What a Twit!
I'm pretty late to the fair on this one, but I just discovered the execrable writings of Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher. E&P covers the newspaper business, but apparently Mr Mitchell feels it should be leading the industry in terms of foreign policy coverage.
You guessed it. Mitchell is against the war. On May 7th, he
decided that the American newspapers were not bold enough, so he issued a call:
When Will the First Major Newspaper Call for a Pullout in Iraq?
Mind you, he's not starting an office pool, he's trying to prod somebody to do it.
After a month of uprisings in Iraq, an unexpected hike in U.S. casualties, and a prison abuse scandal that shattered goodwill in the Arab street, what do American newspapers have to say?
So far, not very much, at least in terms of advising our leaders how to clean up or get out of this mess.
Well, actually most of them do have an opinion on that topic, which is to stay the course (Republican newspapers) or stay the course and get the UN involved (Democrat newspapers). But since that is not Mr Mitchell's prescription, he decries the relative unanimity of opinion:
But then, they are not alone. Republicans have been cackling for weeks over John Kerry's inability to distinguish his position on the war from the president's -- after Bush agreed to bring into the picture the United Nations, NATO and anyone else who might bail us out.
The two candidates also seem to agree that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq might turn the tide. Most newspapers like that idea, too. Last month an E&P survey revealed that the vast majority of America's large newspapers favored this approach to Iraq: Stay the course.
But of course, they're all idiots, according to Mr Mitchell. The vast majority is always wrong! That's why newspaper editors need Mr Mitchell's publication, to tell them where they're going wrong.
There's no easy strategy for success, but the question is: are newspaper editorial pages ready to sustain that position now? And if that means calling for more troops, or remaining in Iraq at present levels indefinitely, are they willing to accept responsibility (along with the White House, Pentagon and Congress) for the continuing carnage and the unmentionable expense?
Two lies here. First, Mr Mitchell does think there's an "easy" strategy for success. Second, the expense will not be unmentionable; one suspects that Mr Mitchell mentions it quite often.
This, of course, must also be considered in the context of whatever other responsibility newspapers share for embracing the dubious pre-war claims on weapons of mass destruction and endorsing the invasion in the first place. In fact, one might argue that the press has a special responsibility for helping undo the damage.
Rolling my eyes here. When has the press
ever accepted the blame for anything it caused with its editorial policy? "Dubious pre-war claims on (sic) weapons of mass destruction"? They were so dubious that everybody believed them. Hillary Clinton and others who would seem to have no interest in supporting Bush on this issue say they had intelligence that indicated the same thing. I won't criticize him for missing the sarin gas because that happened after this piece was written, but surely the fact that even Germany & France's intelligence services believed Saddam had WMD should concern him.
That is not to say that calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq is the only moral, rational or political choice. But if newspaper editors are not going to endorse that -- then what is YOUR solution?
Of course, Mr Mitchell pretends not to be hearing the solution--stay the course, perhaps with more soldiers and help from the UN/Nato, but stay the course.
Reading this piece made me understand more some of the other twit-headed
columns I've read in E&P.
