?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The dangers of embedded journalism, in war and politics:
But embedding comes at a price. We are observing these wars from just one perspective, not seeing them whole. When you see my byline from Kandahar or Kabul or Basra, you should not think that I am out among ordinary people, asking questions of all sides. I am usually inside an American military bubble. That vantage point has value, but it is hardly a full picture.


Yeah, yeah, cue the Joni Mitchell. What Ignatius doesn't get is that the dispassionate, neutral, above-it-all reporting he exalts is a Platonic ideal that doesn't exist in the real world, has never existed in the real world, and wouldn't be believed by most Americans these days if it did. After seven decades of slanting, agitprop work and outright lying about the facts, nobody who knows a damn thing about the profession of journalism in America believes in the ability (or desire) of the lamestream media to be neutral and not take sides. Perhaps more to the point, in the cases he cites revolving around the ongoing war with the Islamofascisti, damn few Americans feel the need to get a view of the war from the point of view of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, any more than our parents and grandparents really cared what Hitler and Tojo thought about the Second World War.

News reporting is not about presenting the whole picture. It never has been. If Ignatius and his J-school buds want to do that kind of writing, then they need to go back to college and study some goddamn history, because the bulk of them are so ignorant they can't tell a BTR-60 from a tank. All they know how to do is write news stories (poorly) and spin the facts, clumsily. History is about trying to show the whole picture, and even then you need to consult several sources before you have a good idea what happened, much less what it means to you in the present day.
(NRO Web Briefing)