blatham wrote:Quote:That what has happened? That blatham has critiqued a dailykos posting? Never has ... never will.
Paste any Kos piece of your choosing. Paste any Salon piece of your choosing. We can, with a bit of thinking, set up criteria with which to carefully analyze the quality of the writing/journalism. By way of contrast, we could take any column of your choosing from townhall (I'll trust you not to be a shithead in your choosing). Or even just the Olasky piece you posted. We could do it on its own thread. A bit of work but probably worth the effort given neither of us feels partisan loyalty trumps principle.
I've never posted a dailykos piece, and don't choose to. Same applies to salon. I wasn't suggesting we should compare and contrast, but simply pointing out that you don't seem to criticize liberal writing.
In any event, if your analysis of Olasky's piece is any indication, I don't think its worth much effort ...
Your first criticism that Olasky used the word "false" is merely a reflection of your ideological beliefs. You believe that the story is true and therefore Newsweek shouldn't have retracted it (much as I'm sure you probably believed the National Guard story was real, and CBS shouldn't have retracted its bogus story, as it eventually did). As it is, because the magazine has retracted the story, it is much more clear that the story is false than it is that the story is true. Your repeated criticism of Olasky for using the word, therefore, is misplaced.
Your first of two critiques of "Paragraph two" begins by saying, "Earlier reports of such incidents were numerous," which doesn't address Olasky's point, which is that because such incidents were numerous it was disingenuous for Michael Isikoff to have said following the riots that it was unforseen that Newsweek's reference to the desecration of the Koran by the US would spark rioting in the Muslim world. Your reference to
numerous "earlier reports of such incidents" only supports Olasky's point. You then make references to using the word "crusade," Abu Ghraib, etc. Huh? It is as if you completely failed to grasp the point Olasky was making about the disingenuous response of Isikoff and Evan Thomas following the riots in Afghanistan. You appear to be making an argument that suggests that in fact it should come as
no surprise to anyone that there was rioting in the Muslim world following the bogus Newsweek article, and you do nothing to deflect from Olasky's criticism of Isikoff for having said, "that "no one 'foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did,'" or Evan Thomas saying the Muslim reaction "came as something of a surprise" to Newsweek editors.
In your second critique addressing "Paragraph two," you
correctly point out that Olasky is suggesting Newsweek is guilty of hypocrisy. You appear to try and get in a poke at Olasky for not indicating whether he agreed with Falwell's statement re Muhammed being a terrorist -- as if that is relevant to anything Olasky is saying. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly why we would be concerned with whether Olasky agreed with Falwell's 2002 statement? Is that in any way relevant to his point about Newsweek's hypocrisy? Your suggestion that Newsweek is not hypocritical for slamming Falwell for making that comment "since 'Islamic fundamentalists are having a field day with these comments, which have been played and replayed throughout the Muslim world,'" because his was a public comment by a public figure, and thus it was newsworthy, makes little sense. You seem to be saying that Newsweek was within its rights to have chastised Falwell for making his comment about Muhammed
because of the effect it would have with Islamic fundamentalists, but Newsweek itself should get a pass for publishing a false story concerning desecration of the Koran. Your only explanation as to why you feel it is not hypocritical is to imply that because Newsweek's publication of the bogus Koran story was merely a "reportage of any incident" as opposed to a criticism of a public comment by a public figure, which does little to explain away the evident hypocritical positions taken by Newsweek with these two stories. You then make a throw-away comment that attempts to vilify the U.S. military, vis a vis the alleged incident which was the foundation of the story that Newsweek retracted. You apparently believe that Newsweek
does not bear a responsibility, like Falwell, to not cry "fire" in a crowded theater.
As to Paragraph three, you identify the issue as "anonymous sources," and the attendant problem with ascertaining the truth. You appear to be criticizing Olasky for "trumpeting," but don't explain yourself. You then seem to think he should have addressed the Bush Administration's use of anonymous sources for "their perceived advantage ... Valery Plame." At this point, it would seem appropriate to point out a few things to you: (1) The purpose of Olasky's article, as you know, was to raise a few questions raised about
Newsweek's retraction of the Koran story (shall we just refer to this as "Toiletgate"?), (2) the real issue in the paragraph is Olasky's criticism that Newsweek didn't try hard enough to ascertain the truth, relying on anonymous sources, and (3) you don't know who "leaked" Plame's name (and let's not forget she was not a top secret agent anyway), and the "outing" of Plame had absolutely nothing to do with any failure on the part of anyone -- journalists or the administration -- to ascertain the truth, which again was the entire point of the paragraph. So, it appears your only criticism of Olasky as it regards this paragraph is your own irrelevant sniping at the Bush Administration ... worthy of Dailykos or Salon in my book.
Regarding Paragraph Four, your only criticism is that Olasky is repetitious in suggesting the story is false. You seem to have failed to see that Olasky is heaping further criticism on Newsweek for reporting new Koran-in-toilet charges made by terrorists against the U.S. Military, at the same time they quote the U.S. Colonel for pointing out that the al Qaeda training manual shows its terrorists "are trained to make allegations against the infidels." The point of this paragraph is to question why Newsweek chose to report the claims of terrorists, unsubstantiated except by their own bogus story, without an independent investigation.
Five ... you incorrectly assess Olasky's point as suggesting that if a story is "'against the military' it is wrong or anti-patriot." It is evident that you only skimmed this article, because you have again failed to grasp its meaning. The question asked right off the bat is whether Newsweek and Isikoff went easy in its scrutiny of the accusation in question, given its prior history of publishing a "false anti-military story on a one-source basis." The criticism is with Newsweeks journalistic standards, and if Newsweek feels they maintained those standards, Olasky questions whether those standards ought to be changed.
Six ... you simply repeat your theme that you believe the underlying story is true, even though Newsweek retracted it, and so you question Olasky's thesis, but I addressed this in my analysis of your criticism of Olasky's first sentence.
Seven ... You point out that Olasky mentions a demand from Dionne that Bush take Falwell to task and be willing to "take on your own side," but you don't analyze it. I take it you don't agree, but you don't explain why. I'll concede, even though you didn't identify this concern very effectively, that Olasky's use of the term "sneak attacks" is ambiguous, and the reader is left wondering exactly what was meant by its use. Was he referring to the anti-military/one-source stories he's referred to earlier. One must guess.
Eight ... You criticize Olasky for raising the question about the violent nature of many Islamic fundamentalists in the world. It is as if you feel the best approach is to place your head in the sand and visualize
all Muslims as peaceful people. Do you disagree with his thesis? I can't believe that you do, you just feel he should be criticized for stating it, and that his doing so is a character flaw.
Nine ... Olasky makes a valid initial question in this paragraph. It does seem that many journalists want the Guantanamo story to be true. Hell, it appears
you want it to be true. You again leave me with the impression that you believe "islamofascists" are a peaceful people, or at the very least, that nobody should be questioning whether they are or aren't, because to do so is considered, in your view, "pissing on Islam." You fail to see that the criticism is not of Islam, per se, but those that follow Islam to violent ends. The same criticism is justified against Christians who use the Bible to justify their own violent actions. But when some endowment for the arts pays an "artist" to submerge a crucifix in urine, such as Andres Serrano's
Piss Christ photographs, the reaction of Christians was to call such government funding "blasphemous" ... but interestingly, nobody was killed. Hmmmm. Your final criticism is to refer back to Abu Ghraib, and question whether "torture" and/or "cultural defamation" really occurred there. Okay, fair point. But an equally fair point, in my view, is Olasky's question about the "sickness at the heart of press liberalism" that causes many journalists to "want" the story to be true. I understand you don't agree with the question, and for you the answer is "no," but that does not mean the question is not valid, particularly in light of Newsweeks irresponsible journalism of late.
Your final comment, "
Jesus Christ in heaven, tico," should have been made whilst on your knees, but I doubt that's the case.
As I said, I don't mind debating/analyzing these news stories, but don't ask me to pick a dailykos/salon article, because I won't. If you'd like to choose a representative example you wish to critique as subtly as you critiqued Olasky's, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
