The journalism of warfare

The Journalism of Warfare
by Keith Windschuttle

excerpt:

When journalists like Fisk look at terrorists like bin Laden, they do not see people who disgrace themselves and their religion with cowardly acts of terrorism against civilian men, women, and children. Instead, they see freedom fighters. During the American invasion of Iraq in April 2003, at the same time as television viewers were watching the American army reach the outskirts of Baghdad and capture the airport, Fisk was in a bus with other journalists inside the city. On April 8 he filed a report worthy of the former Iraqi information minister himself. Fisk said:

The road to the front in central Iraq is a place of fast-moving vehicles, blazing Iraqi anti-aircraft guns, tanks and trucks hidden in palm groves, a train of armoured vehicles… . How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defences? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980–88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this.

Paul McGeogh, a leftist journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald who was accompanying Fisk at the time, later told a radio interviewer:

Robert gets a bit windy from time to time. I was on the same bus as him and we saw some tanks, you wouldn’t say we saw an army of tanks. We saw two or three tanks on that bus run. We saw multiple rocket launchers. We saw a convoy of two or three trucks of soldiers pausing to wash and eat by a creek. But we didn’t see an army forming up for war.

Despite this incapacity for seeing what is directly in front of him, Fisk likes to portray himself as a humble reporter who simply tells it like it is. “My job is to report what I have seen,” he tells an interviewer in the newly published anthology, Tell Me Lies, a collection of left-wing analyses of the reporting of the Iraq war.[1]

And the bottom line on Fisk, by Windschuttle:

Fisk is an Arab romanticist whose ideology so distorts his view of Islamic terrorism and of Arab despotism that he cannot be trusted to give an honest account of what he sees in the street.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/jun05/windschuttle.htm

Well, never mind then.

This article (which I did not author) is not about war.

Please, do read it.

(And you missed my post about the very awesome Mr. Les Paul)? :frowning:

That guy was funny. Wonder what he’s up to. I know that there was some resort hotel that a buncha Saddamers went to, mebbe in Lebanon or somewhere…

Tell us more about those weapons of mass destruction which your president kept assuring us were there.

Keith Windschuttle is a right-wing Australian historian and journalist. He targets Left-wing writers, has been called an Australian revisionist, and disputes whether the colonial settlers of Australia committed genocide against the indigenous Aboriginal population. It’s no surprise that he would attack Fisk, but as someone in denial about the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginal people it would be an easy move to be in denial about the truth regarding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I wouldn’t take anything Windschuttle says too seriously, he obviously has a predilection to re-write the facts about history. Fisk, on the other hand, has a much better track record for reporting the truth.

Oh, boo hoo… oh where are the board moderators, I’m being attacked.

:sniffle:

Sound familiar? Maybe this will help:

The pattern is; I present fact-based material that some folks don’t like. They attack me and/or my sources without substantiation. I defend myself and my sources and point out the prejudice, bigotry, hypocrisy, or whatever it is that’s guiding their assault. Then I get publicly “criticized” for my demeanor…

Especially noteworthy is the lack of refuting anything in the article.

:slight_smile:

How much time do you want to spend on reading what has been found?

Word to the wise: It’ll require suspending your pre-conceived notions.

Excuse me, but I did refute the article, Keith Windschuttle’s reputation said it all. He commonly attacks left-wing journalists – this article is just another one of the same. His evidence is some other journalist’s word against Fisk’s – big deal. As I said – Fisk’s record for accurately reporting the facts is better than Keith Windschuttle’s.

Your demeanor in this post is reminiscent of a schoolyard bully, TradR, and your quote holds about as much water as a whiffle ball. The operative word in the quote of mine you provided is “substantiation.” I didn’t call him a “whack-o” and dismiss him because he isn’t American or something asinine like that – I provided reasons based on his reputation and what he’s written. If you post an article attacking a journalist based on his reputation you have to be ready to see the author’s reputation put out for all to see as well. You and others have attacked me and my sources without any substantiation many times. I backed up my assertion about Keith Windschuttle with the reasons why. If you tried that once in a while the discussions on these matters might be more useful.



You only attacked the man’s reputation, and you’ve just done it again.
Certainly doesn’t square with your earlier whines.

It isn’t “my quote” - it’s YOUR quote. And you refuted nothing in the article, unless you consider your own opinion as “substantiation”. (It isn’t).

Oh, oh. I’m being attacked. Oh. Oh. Won’t someone help poor little me? Oh, where are the moderators to help me? Oh. Oh.


It might interest you to know that I am not Keith Windschuttle, nor have I ever claimed to be. e.g., I didn’t write the article, and please, do provide evidence and substantiation of where Windschuttle is wrong in his assessment of the “journalism” vis-a-vis the Middle East . (you know, the topic of the article)? Feel free to leave your personal biases and favoritism of folks like Fisk out of it.


No, you provided an opinion of your view of Windschuttle’s reputation.

Oh. Help, help. I’m being attacked again. Oh. Help.

How’s that “pattern” go again?

Go back and re-read it, TradR, you seem to be having a lapse in you reading comprehension skills. Windschuttle’s article is putting one person’s view of an event against Fisk’s. There’s no proof, just one man’s word against another. My evidence that Windschuttle’s article is just another attack piece is evidenced in his writing and reputation. If you can’t accept that as my rebuttal of the article, what it says, and the author himself – I don’t know what to say. But I have addressed the issue quite sufficiently. Can we move on now please?

I didn’t say it was “your quote,” it’s the quote of mine you posted, but it proves nothing. You’re just whining like a schoolyard bully. The substantiations about my opinion of Windschuttle’s article are his writings and his reputation. I’m not just calling him a “whack-o” and dismissing him for no reason, as you and others have done when I present articles for discussion.

Help, help, I’m being attacked.

Oh. Oh.

Help.

TradR, at this point your argument is baseless, repugnant and childish. I have presented my views sufficiently and I do not intend to repeat them again. I’m not going to engage in this line of abusive discourse any further. Goodbye.

Sounds good to me.

Thanks for being honest enough about your “patterns” of abusive discourse.

By the way, before today, I’d never even heard of Keith Windschuttle.

How much time do you want to spend on reading what has been found?

Nothing of any significance was found and the search has been called off, restarted with another team, and then called off again.

Your president and members of his cabinet made a large numbers of statements which were not true. The death count caused by these false representations is into the six figures, and the cost will end up well over 500 billion dollars.

Jayson Blair faked a few quotes and made up some details in stories that weren’t of any significane in the first place. If this dishonesty resulted in so much as a hangnail to anyone, word of that unhappy event has yet to reach Fox News.

It’s endemic. Blair is just the poster child for the disease. It’s the Times. He “faked a few quotes” ? Hahahaaaaa. Yeah, okey-dokey. I guess that his firing and the resignations of the Editor (Raines) and Managing Editor (Boyd) were just your run-of-the-mill day at the Times. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

By the way, here’s what caused Blair’s downfall:

Times Reporter Resigns After Questions on Article

By JACQUES STEINBERG (NYT) 668 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 30 , Column 5

Editors’ Note Appended

ABSTRACT - New York Times executive editor Howell Raines announces that reporter Jayson Blair, whose April 26 front-page article about Army mechanic missing in Iraq included passages similar to some appearing earlier in San Antonio Express-News, has resigned; says The Times will extend its apologies to Texas family of Specialist Edward Anguiano, who has since been reported dead, for ‘heightening their pain in time of mourning’; says The Times also apologizes to readers for ‘grave breach of its journalistic standards’; says Blair’s work on this article and other journalistic work he has done for The Times will continue to be examined.

Nobody harmed? Think again.

As for WMDs, think Syria. They didn’t just evaporate. And Hussein had more than enough time to move them, hide them, sell them, do whatever with them, as he was watching the circus of events from the UN (who were on the take all along in the oil-for-food scandal)… gosh, what a surprise looking back on it, that the UN stalled for time (and money, as it turns out).

And while you’re hanging your hat squarely on the WMD issue, realize, too, that WMDs weren’t the only reason for going into Iraq.

“Nothing of significance” ? Oh really? My, what a change in tune from “there’s nothing there”.

I guess it’s not “significant” unless the bio-chems that fit into a large suitcase can poison your city/town/county. I guess that sarin gas & mustard gas are just minor irritants, nothing to be worried about.