29 Comments

1. ed:

Alright, the one thing i don’t get is Judy Miller’s involvement. How does her situation with the WMD reporting differ at all from CBS’s memo problem? That same memo problem that bloggers pounced on and you took as inspiration for this new endeavour. She reported bad information without checking it’s status and clammed up for three years when she got called out on it. Isn’t that what Rather did? Isn’t that what this project is trying to avoid?

Nov 15, 2005 - 5:17 pm 2. Mike_Nargizian:

DAILY SCORECARD

LEFTIST MOONBATS ‘MOURN’ ARAFAT THE MAN AND THE “UNFAIR” HISTORICAL RECORD – WHILE NADZ EVISCERATES THEM AND THE ARARISH

It’s been over a year since Yasser Arafat has died, and I’m not mourning. The man who allowed Hamas to ruin our chances of peace with the Israelis, who stifled dissent and democracy, who failed repeatedly to get that elusive peace deal, does not deserve any credit. He has done us more harm than good…..

Let’s put it this way – Arafat had no vision…. Arafat believed in political power, cronies and personal profit – he never cared enough about peace and freedom……..

Ghandi used non-violence from day 1, and stuck to it. If we Palestinians had used passive resistance and non-violence, you can bet the situation would be different now. We’d probably have a state. Arafat, however, never stopped being a terrorist. Violence for him was just another tool for negociation, a lever to use when it suited him.

At Jews Sans Frontieres Mark Elf

Unlike the tributes to Yitzhak Rabin, there’s been comparatively little in the media about the anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat.

Here’s an article on the man and the myth by Karma Nabulsi in the Guardian…. [...]

Regarding the myth, Nabulsi feels that only the negative aspects took root.

some cheering while a democratically elected leader was imprisoned for years and slowly killed…

She believes that a positive myth will replace the negative one:

stood for a just peace, based on a historic compromise. He believed in international law, in a two-state solution

His legitimacy came from more than the fact that he was democratically elected:

Ha’aretz reports that the Palestinians are seeking a UN inquiry into Arafat’s death, arguing that he was poisoned by Israel.

Nov 15, 2005 - 5:45 pm 3. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

Mazel tov!

Jamie Irons

Nov 15, 2005 - 5:51 pm 4. PJ:

Bon chance!

Nov 15, 2005 - 6:12 pm 5. Terrye:

Break a leg!!!

Nov 15, 2005 - 6:25 pm 6. Skookumchuk:

Wonderful. I wish you guys every success.

Nov 15, 2005 - 6:47 pm 7. Charlie (Colorado):

Ed, I would suspect that to be because you’re a cretin. However, I will note that you’re having the same trouble the “Bush lied” people have: distinguishing between believing something that turns out to be questionable isn’t the same thing as lying, and believing WMD intelligence that doesn’t come out to be obviously true isn’t the same thing as accepting obvious forgeries.

Nov 15, 2005 - 7:01 pm 8. Wallace:

Congratulations…..the big day is finally here! All the best wishes for success. Thanks for the invitation….wish I could be there.

Nov 15, 2005 - 7:58 pm 9. ed:

A cretin? Come on. I’m not the one who comes on calling people idiots because they don’t see things through your warped prism. She based her reports on the testimony of people who were obviously full of it. Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri was bogus. The Iraqi scientist that supposedly knew where chemical weapons precursors were hidden was bogus as well. How is that any different than basing a report on a bogus memo. She never checked these poeple out. Rather didn’t either.

Nov 15, 2005 - 7:59 pm 10. Eric Deamer:

I check in here once in awhile to see exactly how far along things have gotten. Now, I have no idea of the larger context or history but the first thing I see is that someone is called literally a “cretin” for raising a particularly legitimate question. It’s even worse than I thought.

Getting all your news and media from those of a certain ideology creates just as much of an echo chamber effect even if that ideology is at odds with that of the “MSM”.

There’s still hope though. You can seek out other sources. Talk to different people. Try to actually listen and read with an open mind.

And Roger, it looks unseemly to become more thin-skinned as you become more powerful. You’re putting together a bunch of blogs, literally all of them conservative as far as I can tell (I mean by conventional contemporary definitions, so we don’t get caught up in your linguistic games), hence “conservative blog kingpin”. If the shoe fits, wear it. Ideally with some grace. And I hope you’re not defending Judith Miller’s egregious reporting and ridiculous grandstanding merely because she seems to have fucked up in a way which supported the Iraq war, which I support like you. There is plenty to take issue with in her behavior regardless of your stance. Her most astute critic has been Jack Shafer, who supported the invasion.

Ed’s point is actually a very astute one. Miller is like Rather (though less egeregious), credulously passing on bad information and standing by it long after the fact, maybe because of her biases, that they happen to line up with yours doesn’t excuse it.

Anyway I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, I eagerly await seeing what your new Pellegrino buddy has to say for herself and I sincerely hope there’s an open question and answer period, but most of all I look forward to the booze and food later.

For everyone else. If you want to unleash the usual bile reserved for a dissident here feel free, but I won’t be reading it. Good night all.

Nov 15, 2005 - 9:52 pm 11. Patrick Tyson:

Hey, Charlie!

Seeing a reference recently and elsewhere to Seneca the Younger, I was reminded that Robert Graves included his translation of Seneca’s The Pumpkinification of Claudius, A Satire in Prose and Verse at the end of Claudius the God with a Sequel that begins…

Seneca was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65 at Nero’s orders. He survived most of the other characters in this story.

…and ends…

In A.D. 69, a year of anarchy and civil war, there were four successive Emperors; namely, Galba, Otho, Aulus Vitellius and Vespasian. Vespasian ruled benevolently and founded the Flavian dynasty. The Republic was never restored.

I knew all that, but it’s been years since I read any Seneca the Younger (aside from those blog entries elsewhere.) But back to you. For some reason I thought of you during this exchange:

Claudius said: “Yes, why did he do it? I want to know why. Really, now, his own sister!”

“—Look it up in the book, stupid! Don’t you know that you may sleep with your half-sister at Athens, and that at Alexandria it can be a whole one?”

“Well, at Rome,” said Claudius, “mice are just mice. They lick meal….”

“—Is this drawing master teaching us to improve our curves? Why, he doesn’t even know what goes on in his own bedroom.”

“—And now he’s ‘conning the secret realms of sky’ and wanting to be a God.”

“—A God, eh? I suppose he isn’t satisfied with his temple in Britain where the savages worship him and humbly pray ‘Almighty Fool, have mercy upon us!’”

Maybe it’s all the —es.

For myself, I think having Judith Miller keynote the launch of an “open source” enterprise is a great marketing move and a smile.

I’ve had enough of scheming and messing around with jerks

My car is parked outside, I’m afraid it doesn’t work

I’m looking for a partner, someone who gets things fixed

Ask yourself this question: Do you want to be rich?

Again and again…best of luck, Roger.

Nov 15, 2005 - 10:00 pm 12. Jeff G:

I had a great first night. Looking forward to tomorrow!

Nov 15, 2005 - 10:17 pm 13. ex-democrat:

eric dreamer comes in, farts, and then leaves.

Nov 15, 2005 - 10:41 pm 14. Kevin P:

Eric:

The only problem with calling Roger the “conservative blog kingpin” is that Roger, even under “current definitions”, is hardly a conservative. He is for the Iraq War and he is pro-Israel. He is also pro gay marriage. He is pro choice. His distaste for Ashcroft was open and loud. His idea that the end of monotheism would more then likely be positive hardly puts him into the heart of conservative world.

In fact, other the the War and Israel (which used to be the signal that one was dealing with a liberal but those days seemed to have passed) Roger would be considered liberal by most objective observers. I don’t know you so I will not attach this observation to you but the notion by some on the left that anyone who supports the war is automatically conservative seems rather shallow. Roger voted for Bush because he couldn’t find a liberal who he trusted with the security of the nation. As a registered independent conservative I can tell you that I have been reading Roger for a while and I know that many, if not the majority, of the positions that Roger has given his opinion in writing are the opposite of what many conservatives hold dear.

Is there a large contigent of conservatives on his new venture? Yes. But if you think that Roger is holding some sort of idealogy litmus test that weeds out everyone who doesn’t toe the party line I think Roger and his new partners will show you, that unlike his MSM counterparts, talent,honesty and orginality will be more important then party dogma.

Good Luck Roger!

Nov 15, 2005 - 10:45 pm 15. mythusmage:

Lair is a part of this, and people are bitching about Judith Miller.

Nov 15, 2005 - 11:15 pm 16. Alexandra von Maltzan:

Trackback by All Things Beautiful Blogging To Differ at Pajamas OSM Media

Nov 16, 2005 - 1:42 am 17. Alexandra von Maltzan:

Congratulations Roger, check the photograph in my post above…I hope you like it.

Nov 16, 2005 - 1:46 am 18. Mike_Nargizian:

I can’t get enough of Sandmonkey. This kid is like the greatest!

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/11/true-colors.html

True colors

Hezballah is showing its true colors by backing up Syria in Lebanon, which the other lebanese factions warn will ruin the national unity. What brought on the disagreement? Well… http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=192612

During a meeting on Thursday, the cabinet condemned Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s remarks against Siniora and Sa’ad Al Hariri.

Five ministers representing the Shiite Hezbollah Party and Amal Movement walked out of the Cabinet meeting, saying that they need more time to study the speech before issuing an official statement. Sources from the party said “it is not comfortable with the reaction of the cabinet which condemned Bashar”.

A source said: “Siniora and the Cabinet should focus on the positive side of Bashar’s speech, during which Syria’s willingness to cooperate with the UN Commission probing the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was expressed.”

….. That’s like a date rapist saying to its victim: “Ignore how i raped you and please just focus on the positive side of the date, the one where I took you out and bought you drinks.”

Hezballah is stupid.

Nov 16, 2005 - 1:47 am 19. Terrye:

Pajamas media is not supposed to be ideological, that is the point.

Besides, Judith Miller does not belong in the same category with Mary Mapes.

When Miller started doing most of her work in the late 90’s on Saddam and his weapons etc, she had sources like Richard Clarke who were supposed to know what they were talking about.

The whole Plame/Wilson charade is a farce anyway.

he said.. she ssid.. I said.. they said…..

Nov 16, 2005 - 3:04 am 20. ed:

I said nothing of the whole Wilson/Plame affair her bad WMD reporting has zero to do with the CIA investigation as far as this goes. She reported bad information based on the testimony of shady witnesses and needed her paper to apologize on her behalf. RING A BELL?

Nov 16, 2005 - 7:06 am 21. Mark Poling:

Hey Ed, here’s some more shady characters pedling the WMD lie, on camera no less:

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video

Nov 16, 2005 - 8:19 am 22. Michael_B:

Is it possible ed and ED are as dull witted and shortsighted as they appear to be, or simply cretinous? Wouldn’t bother to note this, but since the facile, highly presumptive smear of Miller is involved a reasonable comment is warranted and it’s almost impossible to imagine a third alternative, beyond cretinous or dull witted.

Equivocating the consciously mendacious Rather/Mapes scenario with the voluminously documented WMD intelligence (concerning which Miller was but a reporter, not a principle intelligence officer or conduit) very much begs the question of ED’s and ed’s motive in attempting to forward the scenarios as being similar, much less equivolent. If ed’s and ED’s motive is a benign dull wittedness, they might consider, as analogy, the still developing Wilson/Plame “news event”. In other words ed’s and ED’s greatly foreshortened analysis and conclusions, even if primarily motivated by a vapid dull wittedness, evidence a cretinous quality despite their protests.

No doubt, for some presumptively smearing someone is great fun. However the timely fact-checking and other corroborative tools afforded by new media makes it more difficult to enjoy this pasttime.

Nov 16, 2005 - 12:52 pm 23. ed:

Not sure if you were attempting English there, but a simple grammar check would have fixed most of the errors in that comment. However, a couple of additional corrections:

“concerning which miller was but a reporter, not a principle intelligence officer or conduit.”

They both gather evidence and report. How are the generalities of Rather’s job at 60 minutes any different than Miller’s at the Times? They both relied on bad sources and refused to admit their mistakes? What part of Rather’s role am I missing?

Then you say this: “If ed’s and ED’s motive is a benign dull wittedness, they might consider, as analogy, the still developing Wilson/Plame ‘news event’”. Do you know what “analogy” means? In what way is that an analogy (A comparison based on similarity, in some respects, between things that are otherwise dissimilar)?

Also in what way did I smear Miller? You never actually give any evidence. I cited two sources she relied on that turned out to be false. Three years later, Miller herself admits they were false. That’s pretty good corroboration and evidence that I was not attempting a smear.

Nov 16, 2005 - 4:20 pm 24. Michael_B:

ed, in this case I was intentionally opaque since you and ED (Eric Deamer) seem to be repeating talking points in lieu of thinking. To be more direct in a couple of areas:

Firstly, one of the parallels within the analogy. In both instances we still don’t know the entirety of the stories. Regardless, you and Eric Deamer are commenting with a sense of finality. For example, within the WMD story, we still don’t know many of the sources and the exact details of the conversations, how they mutually confirmed one another, etc.

Secondly, on the very day you made your first comment in this thread a recent Judith Miller interview was published here, in part commenting on the WMD issue where she indicates:

“You know, first of all … I’m not going to be insulted by your question [it was a hostile interview], but I think that the sources that I relied on were reliable. They had been reliable in the past. I’m not going to discuss who they were, though many of them were actually identified by name in my stories. Moreover, those stories were heavily edited. They just didn’t dance their way into the New York Times. As the editor’s note acknowledged, everybody’s wrong if your sources are wrong.”

And yet, you and Eric Deamer genuinely don’t comprehend the difference between the WMD story in 2002/03 and the Rather/Mapes fabrication. The latter concerning a conscious act of mendacity and continues to this day with various well publicized denials. By contrast, literally no mendacity whatsoever has been revealed in the Miller case and no denials either.

Nov 17, 2005 - 8:00 am 25. Mark Poling:

Short form of this whole story for ed and ED:

Saddam at some point decided the credible threat of having WMDs was cheaper than having WMDs.

Shorter form still: He bluffed.

It was a good bluff.

Lots of people in power before and after 2000 believed him. It was, in fact, the international consensus. (Damn, when will we learn to stop listening to the International Community…)

Judith Miller reported on what the believers believed.

This Administration called the bluff instead of folding.

Saddam lost.

And this is like the Mapes Memo situation, how?

Well, in both cases the parties bluffing (lying, whatever) got badly burned. In both cases, collateral damage happened.

I’d call Miller’s career collateral damage. Which is a shame, because I don’t get the impression she reported anything in bad faith. But then, I’ve not been following this story with a magnifying glass because, well, the important part of it happened in 2003, and I’m currently more interested in 2006.

Mapes, since she is still peddling the memos as being legit, strikes me as a different class of tragedy. (You know, the kind where the protagonist deserves what she got). I will be following, because her story is one that keeps being important, to wit: an influential member of the press who believes effecting outcomes is more important than being truthful.

We deserve an aggressive press corps. We don’t deserve one that thinks it has the right to bend or break the truth in service of “a good cause”. Is the difference so hard to see?

Nov 17, 2005 - 12:31 pm 26. ed:

I don’t believe that Rather was reporting in bad faith either. He merely reported what the believers believed without critically examining his evidence. Pretty similar situation. As for Mapes current situation, I am not defending her. I merely stated that one of Roger’s inspirations for this project was the blog reporting on the Rather story. It’s a bit odd to have Miller as your keynote/not keynote speaker seeing as her situation was not all that different.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:00 pm 27. Mark Poling:

ed, you persist in a category error. Miller’s problem was that you couldn’t find a credible source who didn’t think Iraq was up to it’s cojones in WMD programs. Mapes couldn’t find a credible source to back up her “evidence”.

Equating the two is disingenuous, at best.

Nov 17, 2005 - 6:06 pm 28. ed:

I am asserting that neither Miller or Mapes tried very hard. Miller was citing specific instances based on the word of individuals who lacked credibility and never confirmed their testimony with corroborating witnesses. Mapes did the same exact thing. Miller being unable to find poeple who didn’t think Iraq had WMDs is irrelevant to the comparison. A lot of folks thought Bush was lying about his service as well. What matters is Miller’s reporting on specific incidents based on bad witnesses, not the overall question of whether or not Saddam had nukes.

Nov 18, 2005 - 10:08 am 29. Mark Poling:

As I recall, Mapes’ primary sources were a dead guy (no, wait, that was forged) and a guy who tends to froth (literally) under stress.

I repeat, the equation of the two situations is absurd or mendacious. But we keep learning neither should get in the way of a good political talking point…

Nov 18, 2005 - 12:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: