is at war if the enemy comprise half of your congress and virtually all of your media?
Good call!
All reporters for the New York Times and much of the rest of the MSM for that matter, must take a blood oath. They make a small incision in their wrist, bleed into an empty bottle of green tea and recite the creed of the left: God damn America, God damn America, God damn America.
Only when they have completed this ritual in the presence of their fellow journalists are they accepted into the fold.
You don't.
Judging from their behavior over the last few decades the answer would have to be a resounding, OF COURSE. However, it's possible that the tone of management has changed over the last 60 years at the NY Times.
FWIW, that's a misuse of that expression. As Spock would say: “it's not logical”.
A good description of the saying's origin is here:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
“The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as “the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”.”
Unfortunately, this is probably also true:
“Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception ...”
Read today that a couple more big time newsrags are going under, Wonder why?
Hehe. No kidding. Not only do they want us to read the dribblings of an ex-officer for Saddam, but they want us to pay for the "privilege"?
A few headlines from the past couple of years. I wonder why the news always seems to be bad concerning NY Times profits?
Morgan Stanley sells stake in New York Times: report
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1912737/posts?page=1
New York Times forecasts lower 3rd-qtr earnings (down about 5% in afterhours market)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1705887/posts
NYT stock plunges to 52 week low ($19.80 stock price back to Jan ‘97 levels)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896724/posts
S&P Lowers New York Times Debt Ratings (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669957/posts
that’s 4
Just when you think you’ve seen it all.
The NYT is nothing but a bunch of lying, treasonous, faggot commies that sincerely hate the USA.
They are consummate professionals.
At hating, that is.
Perhaps the news paper of choice for most of the idiots in the Senate and HR, when they try to make points on some issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.