January 18, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:This article on the Iraq the Model bloggers from the New York Times is pretty astonishing. It seems to consist almost entirely of repeating accusations against the Iraq the Model guys generated on one internet discussion board, without making any effort to check even the things that are checkable.
They've also decided to print the last name of the Iraq the Model bloggers. That's pretty shocking, given that the article makes it pretty clear that their lives are in danger. The New York Times gets a lot of heat in the blogosphere, but the fact is they do a lot of great journalism. I'm unpleasantly shocked by the quality of this article.
Posted by Jane Galt at January 18, 2005 1:30 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksWhy are you shocked?
I suppose the staff at the New York Times do, intermittently, perform competent journalism on topics that don't emotionally injure them. However, it's been pretty clear for a while that they have zero ability to tell facts that in any way injure the political narrative of their political party -- and, yes, the New York Times does have a political party with which it's effectively affiliated.
Why be shocked when they indulge in a mixture of innuendo and indiscretion that could get pro-American Iraqis killed? Those pro-American Iraqis don't really have any right to exist, after all. They're causing 'chaos'. And if we had just left Hussein in power, we wouldn't have had all that ugly 'chaos' in Iraq, as John Kerry helpfully pointed out last year. So there you go.
You know, quite apart from shocking level of irresponsibility, what I noticed about the article was it's lack of value. Hell, *I* knew a hell of lot more about 'Iraq The Model' and the controversy about the absurd conspiracy theories weeks ago. Nearly all of what's in that article could have been put together by a high-school student with a broadband connection in a couple of hours--all while juggling a few AIM sessions.
Sarah Boxer, in fact, missed interesting aspects of the story -- in particular, that Professor Juan Cole, who was responsible for 'publishing' (and thereby greatly amplifying) the 'Martini Republic' consipiracy theories had previously come in for some rather pointed and substantive criticism on IraqTheModel concerning Iraqi history:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html
(Scroll down to Sunday, November 21, 2004)
As far as I'm aware, Cole never condescended to respond to Ali's argument (apparently that was beneath a semi-well known middle-East expert) but then he published the conspiracy theories about 'Iraq the Model'. Was this retaliation of the most reprehensible and irresponsible sort (since, of course, the CIA allegations could quite easily get the brothers and/or their families killed)? Or was it just a coincidence that Cole published the rumors after having been criticized? In any case, it is an interesting part of the story, and the NY Times reporter *completely* missed it. Cole isn't even mentioned in the story.
Anyway, *I* knew all this -- not as any kind of Iraq expert or journalist, but as someone interested enough about what was going on in Iraq to pay attention. You'd think NY Times reporters being paid to write on Iraq would be at least as well as informed, but clearly that's not the case.
How did it get to this point--where the *NY Times* is doing a slap-dash job of reporting news that I knew about weeks ago AND in much greater depth concerning a subject in which I have no particular expertise?
Wow, that really is shocking. Professor Pond Scum (that would be Juan Cole) ought to be ashamed of himself for promoting this hysterical nonsense into the mainstream.
Appalling. I would hope the NYT would disavow the report and fire the reporter.
These guys lives are definitely endangered due to this article. When I was in Iraq, we were barred from transmitting the names of Iraqi employees either in snail or e-mail for fear of the correspondence being intercepted and the employees identified.
If something were to happen to these 3 brave Iraqi Patriots, I personally feel that Mrs. Boxer should be charged with Negligant Homicide at the least for their deaths.
Other reporters from the NYT have reported responsibly and accurately from Iraq. (Jim Glanz has written some excellent and in my view fair and balanced articles.) Doesn't the NYT have any standards or guidelines for this sort of thing?
As much as it pains me to rise in defense of the NY Times, the last name of the blogging brothers has been reported in the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.
That said, the rest of the article is a deplorable recycling of innuendo from one website, with no attempt to provide context or eventhe views of other bloggers.
Jeff Jarvis found that the BBC pretty much recycled the NY Times story but (if anything) the BBC made it weaker and less factual.
I fisked the BBC story on my blog (http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20050118a ) and then for an encore looked at the rest of the abysmal BBC "full coverage" on Itaq
"the BBC made it weaker and less factual"
duh, what a surprise!
Equally sad is the number of people defending this baseless smear job or attacking Jeff Jarvis for noticing it on his own blog.
I dont understand the outrage. It can't be for "outing" the Iraqis, the Wall Street Journal also published the names. Its not nearly as unethical as what Novak did to Flemm(sp?), who actually worked for the US government as a spy. And its not like the Iraqi bloggers speak for the majority of Iraq anyway, as Iraq will "elect" a theocracy on explo...errr election day in Iraq. The most entertaining part of this story was the National Review article in which the writer admitted she enjoyed "poking small animals with sharp sticks."
A quick aside, I've never been much for older women, but Barbara Boxer is suddenly very attractive this morn.
I dont understand the outrage. It can't be for "outing" the Iraqis, the Wall Street Journal also published the names.
No, it's not the 'outing' of the Iraqis -- their names have been published. The problem is giving credence to the baseless rumors in a high prominent publication. Every time the rumors have been 'republished', they've been given wider circulation. They started in a very obscure corner of the web (Martini Republic), reached a wider audience when Juan Cole quoted them on his site, and have now reached a MUCH wider audience now that they've been published in 'the paper of record' (and, as a result of that article, have been picked up by the BBC).
And its not like the Iraqi bloggers speak for the majority of Iraq anyway
In what conceivable way is THAT relevant? Because they are not widely known or leading Iraqi politicians, it's OK to imply that they are CIA agents thereby putting their lives in greater danger (above and beyond that involved with being pro-democracy)?
A quick aside, I've never been much for older women, but Barbara Boxer is suddenly very attractive this morn.
That is *exactly* the problem. The Iraq The Model brothers are risking their lives and the lives of all their family members to stand for office and work for democracy. But to you this is really interesting only insofar as it affects domestic US politics. IraqTheModel is good for Bush and bad for the Dems -- suggesting they are are CIA stooges (whether or not there is ANY reason to think it's true) is bad for Bush and therefore good for Dems. Aaargh!
I have to say, though, that I am encouraged by signs of some on the left actually starting to 'get' what's at stake. For example:
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003117.html
No, it's not the 'outing' of the Iraqis -- their names have been published. The problem is giving credence to the baseless rumors in a high prominent publication.
I read the article. First I assume the blogger was willing to let his name be used. If he judged the situation to be safe then he should make the call. Unless you have evidence that the NY Times ignored a request by him not to use his real name you should just shut up and stop making assumptions.
Second, I found the article an interesting slice of a blog niche that I wasn't aware of (I did read Riverbend just once). Any rational person who read the article would have come away concluding that the CIA conspiracy theories were pure nonesense...especially after the reporter located the blogger and reported that he was a real person who really believed in both the invasion & creating democracy in Iraq.
Yes Boonton, it's good to know that all the rational people out there who actually read the article won't kill the brothers because they think they're agents of the CIA.
According to the article the brothers took a trip to DC to visit Bush that was covered by the Washington Post. How secretative could they have really been? The blogger split from his brothers because he thought that is what put them (and I guess him) in danger.
Again does anyone have any evidence that he asked for his true name not to be used? If not then there is no issue here.
How dare they use those names of those bloggers!
SHOCKING! I TELL YOU! SHOCKING!
Whoever wrote that article, er, press release, should be punished for releasing the names of Ali Fadhil and Mohammed Fadhil as the bloggers of IraqTheModel.
I'm waiting for the anger to come down on Ali Fadhil and Mohammed Fadhil. HOW DARE THEY RELEASE THEIR OWN NAMES! DON'T THEY KNOW THE DANGER THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN!
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2004/12/some-corrections.html
OH GOD! THEY PUBLISHED IT ON THE INTERNETS ALSO!
In the article, Ali indicates that he believed his family was endangered when press accounts of his fellow bloggers' trip got translated in the Arabic press. Moreover, two of them are running for office in Iraq. Perhaps some of the commenters above are unaware that terrorists are targeting political candidates for murder in an attempt to disrupt the coming election.
The Boxer story failed to convey how completely baseless this conspiracy theory was. Ali has made his opinion of the Boxer piece known, as has Mohammed.
Those who are pretending it's about publishing their names, as opposed to recirculating a baseless accusation from the tinfoil hat crowd that these Iraqis are CIA plants (which would be a nice pretense for some terrorist to murder them or their families) seem to be missing the basic point. It's very easy for people not running for office in the middle of a war zone to opine that the Boxer piece is not dangerous.
"Those who are pretending it's about publishing their names,...."
Ohhh please, then why did this entire thread get started with a post alleging that the NY Times was putting their lives in danger. I'll quote what Jane wrote again:
"That's pretty shocking, given that the article makes it pretty clear that their lives are in danger"
So now we are back to the whole CIA thing again. Well the article was about the dynamics of the blogosphere and anyone who read it got a taste of what was being alleged by 'Iraq the Model''s critical bloggers. No reasonable person who read the article would have found the 'tin-foil hat' accusations convincing but it was essential to know about them to understand the story of this one little blog.
Hi, http://www.dogapparel.mypetdogs.com is a good online information for different dog apparels like sweater, t-shirt and etc... ...
Comments are Closed.