Patterico lays out - in his inimitable prosecutorial style - the case that a LA Times story on Iraq was not only wrong, but maliciously and lazily so.
He says:
So I can't tell you whether it's true that the L.A. Times is repeating propaganda from a stringer with ties to insurgents.But I can tell you this: I don't have the resources of the L.A. Times. Yet in my spare time from my full-time job, using widely available resources on the Web and contacts built up through blogging, I probably got a more accurate picture of what happened in Ramadi on November 13 than the paid reporter for the L.A. Times did.
and he's understaing his case. I've watched him work on this over the last few days, and I'll tell you that - in his spare time, apart from his day job and time spent with his family - he's done original reporting and laid out the truth better than the LA Times with it's vast resources, layers of editors, and commitment to journalistic excellence.
I'm stuck trying to figure out why until I pull down a borrowed copy of Richard Avedon's portrait book "The Sixties" - which I'd love to blog about - and saw this:
Gloria Emerson New York Times Correspondent
Saigon
April 1, 1971Vietnam is just a confirmation of everything we feared might happen in life. And it has happened. You know, a lot of people in Vietnam - and I might be one of them - could be mourners as a profession. Morticians and mourners. It draws people who are seeking confirmation of tragedies...
Once I got so desperate - the Americans had started bombing Hanoi - I ran to the National Press Center where they gave the briefings...a forty year old woman running through the streets in the middle of the night...and I wrote on the wall in Magic Marker, Father, forgive. they know not what they do. And I don't even believe in God. Who is Father? Father, forgive, they know not what they do. But there were no other words in the whole English language.
If they found out it was me they would have sent me home. New York Times correspondents must not go running around at two o'clock in the morning writing, Father, forgive, they know not what they do. But afterward I thought how there's no way...no one, no one to whom you can say we're sorry.
[ellipses in the original]
There's something here to discuss...
It depends so much on what she was mourning. Death of people? Death of an era? Death of illusions? Death of innocence? Did she even know what she was mourning? Some of those are newsworthy, and some aren't, but it's crucial to know the difference.
The Press comes from:
*A mostly wealthy, hereditary elite. One that has never struggled or had to fear want.
*Like most rich, self-contented elites it's prone to moralizing and looking down their noses at those who would ascend in status and compete with them.
*Thus the Press is disposed by background, nature, etc. to believe with religious fervor any half-baked Third World ideology and hate with a passion middle class aspirations. The Murder whether it's Tookie Williams or General Buck Naked generates heartfelt admiration (as does Osama and his gang of killers) while the policeman or soldier nothing but contempt and hatred.
For the Press (remember, they are mostly rich trustafarians seeking to justify their existence) NOT to actively side with Al Qaeda takes a massive effort of will which most simply don't have.
This is a far cry from the actual working-class and middle class background of the "old" i.e. Pro-American press that left with say, Ed Murrow. Who famously co-hosted with John Wayne a special on the evils of communism and despised Fidel.
What might be as good a question as 'what was she mourning' would be, "What did she think would happen next?" If "they know not what they do," what did she think that she knew?
What really happened, of course, was that American bombing raids on the north did a great deal to set the stage for the successful repulse of the NVA's 1972 invasion. It didn't lead to a wider war, or to war with China, or to global thermonuclear war. It was a wise policy, from a warfighting point of view, which achieved its stated goals. One can argue whether or not South Vietnam would still exist if Congress hadn't cut off the funding for similar operations later; but it certainly survived the 1972 invasion, which was larger and better organized than the one that finally destroyed it.
The truth is that she thought "they knew not," but she was likewise sure that she knew what they were doing. And "they" were wrong. And she was right. And that's the end of the story for her. These fools, if they could understand as well as she did -- she, who found herself praying to a "Father" she didn't even believe in, or know what she thought "Father" might be -- then everything would have been right. Now, it would all go wrong...
But it didn't, not because of the bombing of Hanoi. She was wrong all along, in spite of her faith -- and lack of faith.
Here's a good pic of a vicious Canadian Crusader, in the midst of perpetrating a horrible crime:
(no viruses)
link
Dirty infidel...
This pic shows why Muslims must fight the Canadians unto death, and why the MSM must help them.
[DR: Please don't publish bare URLs. And consider marking your post as sarcasm if that's what it is -- some readers have a hard time telling.
--Marshal Nortius "Big Tuna" Maximus]