Yes, its true, Juan Cole wants to win 2008 Weblog Awards competition–and he is currently in the lead. Best of luck to him.
Martin Kramer has a different take. He cites simple factual problems that undo Cole’s analysis. My two favorites deal with confused chronologies and dramatic assertions based on faulty data:
Cole claimed that Mohammed Atta to join what became the 9-11 attacks by his fury at seeing Israeli jets bomb Cana. His evidence? Atta’s 1996 will, allegedly inspired by that Israeli air strike at Cana. Small problem as Kramer explains: “Actually, Atta’s will was dated April 11, 1996—one week before the Qana tragedy, on April 18. We don’t know for certain why he made it, but it cannot be because he witnessed any footage from Qana, which was still in the future.”
Earlier, Cole claimed the September attacks were by an Israeli assault on a refugee camp near Jenin. Again, Kramer spots the error: ” Israel’s Jenin operation took place seven months after 9/11.”
Too often a simple fact is the pebble in the shoe that topples the giant claim. If this is the stuff that earns a Weblog Award, well, then the award is not worth much. It simply becomes a badge to be won by whatever side can drive the biggst mob onto the field. Is that really where Weblog Awards wants to go?
PJM Home
Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror
Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror
The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share Is the Fool’s Gold of Business
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
3 Comments
1. Anton:Where do I go to vote against him?
Jan 22, 2009 - 10:22 am 2. Rubicon:When it comes to “awards” I have lost any & all interest. The reality is, many of these awards are simply pat on the back sessions by peers who are looking for their own pat on the back award by their peers. How could Al Gore get a Nobel “peace” Prize, for his environmental activism? His intention to deny people economic productivity capabilities by restricting carbon emissions, means many poor & under or un-developed nations, will suffer dramatically. That will surely lead to conflicts & eventually wars. Watching the Hollywood set at their “awards” ceremonies, is an example of narcissistic pathetic-ness if there ever was one. Actors who have set up awards ceremonies so other actors could get awards for performances their actor peers have decided are terrific, even as the public totally ignores their abysmal efforts to “act.” Its a we love you, you should love us, we are terrific, you are terrific session that is another way for has-beens, wannabes, & will-never-make-its, to try to keep their faces in from of cameras, as they look for more work to be overpaid to do! The Pulitzer Prize used to mean objective & honest journalism. Today, its a trophy for those who are politically correct & who have boorishly sidled up to other like minded politically motivated left wing socialist activists. These are the folks who want to tell you what to do, as they do whatever they want. Its the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd. Their smug condescension is a result of too many people telling them how terrific they are, rather than being honest with them & telling them they are expressing & acting out their own moral & intellectual dishonesty.
Jan 23, 2009 - 3:47 pm 3. ashok:There are a number of excellent, thoughtful, interesting blogs that may have factual mistakes, but nothing like the brazen dishonesty of Juan Cole.
Problem: no one is interested in those blogs. The audience for blogs is terrible: even if they’re educated, they act like idiots online. Leftist blogs thrive on manufactured rage, “facts” are utterly unnecessary.
But conservative blogs are pretty bad, too. Even if factually correct, notice how conservative bloggers write about the same things the same way over and over again. It’s one thing to keep track of a situation and not change one’s principle, it’s another thing to beat a dead horse and not have an audience open-minded enough to demand anything better or different.
Jan 27, 2009 - 3:07 am