I had quite a few responses to yesterday’s dissection of that recent 60 Minutes report on the US military role in the town of Tal Afar in Iraq. Most were positive although, one from a former editor of mine indignantly denounced me as a “sexist pig” for running the official CBS “head shot” of correspondent Lara Logan in my blog, (There is also a US Army picture of Colonel H.R. McMaster who hosted Ms. Logan in the story I questioned.)

Jennette Friedman, never one to mince words, lashed out in CAPS;

”YOU SEXIST PIG

“would you run your puss in a story? the only reason you ran her photo is cause she’s a babe. shame on you”

As readers of the blog know, I said clearly that what Logan looks like is not important; its what she does. But it was CBS, not me, that is publicizing the headshot and is pushing the “look. “

Logan has not responded to me, but as it turns out, she was interviewed on CNN by the Washington Post’s Howie Kutz on Sunday and asked about the critics. I saw her comments on the Public Eye Blog that CBS News produces and for which I have written in the past. I called this latest critique of 60 Minutes to their attention, with no response. I am not sure if she was asked about her report from Tal Afar.

Here’s a Public Eye report on that program with some of Logan’s comments. Interestingly, the piece begins, “Debate over media coverage of the war in Iraq is all the rage these days.” Isn’t that precious? When war critics raised questions abut the coverage, they were largely ignored. Now that the President and the right are criticizing the lack of “good news,” suddenly “debate over media coverage is the rage these days.” This shows whose opinions they respond to. In this story, Lara Logan also confirms that the US media relies on the US military for protection which may be understandable, but it also fuels suspicion.

WHAT LARA LOGAN SAYS

The story begins:

“…increasingly reporters are firing back at critics. A fighting attitude was on display on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program yesterday which featured CBS correspondent Lara Logan from Iraq. Here’s part of what she had to say to critics who claim reporters don’t venture out of their hotels to see firsthand what’s happening in Iraq.

LOGAN: “I don’t know any journalist that wants to just sit in a hotel room in Iraq. Does anybody understand that for us, we used to be able to drive to Ramadi, we used to drive to Falluja, we used to drive to Najaf. We could travel all over this country without having to fly in military helicopters.

“That’s the only way we can move around here. So, it’s when the military can accommodate us, if the military can accommodate us, then we can go out and see.

“I have been out with Iraqi security forces over and over again. And you know what? When Bob Woodruff was out with Iraqi security forces and he was injured, the first thing that people were asking was, oh, was he being responsible by placing himself in this position with Iraqi forces? And they started to question his responsibility and integrity as a journalist.

“I mean, we just can’t win. I think it’s an outrage to point the finger at journalists and say that this is our fault. I really do. And I think it shows an abject lack of respect for any journalist that’s prepared to come to this country and risk their lives.”

UPI’s Pamela Hess and Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe echoed Logan’s sentiments. Host Howard Kurtz adds more voices in his Washington Post column this morning which demonstrates that reporters are increasingly willing to challenge their critics on the war..”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/27/publiceye/entry1441216.shtml

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

I support media freedom and support the right and necessity for journalists to cover the war. What is upsetting about Lara Logan’s argument is that it doesn’t seem to acknowledge that one can support media rights and also criticize media performance. I also have argued that media companies like CBS should support Reuters call for full investigations of the killing of journalists by the US military or anyone else.

GIVE LARA HER DUE

I have not seen all of her reporting and only focus on one story with a reference to another. As a rule I don’t criticize reporters who are doing their job, especially under war conditions, but the story I focused on was used by the Bush Administration to win support for the war. In that respect, the story was politicized and used as propaganda. I admire Logan’s courage and hard work, but feel that she, like the rest of us, has to be accountable for our work and the uses to which it is put.

I also recognize that she has many fans and admirers. This letter from Peter Baldwin was on the CBS blog:

”Lara Logan’s reporting has been the best of the best, and the legions of bloggers who click on to her reports are left in “shock and awe” at her objectivity, professionalism, and bravery. She shouldn’t listen to those Bushie whiners with there pathetic entreaties for everyone to come back into the Bush bubble and pretend that everything is hunky dory in Baghdad. America knows that a civil war is raging and there is not going to be a pretty ending to this insane Bush saga. We don’t see any pictures of our envious commander-in-chief in Iraq on balconies or leading the charge, and the Bush crowd knows it.”

“Conciergebra” wrote in too:

”Frankly, I have not seen Lara’s work, but I was thoroughly impressed with the clarity and conviction that she spoke with on CNN. I will be looking to her for the real story from Iraq. She displayed courage, confidence, and brilliance. Now that’s your Anchor Woman. I am a fan.”

A VIEW FROM CANADA

Ken Chevis writes from Toronto:

”Danny, you are to be congratulated for your dissertation on the subjects of Tel Afar and Col. McMaster. Great stuff. I have just finished reading Cobra II written by Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor. I urge all of your fans to get a copy of this very eye-opening book. If you think that the post-war efforts in Iraq are flawed, Messrs Gordon and Trainor lay out pre-war facts that border on the treasonous. In summary, Donald Rumsfeld and his hacks should be, at best, prosecuted for their actions or, at least, run out of Washington on a rail (or the barrel of a 155 howitzer). And add military-man-turned-political-sycophant General Tommy Franks to that action. If it is dangerous to have civilians like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith and Hadley meddling with, and second-guessing (they call it “oversight”) the military planners, it is downright poisonous to add incompetence to that equation. As ex-Canadian Air Force and sometime military history buff, it is my opinion that the planning fiasco for the Iraq war will be held up to future generations as a glaring example of civilian ego pre-empting and destroying military strategy.

Our “Military Editor” Joe Dunphy, a vet, who monitors the DOD comments:

“We have discussed McMaster and his book before. First, off, congratulations on a very good and thoughtful piece on the Iraq/McMaster situation. Very well done. The one thing I would remind you of is that McMaster’s evaluation of Vietnam was–THAT THE WAR WAS LOST AT THE VERY MOMENT THAT THE WRONG STRATEGY WAS SELECTED–by going in light.

“The Pentagon wanted maybe 600,000, and Johnson played politics as usual and went for a compromise–right down the middle–only war is a military matter, not a pork barrel deal over a highway. McMaster’s point: Once the bad decision was made, then every thing that flowed out of that decision was bad too, as a natural consequence of a bad decision.

“Dissector has made the same point before, but it is so essential that maybe we have to keep repeating it so that the historians won’t miss the major clues.

“BTW, the 3rd ID was superbly led and disciplined in the first round of our latest incursion. The armored scouts are a particularly hard charging part of the division–as they have to be. Well-led armored scouts are an absolutely awesome thing to behold–in conventional warfare. In this unconventional warfare, there isn’t enough of them to go around.

“This is not to take away from a truly fine piece. Kudos to the author. Personally, I would not be surprised if McMaster isn’t already on the fast-track for one of the really big posts–three or four stars. But the pole gets particularly slippery at that end of the political aspect of professional soldiering, and my experience is the most of the guys the troops are pulling for end up like Caesar on the Ides of March.”

Rahale writes from Upstate NY: “I like that DOD TV - how sad, but true.”

DXM:“Great report you did on Tel Afar. CBS should have done so well. The bastards! When they caved on Rather and Mapes, CBS became “history” as they say anyhow. I watched “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “The Manchurian (Carlyle Group) Candidate” (as background noise) yesterday”

RELATED: Bush Launches Massive Shock & Awe Offensive… Against U.S. Media By Peter Daou

”As the Bush administration’s Iraq fiasco spirals further out of control, a new phase of the war has begun: an all-out assault on the American media for simply reporting the news. The scope and audacity of this attack is breathtaking; on cue, a bevy of administration officials and rightwing talking heads has begun taking direct aim at the press, accusing reporters of fabricating the Iraq crisis”

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/3814

RUSSIAN ROLE IN IRAQ

Daniel Forbes writes about reports about Russsian intelligence given to Saddam:

In light of today’s articles on Russian aid to the Iraqi military, you might find interest in my analysis of a Russian blog providing seemingly real time strategic information to the Iraqis. It was published 4/18/03 by The Progressive Review.

“Find it at: < http://prorev.com/forbesrussia.htm >

“As I wrote, along with a lot of ballast and window-dressing, the site, Iraqwar.ru, featured “some stark go-here, do-this advice.” I interviewed the site’s purported front-man in Moscow and got his views on why Iraqwar.ru was eventually shut down. I also discussed some of the real-time intelligence the site offered.

“With Saddam Hussein’s command and control mechanisms sketchy at best, this sort of information can be seen as useful. My article drew no distinct conclusions, but did offer context and analysis. All part of my attempt to write meaningfully about the war while stuck in the States, nothing but a computer at hand.

CNN WAR COVERAGE QUESTIONED

Sorry, not sure who sent this but it is of interest:

”Kyra Phillips seems to be buying in to the government Kool Aid. This isn’t journalism. She sets the piece up and provides context that makes it appear that government claims of media not concentrating on the positive is a given truth. Bleah! Supporting the propaganda machine.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/24/lol.02.html

NY TIMES SCOOP TIED TO NEW BOOK (AGAIN)

Carol Kay argues:

“This is the second time in recent months that the New York Times finally reported on information it was sitting on that’s detrimental to the Bush administration–JUST BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF A BOOK that discloses the information the NYT is releasing.

“This time, the publication of Lawless World by Philippe Sands motivated the release by the Times on Monday of a memo documenting a White House meeting on January 31, 2003. At that meeting, George Bush and Tony Blair acknowledged their understanding that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but that would not stop their invasion plans. The other recent revelation, on December 16 of last year, let Americans know that our government is spying on us without obtaining warrants, information that the Times had withheld for more than a year. The information was published in December only, one suspects, because of the impending publication of Times reporter James Risen’s book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, which documents the illegal wiretapping.

“So now we know how to push the New York Times into publishing information that they’re withholding in deference to the administration–tell them someone’s about to publish a book on it!”