On My Brain
These are things that are on my brain today. This one is a tad on the heavy side. If you want something less serious and long, check any other entry.
1) The AP’s Recent Problems
If you aren’t an avid RSS freak like me, then some of this heavy reading will bore you. Fair warning. If you like to see things from all sides, these links may well be worth your time - especially if you value transparency in institutions which directly influence our lives. (That sounds all melodramatic, but on a mere conversational level, without being conspiratorial, I’m just saying that I would like to trust my government and the press. That’s all I mean.) Do I have issues with these things? Yeah. I do.
If you’ve been following the stories being fired around between the AP, some major US newspapers, and bloggers all over the place, you’re probably slightly confounded by this whole Jamil Hussein deal. If you don’t know what I am talking about, you should probably read this first, to get an idea. The basic gist is this: the AP has published some stories recently regarding the military campaign going on in Iraq, and in a few of their stories they use a man named Jamil Hussein - who they refer to as a Captain. The problem is that Iraq claims he doesn’t exist, the US military claims he doesn’t exist, and he is the soul source for a number of stories. This is a problem.
The debate over the press and the anonymity of sources has been an ongoing feud in the states. I am personally unqualified to make a judgement call on the situation. However, I feel fully justified in demanding an explanation from the AP for using a source, named in print multiple times, whose existence is questioned by those who should know about it. That is a problem. Especially with a topic as incendiary as Iraq currently is. Regardless of where you stand politically on the whole thing, are you not miffed that the AP could possibly be creating sources and stories? The thing that really galls me is that they refuse to answer for it one way or the other. But it sure makes me value their input less. Luckily my RSS feeds branch out to other sources too. Still - this is really inexcusable if it is true.
Here is some really good reading material on the subject.
Flopping Aces - the blogger who thought he saw something. Read his writing and make your own judgement call. I found his coverage of “The Burning Six” interesting, but he has other stuff too. He obviously seriously distrusts the media.
Jules Crittenden writes for the Boston Herald - he encourages America’s newspapers to let the big news companies know that we demand an accurate product. I agree with that point.
HotAir’s Allahpundit - has a really sweet roundup of the issues so far. They are self proclaimed conservatives. I really like their coverage. Maybe a bit over the top at times, but I think the tone is to make a point. I like this site.
New York Times article by Tom Zeller - answers seemingly in defense of the AP and implies a blogger agenda. I agree with the agenda part, but please - if the facts stand above the politics, is it really ok to just write it off?
Weigh in if you feel like it. It’s just on my brain and won’t go away, so I thought I’d share it. (And the UFO picture and the main picture are from the X-files. Seemed appropriate, despite my concern that people think questioning the news media once in a while is a bit nutso. You know me. Am I nutso? Don’t answer that.) Seriously, though. What gives?
**Update**
The Democracy Project has a say on the necessity for media transparency as well as the “stringer” effect.
The National Journal has a piece on bogus photography (aka “fauxtography”) used in the media - something that caught the creative imaginations of the folks making the show CSI. Flopping Aces again chimes in with “Who is Qais al-Bashir?” Newsbusters also hits Qais al-Bashir’s article from The Guardian.
Patterico’s Pontifications posits that the fuzzy sources combine with bias (which, granted, he perceives - dunno if you do, that’s your call) to create anti-American press coverage that benefits those our country is fighting.
The Riehl World View also gets into the tangle by pointing out more AP stories that the US military insists didn’t happen. But there are others out there insisting that the AP check into the agendas their reporters might harbor. Gateway Pundit is also in the race to add to the avalanche of problems people have with recent stories.
**Ugh, I am tired of this.**
2) Politicizing an Already Demonized American South
Ah, the South. I am incredibly defensive of the South because I was born there, raised there, and basically love it there. I am always saddened by the stereotypes put forth that we are slow, backward, stupid, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or just plain redneck hicks. That bothers me. I am not saying that all of those things are categorically untrue - I am just saying that the modern South is not nearly as bad off as the stereotype implies. In fact, I would wager that the same levels of all of the aforementioned negatives exist all over the country - I don’t think bad stuff is geographically confined. You know? Anyway, my problem is that there is an idea out there that it is ok to politicize this image.
Why? Because it works. My whole funk started when I read this post by Jonah Goldberg over at NRO’s The Corner - a favorite online haunt of mine, thanks to Mr. Ulmer. The thing with this idea, started by Rick Perlstein, is that it cuts both ways. Therefore, if you are reading these and thinking “wow, this is really partisan,” then remember - yes, it is. But it works both ways. I get furious with people on both sides for leveraging these ideas. It sickens me. Race relations in the US have problems, unfortunately, but politicizing them is such a step in the wrong direction.
Some of the dialogue on the subject moves to familiar ground. The idea of quota systems, of enforcing equality through programs and whatnot. My personal stance on programs (like Affirmative Action) is that they are the new form of racism. Rather than having someone be at a disadvantage because of some racial or physical attribute that they happen to have, they are being treated differently in a good way because of the same reasons. This does not help racism. It institutionalizes it. Anyway, one poster had a snarky post about the interpretation of some of the “racist proving” questions that I enjoyed. The American Scene takes a few cracks at this topic. First, analyzing the holes in the study results. Then, in response to Matt Yglesias, dealing again with the notion of “racial conservatism.” Alarm! has a post about the notion of using the concept of racial conservatism against the Republican party as a campaign strategy for the Democrats (which is also hit upon in other links above).
I think I find myself hovering closest to Matt Yglesias on this one. He gives a really thoughtful analysis to the whole idea and I think he filters out enough of the high energy static to make something positive out of it. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric in the study, he concludes that there is a bit of truth. I like his summary:
“The important takeaway point, I think, isn’t to call white southerners racists, but rather — as Perlstein was mainly arguing — simply that the press is weirdly blind to the fact that disagreements about race continue to be central to American politics. That disagreements about race are central should be no surprise — such disagreements have traditionally been the most important issue in American politics.”
I am telling you folks - visit Charleston, SC before you write all us Southerners off. You might be surprised at the quality folks you find. That is, of course, provided you can avoid the rednecks. 