Advertise with blogads!


April 30, 2003

Oh, dear

Some kind and generous soul hit my Amazon tipjar last week, and somehow I didn't see the email notifying me of it. I did see the email tonight telling me that Amazon is transfering the amount into my bank account, but my transaction log has no record of who the generous soul is.

I'm very sorry the email got lost (in the blizzard of emails about my own Amazon purchases), but I want to thank the Generous Soul very much. I would appreciate it if you would let me know who you are, so I can thank you more properly.

I had been saving contributions toward a site redesign, but just had the brainstorm that I will get a digital camera instead. I keep wanting to post photos of things and can't, so I figure this way my blog donations will benefit everyone. Very cool!

Posted by susanna at 11:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Who, me? Yeah, right.

The road narrows from two lines to one just past the light, in a construction area nearing completion. A guy with wraparound shades in a shiny new SUV pulls up from behind me and tries to push his way through as the lanes go to one. I speed up, edging him out, looking ahead to where it goes to two lanes again and knowing he’s going to come out of the bottleneck at a run.

He’s not going to get past me.

I have the advantage, knowing the road intimately and driving a 7-year-old car that shows many road scars. He’s going to be more leery of a bumper kiss than me. Traffic is steady but spaced out as we hit two lanes again; he pulls out to the right fast from behind and makes a run for the empty space between me and the grungy SUV in front of me. An older model car blocks his progress in the right lane. I speed up until I’m gunning it, doing 70 on a narrow four-lane road, hitting a curve with Wraparound Shades Guy on my right and a concrete barrier on my left. Nope, not this time, buddy. He jockeys for position, jumping back and forth between lanes, passing some on the right but not getting past me, no sir, I’m holding tight behind the grunge SUV, closing up each time Wraparound Shades Guy makes a move. He whips into the right lane again and this time I laugh – he’s so smart, but he doesn’t know the road narrows to one lane again just up ahead – and I’m in that one lane. Ha. Seconds later, he peels off onto the interstate exit, and I smirk as I head on home.

Not, you understand, that I’m competitive. It’s just that driving in New Jersey feels like 24-7 NASCAR, and the winner lives to battle another day while the loser gets to quit eating because he has to pay a sky-high insurance bill.

I think of myself as a sometimes-hyper but usually calm, laid-back sort, not competitive, easy-going, helpful, live and let live. Five minutes on a New Jersey road and I’m ready to start ripping off heads. Who wants to mess with me next? It comes from the frenetic pace, and the every-man-for-himself road habits. Need to stop to talk to someone? No parking spaces? No problem – just stop in the traffic lane and let the people behind you worry about weaving through a 1 ½ lane street with cars parked up both sides and cars double-parked every 20 feet – on alternating sides of the road. Want to cross the street, but don’t want to bother with silly things like street lights and crosswalks? No problem, just set out against the traffic in that curious jog-hipped city gait, all the time in the world, let the drivers figure out how not to hit you because you’ve got better things to do. It’s even more fun if it’s past dark, you yourself are the color of the night, and you’re wearing all dark clothes. You know you’re there, so of course the oncoming drivers do. If they don’t? Well, then you’ll own that car pretty soon yourself.

And if you’re on a motorcycle, bob and weave through the traffic, gun that engine every few feet, go through intersections at will, toss a rude finger at anyone who blows their horn. I try to be nice, I don’t crowd motorcycles, I treat them like cars. At least I used to. Now a motorcyclist comes revving up from the back of the line, we’ve just picked our way through a jagged course set by six lanes of cars partially filling up an intersection against the light. We’re faced with another six-lane road intersection, I need to turn left to be three lanes over and will likely have to crowd out the car on my right to get there in time for the next light. Mr. Motorcycle on his hot red beast and so cool helmet edges in front of me, creeps into the intersection as the lights begin to change, blocks me, not showing any concern about Rules of the Road as long as he gets where he needs to be, the cars can just go hang but you can bet he’d yell like a banshee if someone crowded him out. I want to yell at him, I’m tired, I’m sick, I want to be HOME and I have to FIGHT WITH A SLOPE-HEADED CRETINIOUS PIECE OF EXCREMENT to get in my OWN LANE, he thinks he’s hot. The light changes, he cruises, I get where I need to be without trouble in time to see him squeeze through the next light just as it flips to red. I grumble, this is before I tangle with Wraparound Shades Guy, maybe that’s why I’m so testy when I get there, I’m not always that way.

Some days I just cruise home. Motorcycles? No problem, whatever. Idiot males in shades and slick coiffures with Shiny Big Monster Vehicles to make up for personal inadequacies? Nothing to me, I got nothing to prove. But that’s the beauty of New Jersey. It chips away at you, all day. You fight traffic to work. You deal with bad attitudes and political pandering and 31 flavors of accents and nothing’s ever easy, horns blowing all day outside. You drive home and women lean out their car windows and curse each other while your car is between them. You drive around the block for 20 minutes to find a parking space two blocks from your apartment building only to find the tiny entry is nearly blocked because SOMEONE put a baseball glove in the mailbox of one of your fellow apartment dwellers so the door won’t hardly open. And this door, there’s only so much room to squeeze through, the one opposite opens into the entry too so you have to get all the way in and close the first door before you can open the second door but the BLASTED BASEBALL GLOVE is making the mailbox take a gouge out of you, and you manage a smile at the thought that this is one more reason you’re glad you don’t have implants.

And then it’s three flights up. Someone’s having garlic for dinner. A taxi just arrived for someone across the street, and the driver’s laying on the horn. At least it’s not 2 a.m., which happens regularly too. Slipping inside my apartment, collapsing. And thinking, I don’t want to leave this room again. Ever. I think I’ll just die here.

Posted by susanna at 08:29 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Rummy fisks Fisk

Could there be a thing of more beauty?

I just heard a sound bite [on WABC 770 radio news] from Donald Rumsfeld speaking to US soldiers at Baghdad Airport. He said (close paraphrase):

I'm surprised to see you here. After all, someone said there were no Americans at the airport. [applause, yelling] We've not heard from that guy since.

As I'm sure you know, Robert Fisk wrote a column after the US had supposedly taken Saddam International Airport saying he had toured the facility and there were no Americans there. Of course the next day it was confirmed that the airport was in fact - and had been - in American hands. Rummy fisking Fisk.

Heh.

Posted by susanna at 01:06 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Sigh

As usually happens when I spend days with an erratic sleep schedule, continuing stress and far too great a reliance on junk food (which is to say, whenever I have a big project due), I'm now coming down with a cold. My throat feels like someone took sandpaper to it. Sigh. I'll be blogging, but likely not with my usual vigor.

Now, where'd my teabags go...?

Posted by susanna at 12:18 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Pulling out of Saudi Arabia

The US is moving nearly all their troops out of Saudi Arabia, and I think it's about time. The attitude from the Saudis has been noxious and arrogant, and our people have been too restricted by their edicts. Now we need to drill a little in ANWAR and move nearly all our oil contracts from Saudi Arabia too.

Posted by susanna at 12:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

How do they know?

The headline for a Editor and Publisher story reads:

Missteps by Press Color Iraqi Perceptions

It appears, however, that no actual Iraqis were consulted in the making of the article. The first half is a long whine about the writer of it having difficulty getting through a Marine checkpoint back to his room in the Palestine Hotel. The next little vignette is a report of a callous attitude from a Marine on killing an Iraqi - if he said that, it was not the best choice. But the "Western" source is unnamed, so I can't judge its trustworthiness. Finally, we have an American journalist hamming it up with a corpse - again, very poor judgment, poorly done of him. But here the criticism still doesn't fall on journalists - it's Americans at fault. And here's what we learn about what Iraqis think:

Any similar episodes risk American hopes to win over the hearts and minds of Iraqis...

Episodes such as these -- along with last week's stories about at least six U.S. reporters smuggling objects or money out of Iraq -- tarnish the image of Americans in Baghdad. But these perceptions are not tainted beyond repair. If such incidents accumulate, however, they could deepen Iraqi suspicions about Washington's motives.

Hmmmm... okay. Tarnish in whose eyes? Where are the quotes from Iraqis? Whose judgment says the American efforts to "win over the hearts and minds of Iraqis" are at risk? It's quite possible that such episodes have damaged perceptions of Iraqis, and that they are impeding the hearts & minds campaign. But you'd think a reporter who's been in Baghdad for weeks would have been able to drum up one little Iraqi quote, and the editors at E&P could have applied a headline more in keeping with the article. Like this, maybe:

American journalist swipes at military, whines, makes unsubstantiated claims about Iraqis

Somehow I'm not thinking E&P would go with that one.

Posted by susanna at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Proper thanks

The Iraqi lawyer who notified the US of PFC Jessica Lynch's whereabouts and risked his life to see her rescued has been given asylum in the US with his family.

Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, 33, his wife and child were granted asylum Monday. This man deserves all the thanks and assistance we can give him. He's a true hero. I'm delighted that he's now a US resident, and maybe one day he'll be a US citizen. We could use more like him.

Posted by susanna at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 29, 2003

They died too

Dean Esmay has an important post about those who died at the hands of dictators in the 20th century. And in case you think it can't happen today - it is, in Africa. The UN is doing what about it? The US is doing what about it? All the movie stars in Hollywood and the peacemongers and the Democrats in Washington are doing what about it?

Posted by susanna at 03:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Velly intellesting

Recently I got quite testy about the way that Poynter Institute - motto: Everything you need to be a better journalist - pussy-footed around the CNN/Eason Jordan access-over-accuracy (and humanity) debate. One of my criticisms was that their main ethics writer, Bob Steele, after not addressing the issue for days, took a much-less-than-critical stance when he eventually did get around to it. Here is his commentary about Eason Jordan's veracity in this:

I accept that Eason Jordan was truly concerned about the safety of exceptionally vulnerable Iraqis, both those who worked for CNN and others who may have suffered terribly because they talked with CNN journalists.

That said, I also believe Eason Jordan’s decisions were morally complex and pragmatically complicated. There were many factors in the calculus he faced, including competing principles and conflicting loyalties.

I got so tangled in that high-sounding apologetic that I began to think Steele might be an academic. Fortunately I'm saved by this week's column, which takes a much clearer and more forceful stance against... an American embedded journalist bringing home a Saddam painting:

I find Crittenden's logic weak. How he can express "concerns about the regrettable failure of some soldiers to resist temptation when faced with the riches of a limetime," and condone his own behavior is hard to comprehend. He may not have seen a painting and other souvenirs as "riches," but he failed to comprehend the disrespect he was showing to the Iraqi people by taking these "souvenirs."

Journalists must exhibit a strong sense of independence when covering war, and it's inappropriate and ethically wrong to become a participant in the aftermath of the conflict by taking away items of value.

The journalist in question - Jules Crittenden, a Boston Herald reporter - had written an embedded journalist's diary for Poynter, which of course caused Steele and Poynter online editor Bill Mitchell to go into paroxysms of ethical distancing to make sure everyone knew that Poynter didn't approve of what he did. And what did he do? He brought home "a large painting" of Saddam that U.S. Customs officials said wasn't worth enough to prosecute him for. Crittenden himself - quoted in Steele's column - said, "In Iraq, these items were being routinely discarded and destroyed, and clearly were of no value to the Iraqi people" - a full post on it is here. Sounds like he didn't rip off something from a Saddam palace, but more like a painting from a town square. I don't know, that's speculation, but it doesn't sound like it was much, whatever it was. He wasn't bringing home an artifact from 1000 BC.

Certainly some people are taking things they shouldn't. Probably some of those people are journalists. From what Crittenden said, what he took he sincerely thought to be useless trash that would be a fun souvenir; maybe he was wrong, but it doesn't sound like he deserves the drubbing he's gotten. But Steele proceeds to villify him - when other journalists took more valuable things - because, apparently, Poynter has to protect its reputation and Crittenden wrote for them. I also suspect there would be fewer professional consequences for slamming some scribbler for the Globe as opposed to The Grand High Muckity-Muck of CNN.

I think Steele should have used his Eason Template to address Crittenden's folly (my rewrite):

I accept that Jules Crittenden was truly concerned about the preservation of exceptionally important Iraqi treasures, both those in museums and those terribly vulnerable in public places.

That said, I also believe Crittenden's decision to take home Saddam-trash was morally complex and pragmatically complicated. There were many factors in the calculus he faced, including competing principles and conflicting perspectives.

And then, he could use the Crittenden Template for Jordan (my rewrite):

I find Jordan's logic weak. How he can he say "Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard -- awful things..." and condone his own behavior is hard to comprehend. He may not have seen the accommodations he made and the lies that were supported by CNN's silence as "harmful," but he failed to comprehend the disrespect he was showing to the Iraqi people by pretending that they weren't dying in droves.

Journalists must exhibit a strong sense of independence when covering war, and it's inappropriate and ethically wrong to become a participant in the aftermath continuation of the conflict tyranny by valuing access over accuracy.

Now, doesn't that seem more in proportion to the actual moral lapse that each behavior represented? It is nice to know, though, that Poynter can pull out all the stops to criticize behavior when it's not someone really important who's doing the wrong thing.

UPDATE: Edited to correct the name of Poynter's online editor (Mitchell, not Hendrix) and the paper where Crittenden works (Herald, not Globe). Sometimes an editor would be a good thing.

Posted by susanna at 12:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Like a Fox

Press freedom is coming to Iraq and satellite dishes are selling at $350 a pop, which is a huge chunk of change for an average Iraqi. The English-language channel of choice? It appears to be Fox News, which should really grate on the nerves of everyone from Kofi Anan to Jacques Chirac to every Arab leader in the region - not to mention Hillary & Co.

Meanwhile, NZ Pundit is petitioning to bring Fox News into New Zealand. Scroll up from there - he's got lots of reasons why.

What does this mean? Probably that they could all use a little fun in their lives, not to mention a news channel that didn't suck up to Saddam for over a decade.

[First link via Instapundit.]

Posted by susanna at 11:13 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 28, 2003

Announcement

Full blogging will return tomorrow.

For those of you who care, my core area proposal (the reason for the light blogging) is posted on my writings page. It's not a paper, or an annotated bibliography - it's an introduction to an issue with supporting literature separated into topics. It has a total of 101 references listed, and yes, I've read or skim-read 95% of them. Ack. Title of the proposal:

Media and the social construction of crime and policing:
Process and Effect

I meet with my advising professor tomorrow morning; after making any changes he recommends I'll hand it in to the academic dean. At her discretion - and hopefully this semester - the PhD Committee will review it. If they pass on it, they will appoint a three-member panel to make final suggestions and oversee my exam. When I feel comfortable that I know the material (skim reading is insufficient), I'll schedule an exam with the professors, most likely early next fall. They'll write a question for me, and I'll take all my books and notes into a room with a computer where I'll have eight hours and no more than 20 pages to answer the question, based on the material in the proposal. When I've passed that, I'll only have the dissertation to go.

Which is kind of like saying, we've won the war in Iraq, now all we have to do is bring peace to the region. Sigh.

I'm happy to be done, but mostly numb right this minute. See you tomorrow.

Posted by susanna at 07:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Police talking about terrorism

One of the concerns after 9/11 was that federal law enforcement organizations weren't talking to each other about their activities, and if they weren't, the local and state organizations likely weren't either. Here's an article about the Counterterrorism Information Sharing Consortium, which formed to help improve the problem. They meet at my school, Rutgers - Newark, and Dr. George Kelling - the professor I'm meeting with tomorrow to discuss my core area proposal - is the head of the consortium's sponsor, the Police Institute at Rutgers.

Posted by susanna at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oldie but goodie

I don't get over to The GI Party as much as I should, which is why I missed this gem about anti-war protestors from March 31. I think you'll enjoy it today as much as you would have then, though.

Posted by susanna at 11:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

This American...

Matt Welch has an excellent column in Canada's National Post about why the US reaction to recent French behavior is too strong. He has a number of good points and he doesn't excuse the French, but I think he gives them too much credit (which I explain at some length in his comments section).

L.T. Smash hits it just right - far from ignoring that France is a historical ally, we are more deeply angered by its behavior precisely because of that fact. But Smash says it much better than I can.

(And no, this is not a return to full posting. But expect a Big Announcement re: biblio later today.)

Posted by susanna at 10:32 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 27, 2003

Kentucky beauties

You've always heard that Kentucky is famous for beautiful women - well, now you know why.

haydon and MK Easter 2003.jpg

Molly Katherine and Haydon on Easter Sunday


Molly Katherine late April 2003 small.jpg

Molly Katherine on Granny's back patio

Not, you understand, that I'm a proud and boastful aunt.

Posted by susanna at 04:54 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

So very cool

I don't keep this blog for the boost it gives my income - I'd be in pretty sad shape if I did, and also, the ability to rant at will and the interaction with my most excellent readers are wonderful rewards in themselves. But I've received some generous contributions in thanks for my blog, and it always lifts up my spirits tremendously to realize that what I write means that much to people I've never met and likely won't meet.

On Friday I received a donation from a reader who asked to remain anonymous. The reader's gift was quite generous, but what also was very cool is that the reader - an American - lives in another country, and took the time to buy a money order and send it to me from that country. Reader, you have made my week, and encouraged me at a time when I really really needed it. Bless you. And I hope you keep finding this site worth your time.

Posted by susanna at 01:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 26, 2003

A thought

Why is it when someone says*, "Judge not, that you be not judged!" it's always said in a judging way? Maybe the someone on the receiving end should just say, "Matt. 7:5."

*This, btw, occurred to me when thinking about the reaction to Sen. Rick Santorum's comments on the sodomy laws, where I've seen that phrase used more than once toward him.

(Of course, I would say Person #1 was using the verse out of context anyway, and grafting meaning on it that it never had, but you know me - Little Miss Fundamentalist Theology, leaning toward the literal.)

Posted by susanna at 06:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Mmmmm... Bruce

JimmyZ28, who famously threw in the blogging towel back on April 3, has returned to the fray, much to the delight of all of his fans, including me. He was almost immediately met with a challenge - some female donated to his blog and in return he promised to write a post on any topic she chose. She naturally chose a topic destined to give him at least a little heartburn: write on why Bruce Willis is such a hunk.

Well, Jimmy did. And did a very fine job for, as he says, a 27-year-old heterosexual male. He even includes photos.

Mmmmm.... Bruce. I wonder if there are life-sized versions of those photos.

Posted by susanna at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2003

Differences

It's difficult to imagine, sometimes, the differences between my life and the lives lead by many in other parts of the world. Or even the life I lead and that of my grandparents during their growing up years.

My grandmother is a creative woman with artistic talent. When she draws things with pencil and paper, they actually look like what they're supposed to be. As a child, drawing was one of her favorite things to do but they were too poor to have much paper. She was always thrilled when her parents got a letter, because they would allow her to cut open the envelope and use it to draw on. Other than that, she didn't have much opportunity to draw.

What could she have been, artistically, if she had had even a regular supply of paper?

I just threw away seven nearly blank sheets of paper that got a little messy when I tested my computer printer after putting in a new toner cartridge.

My grandmother would have nearly cried with joy to have had that paper when she was a little girl.

I think about that, sometimes, when I think about the deprivation so much of the world suffers. I hope the children of Iraq can dream again, and have the tools to make it come true.

Posted by susanna at 01:10 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 24, 2003

Happy Birthday, Amanda!

My niece Amanda, a beautiful young woman finishing up her first year of college, turns 19 today. She was a sweet little girl:




And now is a funny, smart, lovely woman I'm proud to call friend as well as niece. Here is a letter I wrote to her on her graduation from high school last year, with a photo of her now.

Happy birthday, 'Manda! You grew up good.

Posted by susanna at 09:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Because I love you guys

My sister sent this, and since I'm going to be bibliographing again today, I wanted to give you something to enjoy in my absence:

One day, three men were hiking and unexpectedly came upon a large raging, violent river. They needed to get to the other side, but had no idea of how to do so. The first man prayed to God, saying, "Please God, give me the strength to cross this river." Poof! God gave him big arms and strong legs, and he was able to swim across the river in about two hours, after almost drowning a couple of times.

Seeing this, the second man prayed to God, saying, "Please God, give me the strength. And the tools to cross this river." Poof! God gave him a rowboat and he was able to row across the river in about an hour, after almost capsizing the boat a couple of times.

The third man had seen how this worked out for the other two, so he also prayed to God saying, "Please God, give me the strength and the tools... and the intelligence ... to cross this river."

And poof! God turned him into a woman. She looked at the map, hiked upstream a couple of hundred yards, then walked across the bridge.

Smirk.

Posted by susanna at 08:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 23, 2003

Go do this!

Researchers are looking at how much and why people use weblogs for information, and the online survey is open to everyone. I followed the link from Instapundit and took it, but wanted to post it here since some of you - shocking as it may be - don't read Instapundit. I encourage all of you, readers and weblog proprietors, to fill out the survey. Doesn't take very long, and the more people who answer the more likely it is to be representative. This means especially those of you who don't read Instapundit. Freaks.

(But I love you anyway, because you're here.)

(And yes, I know I know! I'm working on my biblio. Right now it's "Media, Process, And the Social Construction of Crime", an anthology edited by Gregg Barak. It's actually pretty good, am snaking out three chapters to use on the biblio.)

(No, "snaking out" does not involve a razor, you desecrator of sacred library texts!)

Posted by susanna at 01:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Marine in Iraq

Something to tide you over while I continue working on my bibliography, which is progressing painfully. This is from Major Jeff D IV of the USMC, making the rounds of his friends, family and (in my case) hangers-on:

Some of you know Jeff ---, a Christian and a USMC Major from Oregon. Here's his latest from the front:

Alcon, Greetings and blessings from Iraq again. A few days ago I got back from a 5 day tour around several sites in the Marine sectors of south central Iraq to assess the situation everywhere our battalion has detachments of Marines performing missions and checking up on them. I covered several hundred miles and went up into Baghdad. I visited several other critical places you will recognize if you kept track of the war; Al Kut, An Nasiriyah, An Numaniyah, Qalat Sukkar, Ash Shatrah, and made it near Ad Diwaniyah. Several other smaller towns and rural areas.

Of course the situation is well in hand overall and at the end of my trip the war had been 'declared won' but there are still a few problem areas where regime loyalists and terrorists haven't been taken out of commission yet. Mostly though the problems stem from plain old lawlessness and some anti-US sentiment and protests being instigated by hard line Shiite radicals supported by Iran, which is trying to take full advantage of the power vacuum here. These radicals only influence about 10% of the population but are causing some riots and conducting assasinations of friendly local leaders in some towns. I made several observations of course, a few of which I thought some of you might be interested in.

The lack of collateral damage, even in heavy combat areas like Baghdad and An Nasiriyah is amazing. There is virtually none. Our precision munitions did as advertised and more impressively even ground fires were obviously used with great precision and discipline. It is a real credit to American technology, but more so to the guys pulling the triggers and calling the shots that they showed such restraint. I saw many contested areas and destroyed buildings, several of them still burning in Baghdad, but adjacent areas hardly had a scratch in most places. This will obviously aid in rebuilding and restoring a better standard of living in the country and no doubt contributed to my second observation.

The great majority of the people I observed were very friendly and seemed genuinely thankful to be rid of Saddam and showed their appreciation. I went thru many cities, villages, and rural areas and everywhere hundreds, even thousands, of children and teens would run from near and far when they saw our convoy approaching and adults also would shout greetings and thanks, give thumbs up signs, and smile and wave to us. Of course the kids would beg food and trinkets. Tens of thousands of Shiites were walking along the highways for days making the pilgrimage long banned under Saddam. Where there were Marine checkpoints, positions, and patrols, the people would throng around if permitted just to interact and visit. This of course makes it difficult for those Marines to do their duty and distinguish the harmless from suicide bombers and others who still want to kill us but showed the great dicipline they have and genuine sympathy for the people. It was an impressive shift of mindset immediately after intense combat in many cases by these very same Marines. This lack of animosity toward these Arabs as a whole is a testimony to the respect for others and the love for all and generosity for those less fortunate that Americans traditionally have and is proof we are a decent peaceloving people. I heard of no abuses and saw no evidence of looting on our part although it was pervasive among the locals. America should be so proud of the class and example these young men, and a few women, are displaying.

It is easy to understand the local populace's appreciation because it is obvious the nation has suffered under Saddam. There is not the abject poverty that I've seen in many third world nations. Most are very poor by our standards but have sufficient food, clothes, shelter etc. Rather it is a country whose infrastructure has fallen apart and decayed, the resources squandered, and the people deprived of so many rights and opportunities to make a better life. They have felt the heel of Saddam's boot and certainly not the benevolent hand of a populist ruler that the anti-US media portrayed him to be. It is a country with significant natural resources of oil, and abundant fertile, but dry, farmland just needing irrigation from the plentiful Tigris and Euphrates systems. However, it is equally apparent that Saddam used these national resources to line his own pockets, lavish on his cronies, and put millions into his military and weapons programs, all the while also spending millions to finance terrorism.

A few other more trivial observations.

I've never seen so many camels in my life! Just on my 5 day trip I saw thousands and thousands of them. As well as lots of sheep.

There are still large numbers of people leading the nomadic, Bedouin lifestyle. I've run into them all over since the war started. They are a real throwback to see and interact with.

The Koran must not teach anything about theft or either there is gross selective obedience. There are literally hundreds of US vehicles that have broken down or been damaged in the fighting that are left in place along the way. If an armed force is not left on them, within a matter of hours the locals will have completely stripped it down to the skeleton frame. They are very brazen about this. From what I could tell they do it to their own people's vehicles also. I can't tell you how many times we passed a broken 5ton truck on the roadside with some Iraqi sitting underneath it taking out the engine or tranny or differential with nothing more than one or two hand tools and maybe a pushcart or something to haul it off with.

The women seem to do most of the work, especially in the rural areas. They were more often than not harvesting grain, carrying water, herding and doing other chores while many of the men were sitting around conversing. A sign of the lack of status and rights of women in both Arab and Muslim cultures. And also probably a product of the lack of opportunity for the men for the past many years.

It is not a scenic country by our standards. We truly have a beautiful homeland. Those who know me know how much I appreciate nature and have an eye for it's beauty. In all the area I travelled the only sight that really made an impression on me was the scene from the levee of the Tigris right outside AlKut where I spent the last two days working with my Marines and spent the night 'camped' right on the levee. The river is about 200 yards wide there with fertile grain fields across from our position. There was a bend there in the river also and I sat on the levee as the sun set. It seemed to be extinguished by the waters of the Tigris as it's golden glow slowly slid right into the middle of the river from my vantage point.

This land has the feel of being the 'cradle of civilization'. Even though it is mostly desert or semi-desert it is obvious it has been inhabited and cultivated where possible for thousands upon thousands of years. There are ancient mud structures and ruins scattered about and I visited the almost 5,000 year old ziggurat temple and ruins of Biblical Ur yesterday. That was a great treat. Everywhere though the earth has the look of having been worked and tilled and irrigation ditches dug since the beginning of time.

Those are the main items I can think of for now that might be of interest to ya'll. I look forward to seeing everyone as soon as possible. Thanks for your letters, packages, and prayers. They have been tremendous. Know that the Marines have the situation well in hand and we appreciate your continued support.

God bless America and yours.

And God bless Major Jeff and his comrades. Come home safe, and soon.

Posted by susanna at 08:40 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 21, 2003

FYI

No posts until I get my bibliography done. I'm working on it. Sigh.

Posted by susanna at 07:35 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

April 19, 2003

Least in sight

Last night, on the Friday of Easter weekend, I was in my office working on my bibliography for school. On this beautiful Saturday, I've annotated 20 articles (briefly, it's true, but still - 20). I have 12 more articles, then 26 books, to annotate before I can write my core proposal. The remaining articles and several of the books are leaving with me now, with the plan to finish them at home tonight. It's Saturday, it's Easter weekend, I need a break!

Will be back here tomorrow, though, ploughing away because I'm intent on FINALLY GETTING THIS AWFUL THING DONE. If you don't hear from me, be thankful, because it wouldn't be pretty, most likely. (Happy notes of encouragement are always welcome, however.)

The good part is that I'm getting back into it. The materials are all about media bias, media framing, police and the media, media covering the police and racial issues, the impact of media on public policy and the attitudes of the public about criminal justice or issues in general... The emerging picture is - the media are worse than they like to admit, and not nearly as bad as we like to paint them sometimes. It's another human institution with an ideal that is often at odds with its reality, and it likes to frame its mission and activities positively in precisely the way every other human institution does. On an endless loop in my mind is the scene of Dorothy discovering the little old Wizard of Oz behind his grand curtain, seeing he is essentially a good man but sometimes a weak man given to grandiosity.

That whole rumination is leaving Eason Jordan out of the calculation, by the way. I just don't want to think about him today. (Shoot, I did anyway.)

Off to bask in whatever sunlight is left. Happy Easter.

UPDATE: MM, you'll be happy to know that Coloring the News is in my stack of books.

Posted by susanna at 06:15 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

What needs saying

Michele at A Small Victory says what needs saying about Scott Peterson. The saddest, and I fear truest, part:

I can only imagine Laci Peterson's last thoughts. The man she loved was killing her. The father of her child - the child almost ready to grace the world with his presence - was killing them both. I'm sure her heart died before she did.

I'm sure her heart died before she did.

That's always the hardest part of studying homicide in family settings, especially parents killing children, or spouses who are killed by a husband or wife they never suspected would or even could.

I'm sure her heart died before she did.

For that alone, Scott Peterson deserves to die.

Posted by susanna at 04:34 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

My hero

The mysterious but always erudite Ernie Chambers thoroughly fisks Tim Robbins' talk before the National Press Club this week. He manages to use "bullfeathers", "poseurs", "multiplicative" AND "feckless" all in the same post, and it works.

My hero.

Posted by susanna at 04:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The more we learn, the less there is to know

Remember Rachel Corrie, the young American woman supposedly run over by a bulldozer while "protecting" Palestinian homes from demolition by Israel? Well, it turns out the reports of the circumstances of her death were... well... fabricated. She wasn't run over by a bulldozer, she wasn't protecting homes and her companions lied in their testimony. Now, explain to me, using small words and simple concepts because I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, precisely why her cause was a moral one, and those who defend her are morally superior to, well, anyone?

Lynn B. has the details (and my headline is a shamelessly direct quote from her post, because it really says it all). Bigwig gave me the heads up on it.

Posted by susanna at 04:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Important reading for an Easter Saturday

There seems to be little doubt that the war in Iraq was about much more than the liberation of a people - it set up a dilemma for the world's nations to consider, and the conclusions reached will reshape the politics of all nations for decades.

John Lloyd writes about the choice of the world collectively - which trumps, the sovereignty of nations, or the individual rights of people? His immediate focus is the manner in which Tony Blair has assessed and resolved the question in his own mind, and in his leadership, but he also deals with it on a larger ground.

In a very different piece which doesn't even touch on Iraq, Theodore Dalrymple explores the transition of colonial Africa into a range of dictatorships, each more vicious than the last. Dalrymple lived in Rhodesia before it became Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and has lived elsewhere in Africa as well. It is an excellent article on several levels, but what struck me - given the current world political situation - was his discussion of how the culture of tribal Africa intertwines with the colonial and Western emphasis on education and equality as the means of success, to create a truly horrific system that is a fertile ground for the rise of despots. Horrific, that is, in the eyes of Westerners - and eventually in the lives of the Africans themselves. It caused me to think on the tribal connections and cultural antecedents in operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how those will play out in an effort to bring some form of democracy - a recognition of individual rights - to both countries.

I often hear of how Germany and Japan were reshaped, reformed to relatively benign democracies after WWII; they're held up as examples of what can be done now in the Middle East. But to what extent are the two situations compatible? As a researcher, I know that replicating an experiment involves more than replicating the process - you also have to use the same materials in the same environment or context to be sure of a similar outcome, and that's if you're sure the success of the first experiment was due to the process, not to unknown intervening variables. What I know about the current situation is that we do not have similar populations. We do not have a similar environment. And we cannot even have a similar process, because of the many intervening variables such as ongoing terrorist activities, a spreading Muslim radicalism, an active anti-war movement that would be happy to spike success in Iraq, other countries in the region that we are caught between placating and invading, and a vociferously anti-American thread running through most every country.

I think the success in Iraq is a success on several levels. But the post-war era is if anything more delicate and less clear-cut than the pre-war era, where the question at hand was fairly straight-forward - to invade or not? I highly recommend reading both Lloyd and Dalrymple, and thinking on what is and could happen in light of political realities both current and past. Ultimately the decisions about how the countries are run must lie with the people of those countries, but we have to understand how Western overlays might play out in such a different culture as we try to assist in rebuilding the countries. One of Dalrymple's points is that one of the most admirable qualities in the Africans he knows - their absolute caring for family - plays out in a very damaging way politically. So what to do? It comes back to Lloyd's discussion of sovereignty vs individual rights, and to the play of pragmatism and morality in intervening when things go bad.

[Thanks to Meryl for the link to Lloyd's article on Harry's Place.]

Posted by susanna at 01:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Swanky blogiversary!

Happy first blogiversary to one of my favorite liberals, Gregory of Planet Swank, even if he has stopped dropping by! It's good to have you out there, Greg, if only to know there's always somewhere to go for Japanese culture/movie news and liberal rantings.

Sorry it's a day late, Greg. I was working on my school work, really, I was! And thanks to Dodd for the heads up.

Posted by susanna at 12:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

CNN, Trolls and Tim Robbins

CNN. Trolls. Tim Robbins. They do seem to go together, don't they? Kevin McGehee is on a roll, with a great cartoon about CNN, a skewering of leftist trolls, and a good question for Tim Robbins.

Posted by susanna at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Beautiful dolls

And now for something completely different! I ran across this website today in my meanderings around the Web; it's the site of a designer who paints and dresses dolls as characters from history, or whimsy, or from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. She designs and sews their clothes herself, usually repaints their faces and changes their hair. The dolls sell for about $150 each, which seems low to me given the work she puts in. As someone who has done a lot of sewing, I can only admire - I could never do what she does. Here is a sample:

 elayne01.jpg

Elayne Trakand
from The Wheel of Time series
by Robert Jordan

Here's a link to the first book of the series. I spent a good 20 minutes looking at the dolls on her site, noting the intricate detailing and minute embellishments. She made the crown Elayne wears here too. I'm not a doll collector, and am highly unlikely to buy any of these. But I love looking, and think it's just very very cool.

Posted by susanna at 10:47 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 18, 2003

The Middle East geography test

This is a very cool interactive website where you can test your knowledge of the geography of the Middle East and northern Africa. I did pretty good, but would have made a D or F if it'd been a real test. Oops. Check it out.

And thanks to my blog brother Justin at The Weigh In for the heads up.

Posted by susanna at 08:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

It's fresh! It's new! It's... the Blogcritics site design!

Blogcritics has a new design, aimed at speeding loading and also speeding you on your way to the section you want. Check it out, and then tell me - what should I write on next?

Put your suggestion in comments, and I'll choose one of them for posting on Blogcritics by Monday. And it has to be something that is a) possible and b) legal. Romance? Sci-fi? Country music? The connection of Dolly Parton's cantilevered front and the success of any venture she's in? Oh, and it should be something that, you know, actually belongs on Blogcritics.

Posted by susanna at 05:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Feeling better about Poynter

After my recent posts on CNN and Poynter Institute, I sent a copy of my post about the column by Bob Steele at Poynter to him directly. He responded today, very graciously, and then responded again to my answer to his first email. We are still in disagreement, but I wanted to let my readers know that he is open to considering criticism thoughtfully (and isn't hesitant to point out where he thinks I'm wrong). It is, to me, a very important point and makes me feel much better about Poynter in general. In fact, I also wrote Bill Mitchell - Poynter's online editor - earlier this week, and he also responded cordially.

Steele was not aware that I often post emails I receive here, and I gave him the option of keeping our correspondence private. He asked that I do so, and I am respecting that. I just wanted to point out a good thing about Poynter Institute, since I've hammered on them recently for things I think are not so good.

Posted by susanna at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A good question

Shanti at Dancing with Dogs asks a series of questions about whether you believe in God and religion and, if you do, what it means to you. I've answered in her comments, and if you're interested you may want to as well. Thanks, Shanti. I look forward to what others have to say.

Posted by susanna at 12:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Updating my t-shirt

A few weeks ago, I bought a "Disarm Saddam Now!" t-shirt from Patrick Ruffini's Cafe Press site. As you likely know, it's SO April 8 now! I had to modify it. It now reads:

DISARMED SADDAM NOW ALREADY

I love my little black marker.

Posted by susanna at 11:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Discrimination against men

West Virginia University, that home of the Mountaineers in Morgantown, WVa, has eliminated several men's sports programs - including track and tennis - in a budget cutting move that left the women's sports still intact. The women's track team is protesting, saying the men's team is integral to their own success.

It is quite apparent that this is gender discrimination, and it's fostered by the feminist-manifesto Title IX provisions that have so choked the college sports scene. Without Title IX, it's certainly possible that both men AND women track team members would be out of luck - that's a whole other issue. But the role of Title IX is clear even in this column in the Charleston, W Va, Gazette, which is not particularly critical of the choices made by the athletic department:

The point is, with all the pressure to field national-caliber football and basketball teams and keep that money flowing, with Title IX mandates bleeding athletic departments everywhere dry, and with no financial support whatsoever forthcoming from the school or the state, there becomes a fine line between financial solvency and poverty. West Virginia’s athletic department walks that line constantly.

I would have to say that if I was a supporter of WVU, I'd be pretty steamed about this. It saves the department just $600,000, and athletic director Ed Pastilong admitted in his announcement (free registeration required) that the department is operating in the black. It's "to prevent financial trouble in the future", he says, although the department is spending millions on upgrading their marquee sports - football and basketball. In my judgment, athletics are not just about who can bring in big bucks. It's about another aspect of training young people for the future. And certainly slicing out the men's sports, leaving the women's intact, says a lot about the state of this country in our efforts toward "equality". If I were one of the male track team members, I'd be suing WVU for gender discrimination.

My main issue here is the implications of WVU's actions in light of Title IX. If you don't know what a damaging thing that has grown into, The Independent Women's Forum - IWF - has dealt with Title IX extensively. Here is a list of many of their works on it, and here is an indepth analysis [in PDF format] of the impact it has had on college sports. Summary: It ain't pretty.

[Heads up on the situation from Jimmy B. of jimmyz28, who is going to be posting again soon. Aren't you, Jimmy? :D)

Posted by susanna at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Where do I sign up?

Walker Digital, brainchild of inventor Jay Walker, has developed a system called US HomeGuard to broaden oversight of important sites that are potential targets of terrorists. He's trying to sell it to Washington now.

US HomeGuard takes advantage of all the millions of Internet users. Essentially, digital photos are taken of a site, the images are sorted by computer and ones with change or movement from the last image from the same camera are sent to live spotters - average Internet users like you and me who have signed up for the program - who click yes or no to the question, "Do you see a person or vehicle in this photo?" It's a fascinating concept, and certainly an innovative way to harness the power of the Internet and the average patriotic American.

The whole system is explained in this article in Reason.

[Link via Instapundit.]

Posted by susanna at 10:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Au revoir, la France!

The Canadian newspaper National Post nails it with this editorial about the irrelevance of France, the uselessness of the UN, and the future of the UN Security Council - it even shows a clear-eyed understanding that Canada has itself become largely irrelevant on the world stage. An excerpt:

Aside from a few worthwhile agencies, the UN accomplishes very little of consequence. Especially since the end of the Cold War, it has been little more than a festival of anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, deconstructionism and revisionist history...

The Security Council's inadequacies are not institutional or procedural; they stem from a lack of will and character. The expulsion of France from the Council makes sense because France's actions on the Iraq file exemplify the venality that has paralyzed the UN for more than a decade. Sending France to the minor leagues would be the kind of symbolic act that just might steel the nerves of the other Council members to take their responsibility for international security seriously. In the end, only a change of will can save the UN from self-imposed irrelevance.

As they say, RTWT*.

[Thanks to Capt. J.M. Heinrichs, a completely relevant Canadian, for the link.]

(This is the new blog abbreviation being popularized by Dodd at Ipse Dixit. Put it in your lexicons: RTWT - Read The Whole Thing.)

Posted by susanna at 09:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Now that was a great idea

Eric at Viking Pundit did something I wish I'd thought of first. Go, Eric!

Posted by susanna at 09:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 17, 2003

From Marxist to conservative

Janet Daley learned her Marxist philosophy in the bosom of UC-Berkeley during the founding years of 1960s university dissent. She came to understand the harm in socialism through her real-life experiences living in Great Britain as the state took over the lives of the proletariat:

What decisively transformed my views was my growing understanding of the consequences of the welfare state that Britain had constructed out of a wartime command economy: it both reinforced the fatal passivity of the lower classes and provided a moral justification for the paternalism of the upper classes. The realization was slow but inexorable. It came through concrete example and abstract argument. By the end, it was so blindingly obvious that I wondered how anyone could ever not have seen that the socialist solution—the great, generous dream of perfect fairness—was inevitably destructive of the human spirit.

Daley writes of her transition in an essay, Up from Liberalism, in the new Spring City Journal. The early paragraphs, about her development into a leftist, meander somewhat, but you can skip to the section where she leaves for England and start there. It's worth reading all of it, but the section on English socialism is a chilling cautionary tale that we in the US would be well served to heed.

Posted by susanna at 08:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Taxing situation

The New York State Assemby is contemplating an additional tax - calling it an "income surcharge" - on income over $100,000:

Under a plan still taking shape, legislative leaders would hike income taxes on the state's highest earners, sources told the Daily News last night...

The idea gaining support, initially pushed by labor leaders, would tack an extra .7% on all earnings higher than $100,000, plus another .7% on income higher than $200,000. For example, someone earning $150,000 would not pay any more on the first $100,000 — but would owe an additional $350 on the taxes for the remaining $50,000.

Juxtapose that with this from Toren Smith:

The top 10% of returns ($88,000 and up) paid 66% of all taxes, yet made only 45% of all income

He has more figures too. I know his cutoff is $88,000, and the NY pols cut off at $100,000, but it's likely a comparable number. Note, please, that the labor leaders are the ones pushing the tax - because, of course, most of their people are under that wire. They've been running commercials in favor of this on NYC stations, making me nauseated - the most common one shows a frantic woman running door to door at a hospital with a very sick child, finding that the hospital is closed because of budget cuts. The voice-over says, to prevent this, we're asking the very wealthiest to give just a little more.

The libs are sucking the life blood from this country in the form of taxes, fostering a class warfare as a means to that end, destroying self-determination and self-reliance along the way. The Republicans have not been our friends in this overall for years, even though Bush is trying with his current tax cut proposal. Wake up, people! We need to inject accountability and reason into social policy before this country dies from the inside out. And one of the best places to start is cutting all pork from the budget. We wouldn't need more taxes if Robert Byrd would stop trying to build more monuments to his name in West Virginia, and his pork-barrel buddies (I include Republicans in that) would show similar restraint in their own districts.

Posted by susanna at 04:19 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Keeping things high-brow

Because I'm consistently high-brow and not given to linking crass idiocy - even from the left coast - I decided not to link to this article about a ... "self-indulging"-a-thon in San Francisco. Yes, folks, you too can emit body fluids for charity. And I'm not talking about giving blood.

Perhaps the charitable San Francisans could look to Florida's PETA "Dump Milk" campaign for a handy-dandy (no pun intended) slogan for their Hispanic potential contributors.

[Links from the always classy World Wide Rant, with absolutely no ulterior motives along the lines of luring andy over here to see this post.]

Posted by susanna at 01:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Speaking of CNN

I made this a separate post because I've been singling out Poynter Institute for criticism because they'd not dealt with Eason Jordan's revelations about CNN coverage in Iraq during Saddam's regime. Today Bob Steele, Poynter's Ethics Group Leader, finally writes a column about the CNN situation. It's much too little and too uncritical and much much too late for what it is. It's not very deep or broadly researched, basically something that could have been written last Friday afternoon - why wait a week? They didn't with Peter Arnett or the photoshopped LA Times photo.

The column can be summarized this way: CNN did make moral and ethical compromises, it's not an easy position to be in, maybe they could have done better but you know, that Eason, he's a good guy.

Steele does not in any way even speculate on possible ideological reasons for CNN's choices, and makes sweeping absolution of other reasons: He says, "It would be simplistic to say Jordan was driven primarily by competitive and marketing incentives", which means Jordan was very obviously driven by those things but Steele doesn't want to focus on that (admitting elsewhere in the column that "The reality is that many other news executives and journalists have faced similar challenges..." Oh yeah? So that makes it ok?) Steele doesn't mind focusing on reasons behind criticism, however:

Jordan’s critics, including many who see CNN and its journalism through their own ideological lens, raise what they see as soft reporting on Iraq and Hussein. Their arguments are worth considering and their evidence worth examining, though I fear that many of these critics fail to embrace the moral complexity rooted within this issue.

And there you go. The critics, you see, are not nuanced enough in their evaluation. They should understand what forces drove Jordan to his principled decision, but they are blocked by their own ideological lens. That bit about "arguments worth considering", etc., is a sop, very like saying, "I think you're an idiot, but I'd fight to the death to protect your right to speak your piece." Steele does get into some high-flown rhetoric: He says, "Eason Jordan chose to deal with the devil." But he then absolves Jordan of serious fault:

If so, it’s hard to make the case that withholding these few stories seriously shortchanged CNN viewers and potentially changed public reaction to the events in Iraq. Had CNN systematically and frequently withheld stories, the moral justification of Jordan’s argument would be seriously eroded.

Steele is making the assumption, based solely on Jordan's say-so, that CNN did not "systematically and frequently" withhold stories, and further makes the case that if CNN had either reported such atrocities or refused to go along with Saddam and thus had to leave Iraq completely, it would not have materially affected the public's view of Iraq. He does absolutely no research on CNN's coverage, he doesn't delve deeper, he doesn't "consider" or "examine" the charges of critics, he basically allows Jordan to be his own apologist without challenge. I personally (through, of course, my own ideological lens) view what CNN did as selling out to Saddam. The absence of coverage says as much as actual coverage, when you have made a strong point of saying that you are covering everything that's important. If CNN had been clear in saying, "We're not giving you the whole picture because we can't", or if they had tried to get at those stories they didn't report in Iraq by interviewing people outside Iraq with knowledge of similar things, we'd be having a whole different conversation about their choices in Iraq. But CNN did not! And Poynter's Steele is giving them a pass on it.

I think the lack of nuance is more an issue for Steele, and he certainly is not operating without an "ideological lens". He cuts Jordan every single bit of slack he can without coming right out and saying, "Get over yourselves, America! We like CNN here at Poynter! At least they're not Fox News!" I suspect that if Steele were to compare CNN's record in Iraq with the way Fox News conducts its own reporting, he would find Fox News the greater problem. And that, my friends, is why America is becoming increasingly disenchanted with the whole journalism profession.

UPDATE: Here is the comment I posted on Steele's column at Poynter:

Poynter covered Peter Arnett's interview with Iraqi television almost immediately. They covered the photoshopping of the LA Times photo almost immediately. We wait a full week to hear a squeak on CNN from anyone at Poynter other than straight news links from Romenesko, and this is what we get.

It's not enough, and it took far too long for something this lightweight. Steele does not credibly explore any of the criticisms of Jordan's actions, rather allowing Jordan to serve as his own unchallenged apologist.

The foundational issue with CNN is not so much that it essentially hid major stories - although that is a huge problem - but that it did so while insistently claiming to be an objective, independent news source. The plaint that all news organizations make similar choices doesn't give CNN cover, it rather gives lie to the industry-wide claims of objectivity in journalism. Audiences are capable of understanding that there are extenuating circumstances in many news settings that limit reporting a full story - in just one example, the limitations on embedded reporters have been a source of much discussion both inside and outside of journalism circles. What is unconscionable is claiming objectivity while knowingly violating it. Every piece of journalism that comes out of situations with those kinds of limitations should be identified as such, or the media outlet should back away from its claim of objectivity.

Where was the CNN special on the complexities of reporting in volatile, authoritarian settings, giving us a heads up? Where were the industry-wide acknowledgements that these types of decisions are made on a daily basis? It seems to me the CNN situation has put the actions of the entire mainstream media under a microscope, and thus far Poynter and others have not acquitted themselves very well.

Posted by susanna at 11:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Media - another victim in the Iraqi war?

The Diablogger has a great post on how the media will be affected by this war, pointing out that the "objective" reports and anchor naysayers were almost always proven wrong in their assessments of the situations, to a degree that has sparked a deeper skepticism on the part of the American public. He has lots of links that support his well-made point. I think he's right.

And here's a little something from Jim Rutenberg at the NY Times that supports his contention:

This was supposed to be CNN's war, a chance for the network, which is owned by AOL Time Warner, to reassert its ratings lead using its international perspective and straightforward approach.

Instead, it has been the Fox News Channel, owned by the News Corporation, that has emerged as the most-watched source of cable news by far, with anchors and commentators who skewer the mainstream media, disparage the French and flay anybody else who questions President Bush's war effort.

It's a column, so of course there's opinion in it, but you can certainly get an idea about which side Rutenberg comes down on:

Fox has brought prominence to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.

I guess the "traditional notions of objectivity" would be those held dear at CNN and BBS? Perhaps the "contempt for dissent" means only "leftist dissent", given the contempt for "conservative" dissent at most mainstream outlets? And ahem, who was it - conservatives or liberals - who hammered at Trent Lott until he stepped down? And I can point to a lot of questioning of Bush policies, especially where he moves left, on Rush, Sean Hannity, and other conservative media outlets - as well as Fox News. Hmm. I think that qualifies as "skepticism of government". But I guess it's not skepticism if you aren't questioning the proper things - like why the govt isn't pouring vast quantities of additional funds into education and the environment.

Many Americans see Fox News as a reflection of them, an outlet where the facts are presented but discussed with opinion involved when appropriate. And no one is saying to the other media, "Go away!" No one is saying to the other media, "You have to do this!" It's telling, and a sign of why Diablogger is right, that Rutenberg - who reported on the criticism of CNN's policies during Saddam's reign just this week - holds CNN up as an example