Saturday, February 05, 2005
Jordan Accuser Going Soft?
Rony Abovitz, the man that broke the news of Eason Jordan's abominable utterances, posts today asking bloggers to make sure they are being even-handed and fair about the story. Hugh Hewitt posts a short form response to the heart of Abovitz discussion.
I find Abovitz's cry for even-handedness with regards to Jordan a little disingenuous in light of the journalistic lynching that is currently be visited upon Marine Corps General Mattis. For those just catching up to this story, General James Mattis recently spoke out about the fact that he finds pleasure in the justice our military delivers when it kills real bad guys.
Stones Cry Out and Dawn's Early Light take a look at the stark contrasts in the coverage of the statements by Jordan and Mattis.
The conclusion one must draw from comparing these stories is that political correctness only runs one way. Utterances which those on the left find objectional are to be condemned at every turn. Yet those that the right find objectional must be carefully examined for full context and speaker's intention until sufficient time has past for any criticism to be effective.
And that Mr. Abovitz is precisely the point. Why do right-wing bloggers swarm in this fashion? Because for years we have been treated to MSM ganging up on anyone deemed politically incorrect. From Reagan's evil empire to Bob Knight to Bush's axis of evil, right-wing utterances found to be politically incorrect are denounced without examination.
And yet, as right-wing bloggers swarm we provide ourselves with far more double-checking and opposition than is possible in the MSM. My tiny little no-traffic blog has drawn more than one response on this issue, and I have been challenged.
It really is a simple question Mr. Abovitz. Either Jordan said what you reported, or he did not. Odds are he did -- since you reported it, I assume you have to admit it. We of the swarm find the utterance objectional, and therefore find that it requires vigous response.
Mr. Abovitz, You ask the question:
What will happen if a soldier steps forward and speaks his heart, or a journalist on the ground risks his or her life and admits that there is fire to the smoke.
I'll tell you what will happen! The individual or individuals responsible for such reprehensible behavior within our military would be found, tried, and appropriately punished. Bottom line is this, even if there were some truth to Mr. Jordan's ugly assertion, there is no way, no way it is the policy of the United States military.
You see there really is no question of even-handedness here. No one in the swarm is saying that it is acceptable to shoot journalists. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable to make unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the US military, and then be allowed to ride off into the night.
I find Abovitz's cry for even-handedness with regards to Jordan a little disingenuous in light of the journalistic lynching that is currently be visited upon Marine Corps General Mattis. For those just catching up to this story, General James Mattis recently spoke out about the fact that he finds pleasure in the justice our military delivers when it kills real bad guys.
Stones Cry Out and Dawn's Early Light take a look at the stark contrasts in the coverage of the statements by Jordan and Mattis.
The conclusion one must draw from comparing these stories is that political correctness only runs one way. Utterances which those on the left find objectional are to be condemned at every turn. Yet those that the right find objectional must be carefully examined for full context and speaker's intention until sufficient time has past for any criticism to be effective.
And that Mr. Abovitz is precisely the point. Why do right-wing bloggers swarm in this fashion? Because for years we have been treated to MSM ganging up on anyone deemed politically incorrect. From Reagan's evil empire to Bob Knight to Bush's axis of evil, right-wing utterances found to be politically incorrect are denounced without examination.
And yet, as right-wing bloggers swarm we provide ourselves with far more double-checking and opposition than is possible in the MSM. My tiny little no-traffic blog has drawn more than one response on this issue, and I have been challenged.
It really is a simple question Mr. Abovitz. Either Jordan said what you reported, or he did not. Odds are he did -- since you reported it, I assume you have to admit it. We of the swarm find the utterance objectional, and therefore find that it requires vigous response.
Mr. Abovitz, You ask the question:
What will happen if a soldier steps forward and speaks his heart, or a journalist on the ground risks his or her life and admits that there is fire to the smoke.
I'll tell you what will happen! The individual or individuals responsible for such reprehensible behavior within our military would be found, tried, and appropriately punished. Bottom line is this, even if there were some truth to Mr. Jordan's ugly assertion, there is no way, no way it is the policy of the United States military.
You see there really is no question of even-handedness here. No one in the swarm is saying that it is acceptable to shoot journalists. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable to make unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of the US military, and then be allowed to ride off into the night.
