Maliki's Endorsement and the American Press
Jonathan Chait:
Maliki's Endorsement: The fact that Iraq's prime Minister has endorsed, by name, Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from his country in 16 months is a huge, huge deal.... How can John McCain paint Obama's plan as wildly naive or irresponsible when the Iraqi government favors it too? The Bush administration and the McCain campaign have replied by suggesting that Maliki doesn't really want an American withdrawal, he's just saying it for domestic political purposes. Maybe so. But that just underscores the point. If Maliki has to publicly favor American withdrawal, this shows that the Iraqi polity is not going to stand for an extended occupation....
[T]he paucity of coverage of these remarks is inexplicable. The big newspapers have given this story a paragraph at most. Unbelievably, [Mark Halperin's] The Page [at Time magazine] gave this headline to Maliki's walkback: "Maliki Clarifies Seemingly Pro-Obama Remarks."
Seemingly? It was a direct endorsement of the idea. And, for that matter, Clarifies? There was no attempt to clarify, only to muddy the waters to minimize the embarassment to President Bush and his allies.
Ben Smith explains this pretty well:
It's almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn't detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he's really saying he wishes he hadn't said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone. The Iraqi Prime Minister's vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that. It came, as Mike Allen notes, 18 hours later, and at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, a little late for Sunday papers; his staff also seems, Der Spiegel reports, not to have contested Iraqi reporting of the quote, even in the "government-affiliated" Iraqi press. The notion this was a misquote also bumps up against Der Spiegel's standing by its reporting, and providing a long, detailed transcript.
Exactly right. The Page's credulousness about the walkback is an embarrassment.
Why does Mark Halperin still have a job? Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?
Sadly, I wonder if Halperin is evidence Freud may have had a point regarding Oedipus. It's sort of a Darth vs. Luke thing, but in reverse. Maybe it's like George II vs George I. The dumber son needs to piss all over the father's accomplishments to prove the son deserves mom more.
It seems to be a trend amongst generations, I can only thank god I didn't have the opportunity to piss on my dad's accomplishments. What are you doing to your father's legacy?
Posted by: jerry | July 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM
why does chait think this kind of thing is inexplicable? it it totally consistent with normative behavior in the media, and therefore can be explained (thank you occam) as a simple response by cossacks working for the czars....
Posted by: howard | July 21, 2008 at 07:57 AM
Today's NYTimes headline is "Comment Stings Iraqi Leader on Eve of Obama Visit".
Well, we've all read the comment and it contains no poison-tipped barb, so what or who did the stinging?
Presumably, the American's "stung" Maliki over the comment. Let's see. Diplomatic back and forth...US officials express surprise & confusion...Iraqi spokesman says comment was misinterpreted...no contact b/t Maliki and US directly...Hey, where's the sting?
So, in the headline, the NYTimes is basically playing the role of the teacher's pet on the courtyard saying to Maliki "Oooh, you're gonna be in trouble" even though the teacher (the Pentagon and Bush admin.) haven't disciplined him yet. The NYTimes is more royalist that the king!
Why read so much conscious intent into the headline? Because it bears information that is entirely tangential to the story. The story does not scream out "Maliki Stung!", that's an entirely grafted concept.
Quite revealing, though nothing new. Vintage death spiral watch.
Posted by: tom f | July 21, 2008 at 08:27 AM
"Why does Mark Halperin still have a job?"
Because the writer does a fine job, and even if the writer struggles now and then there is no reason to fire a person who cares so for what they are doing. Writing is difficult, the complaint here is that the writer is not writing what is wished and that is only a problem for the reader.
Posted by: anne | July 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Apart from the issue of press integrity is the issue of military objectivity.
Why is it the role of CENTCOM to refute or clarify the remarks of the PM of Iraq because they embarrass Republicans? Why should my taxpayer dollars fund that operation?
I allow that the military will have message handlers to paint the military mission in a positive light. Why must the same operation attempt to overrule the government in the occupied nation, in order to boost partisan ends?
Posted by: Alan | July 21, 2008 at 06:11 PM