THE LA TIMES RESPONDS TO BLOG CRITIQUES
By Cori Dauber
<font size=4>
I think I may have mentioned that our old friend Patterico was right steamed when the LA Times (and on the front page too) was just flat wrong about Amb. Bremer's departure from Iraq. This was not a subtle matter of interpretation, either: the Times made snide note of Bremer's departing without a farewell address, while meanwhile Zeyad was posting about the moving power of his emotional farewell address.
Well, meanwhile, back at the ranch, Jason Van Steenwyk was even less impressed and more steamed with the Times, whose article he believed to be out and out editorializing on the front page. And, as he notes, now that their editor has come out with that well covered "psuedojournalist" crack about Fox, they're pretty much living in a big ole glass house.
Well now the reporter in question has responded to Jason's, er, issues -- and I do believe he's more steamed than before.
The LA Times Reporter Responds!
Well, that was quick!
I just got this back from Alissa Rubin, who's normally the LA Times correspondent in Vienna, and who wrote the article mentioned below.
Here's her response, in its entirety.
<font size=3><font color=blue>
I am sorry you feel that my aim was to insult Amb. Bremer. I think if you look
at my coverage of him through the year it has been quite consistently
sympathetic. On the day he left and the day or two before that when I
accompanied him on trips, he gave no farewell speech of the kind that one might
give on the day or two before leaving. That was, I'm sure for security reasons.
As you are probably aware, security had deteriorated badly or the the roughly
three weeks before the transfer of sovereignty.
Western reporters who follow Amb. Bremer would have been delighted to cover an
event billed as a farewell to Iraq. However, I will gladly look at the material
you have forwarded me and if indeed I should have included a qualification I
will discuss doing so with my desk.
<font size=4><font color=black>
My own reaction:
This is a pretty mealy-mouthed rebuttal. First of all, she entirely misses the point. She's apologizing for my own feelings, rather than apologizing for blowing the facts of the story in the first place.
Second, if she really feels that there were security reasons for Bremer remaining mum up until the transfer (and there obviously were) then why did she choose to omit that fact from the piece? Instead, she writes that Bremer seemed to have been afraid to speak to the Iraqi people.
And even if Bremer did remain silent until the handover, just how does that excuse the LA Times from missing the speech after the handover?
She commits the double sin of factual error, compounded
with speculation. She is in no position to opine on
Bremer's motives. She can't even get Bremer's actions
right!
Third, Rubin is still trying to argue that Bremer gave no speech! Amazing!
Fourth, while I'm sure Western reporters would have been delighted to cover "an event billed as a farewell speech to Iraq," it's not Bremer's job to hold Rubin's hand and wipe her nose all the way through the process.
She should have gotten her facts straight no matter how the farewell speech was billed, or even if it wasn't billed at all. Her trying to blame Bremer's staff for her own screw-up is simply outrageous.
Just because the event was not billed to Rubin as
a "farewell speech" does not mean it did not happen.
Obviously the Arab stations figured it out, despite the
language barrier, and managed to air it so Zayed could
hear it.
Fifth, I keep hearing this meme about a deteriorating
security situation. But I haven't seen any real metrics to
back it up. If anything, the security situation has
improved substantially since April and May, the height of
the Fallujah Follies and the zenith of Muqtada al Sadr's
Shoot'em-up Shi'ite Shenanegans.
I know, I know. I'm one of Gore's digital brownshirts.
But when I screw up, I'll at least own up to it.
<font size=3>
Splash, out
Jason
iraqnow.blogspot.com |
