I'm not a grizzled veteran when it comes to journalism. I've basically been in the field now for six years or so, which isn't a whole lot, when you think about it. Regardless, there is one rule I've noticed when it comes to modern day journalists.
We are fucking LAZY.
This doesn't apply to all journalists, mind you, just the vast majority. There is a miniscule minority of journalists out there who aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and do a little background research and put together a tightly knit story, complete with facts and figures and interviews and excerpts from other sources.
But, generally, journalists aren't interested in doing all that work. Journalists invest far more time and ingenuity into discovering ways to avoid hard investigative work than they do actually working. I can speak with a little bit of authority on this, because I've been known to do it from time to time, and I can recognize the familiar handiwork of journalistic reporters taking the easy road. If you know what to look for, it's really quite obvious.
Take, for example, James Lileks' Bleat today. Now, I don't typically disagree wholeheartedly with Lileks, but I think in this case he's kind of missing the point. Basically, Lileks is wondering why the big media engine is putting so much faith into everything that spews forth from Richard Clarke's mouth.
Oh, by the way, unless you've been living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars, with the stereo blaring heavy metal, you probably have heard of Richard Clarke. He's a former Bush administration counterterrorism guru, who the administration asked to step down and who recently published a book condemning the Bush White House for failing to sufficiently go after Al Queda and instead focusing on Saddam and Iraq.
The problem is, if you do even a little bit of research, you find out that Clarke is just dripping with credibility problems, because, in 2002, he was basically saying the exact opposite of everything he's saying today.
Lileks is wondering why the major media outlets aren't stressing Clarke's total and complete flip-flop on this.
I read a wire-story compilation today about the Clarke appearance - it gave no details of the background briefing tape. Let me quote:
"The charged political climate enveloped the commission as well. Key Democrats and Republicans on the panel dropped the neutral posture that had shown in previous hearings and were openly partisan in questioning Clarke and three witnesses."
Okay, keep that in mind. Dems and Repubs were openly partisan. We continue:
"Three GOP members of the group, for example, grilled Clare on his motivations, suggestion that he had been contradictory in his statements and dishonest about his misgivings about counterrorism policies."
This would be a reference to the background briefing and another appearance Clarke made. No specifics about the details of those conversations are given.
You see, Lileks is holding this up as media bias, and I just don't think it is. I see it as a classic case of media laziness. Really, it's no big chore to FIND pretty damning proof of Clarke's shameless waffling, but it's still a chore, even if it is just a tiny one, and that's just too damned much to ask of a reporter who wants to file their story and get to the local Starbucks and enjoy the rest of the day.
Seriously, if you look at the rest of the story Lileks is examining, you eventually see a familiar pattern:
"Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, a Republican, took up the president?s cause inside the commission hearing. 'We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?' he challenged the witness."
"Former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, a Democratic commission member, asked Clarke whether Rice's recent statement that the Bush plan called for military options to attack Al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived? was accurate."
"Clarke responded, 'No, it's not.'"
Did you catch what's going on here? No? Let me explain it from my view, and again keep in mind that I'm adept at sniffing out journalistic laziness.
If you look at it, you see that the reporter is basically just transcribing the hearings. There's no research going on here. There's no journalistic detective work taking place. The reporter just put their tape recorder on "Record" and sat back for a cat nap, and then transcribed the tape later, threw in some descriptive sounding items like "challenged the witness," slapped their byline on the story, and sold it as news. It's nice and easy and, shit, given the software out there today that can automate the process of putting the spoken word into text, the whole article probably took a massive hour or so to "write," thus freeing up the reporter's day for more important things, like a four martini lunch or something.
I think journalists all basically know, at least somewhere tucked in their brain, that Clarke at one time said totally contradictory things like:
The Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
But, see, to your typical lazy reporter, that's old news. And, what's more, it's old news that never really got much attention when it originally aired, so it's not really news at all. Besides, we're talking 2002. That's soooooo, like, almost two years ago. Reporters, by and large, aren't historians, so stuff in the 2002 archives may as well be ancient history to them. It just doesn't seem relevant. When a reporter is sent out to cover something like a hearing, that's what they do. That's ALL they do. And, while they're driving to wherever the hearing is being held, they're thinking up all sorts of ways to make their assignment even easier to accomplish.
And, additionally, factoring in contradictory information into an article is just really hard, and reporters just don't like "hard." Hard means longer office hours, and that's just not fun.
Therefore, a man like Richard Clarke, who should, by most reasonable accounts, right now be having his credibility questioned more intensely than than an O.J. interrogation is simply given a pass by the media.
It's just EASIER that way.
UPDATE: Oh, and there's this, too.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Holy OUCH! (via Helloooo Chapter Two)
There is an unwritten rule in small town rural elementary school systems that says this: if a student lives in town, within easy walking distance from the school, there is an 80 percent chance that student will be asked to serve on the school patrol.
I fit all the school patrol criteria perfectly.
I honestly don't even remember being asked to serve on school patrol. I think I just got out of school one day and suddenly found myself standing at a busy intersection with a big STOP flag in my hand and a tattered yellow vest tied to my torso. It had all the earmarks of an alien abduction, now that I really think about it, except without any apparent anal probing. . . at least none that I recall.
If you're not at all familiar with the concept of school patrol, I think it can basically be summed up as early indoctrination into the world of law enforcement authority, except we weren't allowed to wear guns or arrest people. Basically, as a school patrol elite stormtrooper, my role was to escort children across the street by unfurling my intimidating STOP flag. For an elementary school student who routinely got beat up during noon hour recess, being on student patrol was an incredibly empowering experience.
Although we weren't allowed to wear guns or beat fellow students with nightsticks or anything like that, we did have the ability to report people. The "report" option was the most powerful weapon at our disposal. If you were a rambunctious youth who decided to test the mettle of the school patrol ranks, the most damning indictment you could hear coming from a patrol student was "I'm going to report you!"
Reporting a fellow student proceeded thusly: you'd dutifully take a mental note of the offending student and their perceived transgression and then, at the end of your shift, you'd go to the principal's office and make a detailed report to the secretary on duty, who would write everything down. The next morning, over the public address system, they'd read off names of students who had to report to the principal's office, and you could have heard a pin drop as they read off the names. It was as if they were naming the next batch to be sent to the gas chamber. Of course, come noon hour recess, the student you had the audacity to report would wrangle up a posse of his friends to beat you up, and the cycle would begin all over again.
The most super-biggest rush you could experience as a patrol officer was reporting a HIGH SCHOOL student. High school students who had their driver's license were, and probably still are, the biggest menace to elementary school patrol, because they thought it was funny to roar past just as we were about to escort some students across the street. When that happened, we would take down their plate number. I vividly recall taking down a plate number once, and then, a few days later, a high school senior came into my fifth grade class and apologized to me in front of the entire class. He was obviously not too happy about having to be there.
I, on the other hand, could just as well have been a god to my fellow classmates.
I've been on a Roman history kick now for a few years. I find ancient Rome to be absolutely fascinating. Romans were so advanced in terms of culture, technology, art and pretty much every other area you can imagine.
But, jeez oh criminey those people were brutal. The way Romans made war makes the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns today seem like chess matches by comparison. You want to talk about a culture of death? Forget Islamic extremism; the ancient Romans make suicide bombers look like pussies.
If you took aside a Roman emperor--say, Augustus--and you told him that Gaul of the Long Hairs was rising up against Roman rule, and you gave him the option of a precise, targeted strike to take out their leader, or a flurry of nukes to flatten the whole country, he'd choose option two without hesitation. People are so often impressed by Rome's artistic and technological achievements, it's often forgotten just how ruthlessly efficient and bloodthirsty they were when it came to making war.
And I'm not talking simply about killing non-Romans here, either. Romans had no qualms about killing other Romans. Heck, the term "decimate" comes from the Roman practice of going through the ranks of a Roman army that either revolted or fled from battle, and killing every tenth soldier as punishment. Gawd. How would you like to be part of the count off? Hey, buddy, I'll give you 3,000 sesterces to switch places with me. Then again, they weren't all that hesitant to do themselves in, either. I just finished reading a book about Roman history where the term "fell on his sword" was used so frequently, I started wondering if everyone in ancient Rome just naturally offed themselves in that manner. Oops, looks like it's going to be a crappy day; I guess I may as well disembowel myself.
I don't know why I'm so amazed by Roman brutality. I just find it fascinating to try and put it into a contemporary situation. If Augustus were leading the U.S. today, Iraq wouldn't just be a smoldering heap of radiation, pretty much the whole of the Middle East would have been given the nuclear treatment by now. Any perceived threat to the U.S. would be annihilated and any survivors would be rounded up and crucified upside down.
Seriously, those guys meant business.
Okay. So, I'm still in a spring mood. Sue me.
Back when I lived in Tokyo all those many years ago, one of my most amazing memories was of the cherry blossoms. Cherry blossoms, or at least the trees, but, no, their blossoms, are so important to Japan, they're practically sacred. And they fall about this time, or maybe about a week ago, or more, I can't remember exactly.
But, I do remember walking along many parks and streets, in absolute wonder at the cherry blossoms, which, by the time I got back from my school trip from China, were basically raining from the sky and forming a blanket of petals under my feet.
Now, I don't like the color pink, but cherry blossoms are pink, and they're gorgeous against a blue sky. I'm not typically a spiritual guy, but cherry trees in Tokyo in spring truly constitute a spiritual experience: delicate puffs of pink against an eternal blue sky. . . and then the pink falls, allowing you to walk on it, however briefly.
Following WWII, one of the most poignant requests of America from Japan, was for cherry trees, because, basically, all of their cherry trees had been burned up during fire bomb attacks.
The U.S. agreed.
Minnesota has a bitch of a climate. Hell, Minnesota IS a bitch of a climate. Each year, come January and February, I start really questioning my own sanity living in this crazy state with its crazy weather.
Particularly this year, which featured temperatures, come those two crappy months, in the below zero range pretty much 9/10s of the time, with enough snowfall to reconstitute the receding polar ice caps. Seriously, come to Minnesota and live here in the winter and truly try to convince yourself of global warming. I'm not saying there isn't some truth to the theory and all that, but here in Minnesota in January and February, your breath would better be utilized puffing on your hands to keep them even a tad warm.
Then, one day, usually in late March, you emerge from the house to actual solar warmth. It seems like an alien experience at first. After months of experiencing the sun only as a really bright Sylvania bulb in the sky, it's kind of weird to actually feel the sun's presence on your skin, to really notice the soaking warmth of Ol' Sol radiating on your face. It's then that you realize that you're successfully completed yet another winter journey.
Today is such a day.
Today the sun is more than just a bright decoration in the sky. Today, the sun provides more than what you would expect of it on, say, the surface of Mars. Today, the sun speaks of spring. I stepped out of the house today, and I FELT the sun, instead of just seeing it. Seriously, it's as close to magic as you'll probably experience in a lifetime, except for maybe childbirth which, God willing, I won't have to worry about for, like, quite a few damned years (and, even then, it won't be me doing it, thank you Mr. Penis).
Spring's finally here, or at least it's right around the corner, which means I'll be an inifinitely happier person during the coming months. And that's a super good thing, because I'll be moving into my new house on April 17, which should give me plenty to be pissed about.
Well, there I was, logging on to MSNBC.com last night, and I saw that Ahmed Yassin (widely recognized as Sarumon) was targeted and killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin, who had gained quite a following as the religious leader of Hamas and was known for passionate speeches advocating suicide bombings by women and children in an effort to further the Palestinian fight to bring an end to the nation of Israel.
I really don't know what to think about the strike. Given the whirlwind pace of the cycle of violence in the Middle East, it's pretty easy to see that Israel had best be bracing for incredible retaliation. I mean, 200,000 Palestinians taking to the streets in mourning and rage pretty much ensures somebody, somewhere, is going to detonate. Despite all that, I can completely understand why Israel went after the despicable figure.
It's weird. There was a time, actually not that long ago, when suicide bombings on buses and in crowded marketplaces were viewed with a jaw-dropping jolt of horror. Now I read about "dozens" of people volunteering for suicide bombings and I think, "yeah, I can pretty much see that coming." Boom. More dead. More anger. More retaliation.
And then I read that Hamas retaliatory attacks won't be limited to Israeli targets. No, now the U.S. will be further tartgeted as well. And, once again, I'm left shrugging my shoulders in resignation, thinking "yeah, well, I guess that's just to be expected. Whatever."
I wasn't sure why I had such a resigned indifference to all of this. . . until this morning. It dawned on me that the Yassin hit is a microcosmic dress rehearsal for what we can expect when a missile finally does fly up the butthole of one Osama bin Laden. You think the death of Yassin is big news? Wait till bin Laden is atomized when a well-aimed missile just happens to fly into his cave resort.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't be going after Osama. We should obviously be going after him and all terrorists with everything at our disposal. But, we shouldn't for one second believe that the death or capture of bin Laden will inhibit future attacks. The long term effect of disposing of bin Laden will be a gradual de-mythification of the man and a loss of inspiration to those within al Queda and other terrorists orgazation . The immediate effect, however, will be outrage and resolve to carry out attack after attack after attack.
All we have to do is watch how the Yassin hit plays out over the next few weeks to gauge how the proven death of bin Laden will be played out to a much larger global degree sometime in the future. This should be both horrifying, yet instructive, to watch.
UPDATE: Why, yes, I did have "The Sistani Hit" as my header up there for awhile. I'm not sure why that happened. What would Freud have said? Best not to ask, I suppose.
UPDATE, THE SEQUAL: Please take the time to read Lileks today, too, because he has a picture I think you should see, and his reaction to it. I could only say "Ick." Lileks said much more, and far better.
