Posted on 05/29/2008 4:41:38 AM PDT by SJackson
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (Hardcover)
Thanks for posting this article.
“I think if you read carefully what Feith wrote, a), he didn’t do that, and b), he takes some of the blame himself. It’s an apology in a sense for the idea that the Pentagon had a war plan, had people listened to then rather than the State Department, things would be better than they are now.”
A State Department visionary /sarcasm...here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_N._Haass
Writing his vision...here...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304-p0/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html
VDH is certainly correct about perspective. It is heartening to consider the difference in treatment between modern historians and the contemporary press hysteria (a very good deal of which is still perfectly accessible) during the U.S. Civil War. One difficulty these days is precisely the same as then - far too many reporters have attempted to craft a narrative on the spot instead of simply stating observed facts. This gives them a vested interest that hinders successive facts that do not fit the narrative. For all the derision that modern journalism tends to direct at "objective" journalism, the latter does at least free the reporter from looking like a complete fool after the shooting stops (and the Pulitzers have been awarded).
Thinking yourself to be objective is arguably the best possible definition of the word "subjectivity." And the Associated Press, and all of those "independent-thinking" papers which make up the AP, are selling something. They are all selling the same thing - news, before you could get it from any other source. So the AP and every one of its members has the identical incentive to sell the idea that journalism - all journalism - is objective. How else to vouch for the news which is the pervasive, dominant theme of your newspaper, quite dwarfing the editorial opinions which give the various newspapers reputations for independence from each other? - That news did not originate with your newspaper's own reporters but with those of a nominal competitor in a distant city. So with the AP, newspapers have the opportunity to claim objectivity without fear of powerful ridicule as long as they do not compete with any other AP newspaper on the basis of objectivity claims. And the more opportunity they have had to make that claim, the less compunction they have felt was necessary about taking care to vindicate the claim by actually being objective.So what is the actual effect of the claim by all of journalism that all of journalism is objective? The actual effect of the claim of objectivity, running as it has for a century and a half, is to establish in custom the idea that journalists are a breed apart from we-the-people. An enormous propaganda campaign has convinced the general public that journalists are more virtuous, more knowledgeable, and more civic-minded - and thus entitled not only to be listened to with respect by people who pay for the privilege. And that journalists are entitled to special privileges such as "shield" laws granting reporters the right to withhold the names of sources from courts of law which any citizen would be under legal compunction to yield up. And that journalists are entitled to special rights to speak out about candidates for public office - rights to be denied, under McCain-Feingold, to we-the-people.
But in principle, if that assumption be accepted, there is no real virtue in having our government officers selected by vote of the whole people on a date certain - it would be far more manageable to simply read in the newspapers what the newspapers say is in the public interest. Or, for that matter, what the newspapers say the public thinks, based on "public opinion polls." From the POV of the journalist - or anyone who thinks that journalists are more objective and hence wiser and more virtuous than the public at large - public votes are unnecessary and irrelevant. What could be more patent than that the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle?
Thanks for the link. Amazon reviews of Feith’s book...here...
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
Fantastic article, great interview by VDH. Thank you for posting.
That's true, something I suspect the photographers of the civil war era thought they were putting an end to. But the narrative, true or false, is often necessary to explain what's being observed.
One of his best.
Ditto to all the praise heaped on VDH. Great article. How come no one in the MSM is this smart?
"If one were to look at the nature of German aggression in Europe, the nature of German colonies overseas, or what the German agenda was, it seems to me that it was very different than the liberal tradition in France and England that prevailed.
"It’s a tragedy that it had to end in a war like that, but given the superiority of the German Wehrmacht in 1914, I don’t know any other way how anybody would have stopped it. In terms of artillery, in terms of personal arms, in terms of general staff, railroads, communications, esprit de corps, it was so far superior to the colonial armies of France and England. The ambitions of the German Kaiser were so ambitious, I don’t know how anybody could have done anything other than what they did. They would have either had to appease them or capitulate.
"It was a tragedy. But I do think there was a qualitative difference in the fact that the Allies won. It had a profound effect on Europe.
"The tragedy of World War I, it seems to me, is how the Versailles Treaty ended and the Allies were not willing to remain vigilant, because given their enormous losses in the war there was sort of a utopian pacifism that followed. "
Great article. Thanks.
Because Victor Davis Hanson is one of a rare breed of true historians, i.e. he really studies and draws lessons from history and then shares them with us, while so-called "journalists" are intent on [re]writing the history and redefining the lessons of history to suit their own biases and prejudices.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana
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.