The view from the center and right side of the blogosphere on media vs. military.
RADIO BLOGGER
Roger L. Simon and Austin Bay joined Hugh Hewitt right after Jay and Jeff. Here's their take on the same issues:
HH: Colonel, I just got finished asking Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen if we were at war, and they were a little ambivalent on that. What do you think?
AB: There's no doubt about it. We are, and that's always part of the story. I caught the last three minutes, Hugh, of that discussion you had with Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen. First of all, real quick prop for them. I love their sites, read both of them on a daily basis. They're right in saying the New York Times has editorial control, editorial judgment, and there's certain stories that need to be run. But there's always the context. And the context is right now. It really is, since, I would argue, since 1993, certainly since February, 1998, when Al Qaeda declared war on us. And there's no doubt since September 11th, 2001, that we're at war. And that is an absolutely intimate, integral part of every story. And it's...I heard, I think it was Jeff that said yea, we are at war. Jay was ambivalent about it. But I think if we got in a discussion, I would take the bet that at some point, he'd have to come across and say yea. These guys are at war with us, they're dangerous, they declared it, they're fighting us, and hey, in some shape, form or fashion, we're fighting them. That's a war.
HH: And Roger Simon, shouldn't that matter to journalists in the United States? Do they have a responsibility to take the American interest? I'm not saying how that plays, but do they have to take into account the American interest in the American fighting man and woman?
RLS: Yes, I think so to an extent. However, here's...I think it's even more interesting than that. If you look at the New York Times' reporting this morning on that story, about what went on in Bagram Air Base, they relied entirely on a study, an investigative study by the Army itself. But they did not publish the Army's investigative study. They only published their filter on the investigative study. Now when I was a kid, the New York Times, as I recall it, used to run on the back pages, the full story, so that you as an adult citizen, or even a kid, when I was a kid, could go there and decide for yourself. That seems to have changed. And that's a big change. I want to say one thing that, speaking for some of the people on-line, talking here now, that one of the things we're going to do at Pajamas Media, is post as much as we can of original sources, because I think that'a very important contribution to public understanding of what's really going on. The New York Times has relied upon everybody believing them for decades. Well, we know since Jayson Blair, that's nonsense.
HH: And you know, in the way it was written as well, Roger, because it is well into probably the 20th paragraph before you learn that last October, the Army's criminal investigation command concluded there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in these cases, and that 15 of the same soldiers cited for probable criminal responsibility in other cases. Austin Bay, that's the story, and they buried it.
AB: Well, I was on Roger's site maybe 20 minutes ago, and I saw his take on the New York Times' story today on the Bagram Air Base felony prisoner abuse. Roger's right. He...first of all, he starts out and says the beginning, the lead to that story reads like Pulp Fiction. There's the huge buildup. That's all on the front page. Then you get to the flip, and you go to what? Page A12 in my national edition, paper edition of the New York Times, read down a couple of paragraphs, and you find out the story dates from 2002. You find that paragraph that you just referred to, Hugh. And that's important context. But look. Here's the game that, unfortunately, the New York Times is still the lynch pin in. And that is it's got that huge headline above the fold, on the front page, and three major networks, arguably four if you put CNN in it as well, takes still to some degree, take their lead from what shows up, above the fold, on the New York Times, as the news, and that is the shape and filter for covering it. Roger's absolutely right. Now I'm going to tell you, the 15-6, and I think that's probably, that's the military jargon for the in-depth kind of investigation that went into this, and I'm going to bet it's a 15-6 investigation. It's going to be boring, it's going to be filled with detail, it's going to be filled with lots of speculation, because the investigating officers are going to have gone in and put that in as part of their evidence. And it's going to be, in something like this, voluminous. Nevertheless, here's the gift of the internet, is that if that is a declassified, unclassified investigation, that material will be there. And you'll have the opportunity to go and say huh. Okay. That's what this troop said. That's what this source said. And this is the way the military interpreted it. What gets me, and what galls me about this particular New York Times article, is that its timing is there to try to spike the criticism against Newsweek.
HH: Absolutely true.
AB: Now if you follow the bottom of page A12, Hugh, I don't know if you have the same national edition...
HH: I've got to go to break, Colonel. We'll be right back.
---
HH: Here's an e-mail, Colonel. Hugh, your guest Austin blogger hit it out of the park. This New York Times piece, the Saddam Victoria's Secret ad, is just an MSM swarm against the U.S. military and the Bush administration. Cheers, Dr. Francis. What do you think?
AB: Are you asking me that, Hugh?
HH: Yup.
AB: I still...I still want to see the New York Times run on a chain of command look at what Newsweek did wrong, as well as have the one that they've got at the bottom of the page on the U.S. military in the Bagram Air Base incident. I think it's due to do it to the U.S. military, but let's do it to Newsweek as well.
HH: Now, Roger L. Simon, you said you had an announcement about Pajamas Media.
RLS: Well, you know, here's the announcement. And the funny thing is, the other guy is on the show with us. Austin Bay is going to be going to the Middle East, one of the three reporters with Time Magazine and Hearst, who will be covering the news. Austin can tell us more about it, with General Abizaid and others in Iraq, and off-shore and all over, and finally ending up in Afghanistan. And he is going to be the first Pajamas Media correspondent to such an event, and we'll be uploading to our sites video content. It will be our first experiment as we go forward.
HH: Colonel Bay, when are you leaving?
AB: Well, it looks like I'm going to leave Texas either the 9th or 10th, and I'll be...the general itinerary is Bahrain, U.S. Naval Operations, and also some training in operations, I think, whether Iraqi Coast Guard. I certainly hope so. Qatar, and then somewhere in there will be some time in Baghdad. I'll be back at Camp Victory, where I was stationed as a soldier, except I'll be staying in the press billet instead of the trailer that I was living in as a soldier. And then we'll also end up in Kabul.
HH: Well, we'll give you Duane's number. You call us whenever you want to, and you know when we'll be on the air. You can figure out the time difference. We'll try to get you on whenever you call.
RLS: That's a lot of math.
AB: That e-mail that you just got. That's just sad. That's a sad take, because you know, we're also news consumers as well as analysts. And we have the right, as news consumers, to say give us the full picture.
HH: Well, you know, Fred Barnes agrees. This was just a cover for Newsweek. Now let me play you Terry Moran on this program on Wednesday. ABC News chief White House correspondent. Here's what he says.
Moran-bit.mp3
HH: Roger L. Simon, do you agree that that exists?
RLS: Yes, and I think Moran's courageous for saying that.
HH: Austin Bay, do you agree that that exists?
AB: Well, I agree with Roger completely, and that was my newspaper column for this week, as well as what I had up on my blog, the Vietnam Watergate template.
HH: It's back. Now let's listen to Linda Foley, president of the Newspaper union, the Newspaper Guild, part of the Communication Workers of America, saying this.
LindaFoley.mp3
HH: Colonel Austin Bay, did you target and kill journalists in Iraq?
AB: Absolutely not. I laud and love brave, courageous combat journalists. And I will tell you what. I said this then, and I'll tell you the New York Times has got a great reporting team there in Baghdad. But I'll tell you what that woman just engaged in is hate speech. And that's unfortunate.
RLS: Well, you know what? It's what George Orwell called objectively pro-fascist.
HH: Very well put, Roger. You know, what makes me crazy about this stuff is I know a lot of soldiers, sailors, airmen & marines. I know a couple of cobra pilots who are over there right now. And she slanders every single one of them with this statement. And I think they really can't allow her to stay in the head of a union in the United States. Her union membership ought to rise up and demand a resignation. Will that happen, Roger?
RLS: Well, it depends on the union. It certainly happened to throw out Eason Jordan, who evidently made similar statements in Davos, and he's no longer director of the news of CNN's news service. So...
HH: I hope so. Now, I've got one last subject, which is the pictures of Saddam. I am the only one I've talked to today who would not have published them. I would have at least had a conversation with senior administration officials about the impact they would have had before running with them. Austin Bay, is that kind of conversation the right thing for journalists to do?
AB: In some cases. I'm going to disagree with you on the Saddam photos. Saddam is not going to be viewed in Iraq as a symbol of Iraqis' hated dictator. Now I heard what Al Jazeera said. I find that very funny, very hypocritical, coming from Al Jazeera, which really doesn't usually give a darn about Arab sympathies.
HH: But the fact that they say it, though, Colonel, is what makes me concerned, is it is a piece of propaganda in play now.
AB: Well, look, Hugh, it could be. But there is, and again, I caught the last three minutes of what Jeff Jarvis said and Jay Rosen, and the strength of what they're saying is that yea. We live in a free, classicly liberal, with a little l, society, and the free press is part and parcel of what we're about, and what we're defending. Those photos? I think the call is that you go ahead and run 'em.
HH: Roger L. Simon, I agree with Austin. It's a completely liberal society. We don't want any restraints on press freedom. But does the press have to really push itself to develop some sense? This is a different world. We're at war, bad things could happen, devastating attacks on the United States.
RLS: Wow. That's a hard question, Hugh. I mean, you know, in a case...I'll cut them some slack on the Saddam picture. What is interesting to me about the Saddam picture is, as a filmmaker, I'm curious if that's a stop time video shot, or an actual photo, because I have a feeling they've got a video camera in his cell. I would, if I had him incarcerated. And maybe somebody just sort of clipped that out of there. I don't know.
HH: Well, the military's going after whoever published it...By the way, Roger, what's the Pajamas Media site?
RLS: Well, it'll be PajamasMedia.com, but we're not quite up and running yet. Very soon.
HH: For additional details, go to RogerLSimon.com. Thank you both, gentlemen."
radioblogger.com |
