Glenn quotes from a Spectator piece (reg req'd) by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent Toby Harnden:
The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials....There's been several other stories of this type regarding Iraq, but never are the crooked journalists exposed. Instead we hear blather by famous editors how there is no bias (or how it's all on the Right) -- which is hard to refute as the profession seems intent on covering for itself. While I appreciate Mr. Harnden's revelation, it would be much more useful if the name of the reporter and her magazine were exposed. Doing that would be, well, journalism.
But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.
She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go....
Omerta works in the MOB because if you talk, they'll kill you.
It works in the media, because if this guy disclosed WHO, he'd never work in the industry again. Of course, he still mightn't.
Posted by: Gonzo at May 13, 2004 06:31 PMSounds like Anne Garrels
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2003/09/12/inside_the_mind_of_npr.php#001175
Posted by: capt joe at May 13, 2004 06:42 PMGonzo--
Much the same for cops, if they want back-up ever again. Doesn't make it right. Especially when cops object to a reporter's keeping secrets and reporters are such scolds about everyone else.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at May 13, 2004 06:49 PMWell, it's hard to name names when you make it up, and there's no proof this isn't the case here.
Posted by: instawatcher at May 14, 2004 04:25 AMI have to concur with that, instawatcher. There is nothing here which gives me any reason to believe that this conversation actually took place. I look at unsubstantiated stories like this like all those millions of heart-warming God email anecdotes that keep filling my inbox from friends and family.
If there is no attribution, ignore it as evidence. Plain and simple.
Posted by: Po6oToB at May 14, 2004 07:02 AMWell, Instawatch and Po6, the only ones here using their real names are me, Glenn and Mr. Harnden. By your logic neither one of you exists, and so your comments only prove their own unreliability.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at May 14, 2004 08:37 AMThat's point, set and match for Kevin.
It defies any logic to draw the conclusion of "media bias" because the Daily Telegraph's Toby Harnden claims to have spoken to an Amercian reporter -- she is unnamed -- who works for an American magazine -- also not specified -- and states she was rooting for failure in Iraq so that Bush would get voted out of office.
He provides no corroboration of the specifics of this conversation, nor has he even provided any independent verification the chat took place. Harnden does not say when this event occured (2003? 2004?).
Let's review: Who (no), What (someone's opinion), Where (the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, Iraq), When (no), Why (no).
So much for the 5 Ws of journalism.
Some Brit Twit's gossip is the chosen example of lack of media objectivity?
Does any one else see the irony here? Can you recognize hypocracy when it slaps you across the face?
C'mon people, get real. . .
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz at May 14, 2004 03:56 PM5 w's of journalism
we hate bush
we're paid to hate bush
we'll be sacked if we don't hate bush
we enjoy baiting bush
we dont care about anthing or anyone else.
There is no liberal bias in the media, There is no liberal bias in the media, There is no liberal bias in the media! Clicks heels of Ruby Slippers three times and returns to Kansas.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 15, 2004 09:27 AMInstawatcher, and ilk...
...then all of the unsourced attributions in the NYT and WaPo critical of the Bush Administration are just so much horsesh*t, too.
Thanks for pointing that out.
--furious
Posted by: furious at May 15, 2004 12:46 PMfurious, and ilk....
...then all the unspecified "high level Bush administration officials" leaking news supporting Bush and his coward's war are just so much horsesh*t too?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Barry nails it. You wingnuts complain about liberal bias while expecting us to take what Harnden says as some kind of fair and balanced look at the media? No wonder this country is seeing you all for what you are: hypocrites.
Posted by: Klondike Freedom at May 15, 2004 06:02 PMKlondike,
Actually Barry wasn't talking about hypocricy; he was talking about hypocracy - or the fact that doctors slap you across the face under oath (but a very different oath from the oaths you thought he meant)
Posted by: Wondering at May 22, 2004 10:57 AMHow can anyone know who hates who? (whom?) Hate is a feeling, or involves feelings. How can anyone claim to know the feelings or thoughts of others?