MORAL BLIND SPOTS:
InstaPundit
One of my regular email critics sent this, which I think is the first non-critical email I've received from him. It's pretty revealing:
<font size=4>
I realize you generally assume that the vast majority of reporters are praying to their pagan gods for our failure in Iraq and the war against terrorism (I am not one of them), and are now crafting their stories to reflect and facilitate such a thing. While I think you are dead wrong on this, I have to admit I was taken aback by a conversation I had recently with a colleague.
I work as a freelancer for a major national publication, and was talking to my editor as we were closing a piece last week. It was Thursday, and the reports were coming out of Pakistan that we might have Ayman al-Zawahiri surrounded.
<font size=5>
I passed this news on to the editor, who was
crestfallen: "Oh, no. I don't want anything good to happen
for Bush before the election," was the reaction (P.S.,
this editor does not edit foreign or political stories).
It was a sickening moment. This is a man responsible for
thousands of American deaths. So while I have no desire to
see Bush re-elected, and I disagree with our attack on
Iraq, to hope for our failure in capturing one of the
deadliest people in the world is a moral blindspot.
Yes, it is. And -- based both on reports like this one,
and on the obvious slant of some stories -- I don't think
that editor is alone, though I doubt an actual majority of
his colleagues feel that way. But some clearly do, letting
their Bush-hatred trump their patriotism.
<font size=4>
This is no surprise, I suppose: there were plenty of Romans who played politics with the barbarian attacks, and sometimes even secretly allied with the barbarians, in the hopes of gaining political advantage at home. This isn't on that level. But it's nothing admirable. And it's naive to think that such attitudes don't influence coverage where they're present. |
