Sir, that’s not quite what I said

Regular readers know I generally do not respond to criticisms of this blog by other bloggers – or by anyone, really – I figure people are entitled to their opinions about me, as long as they’re quoting me accurately.

So I was not inclined to comment when Mr. Eric Boehlert wrote this column on December 11 in which he took several bloggers to task for daring to question the AP and for (gasp) actually minding the fact that the AP seemed disinterested in seeking out whether one of its headlined stories – concerning the burning alive of six human beings in Iraq, and the destruction of 4 mosques – was in fact true, and whether their oft-quoted source, one Capt. Jamil Hussein, was a real, and credible, source. Boehlert mostly quoted my words correctly and since I had already made a point of admitting (within an update to the post) that I had been “writing mad…and that’s never a good idea,” I figured I had left myself open to some criticism and was willing to overlook the fact that “mostly” is not “wholly.” And too, I figure people pretty much see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear, so I didn’t see the point in clarifying myself further.

However, Boehlert has written a second column on the subject and – while I have written very little further on that story (because I am not the “warblogger” he keeps calling me, and I generally write about what is interesting to me of a moment) – he’s still quoting my weeks-old post, and quoting it badly.

Writes Boehlert:

Warbloggers, stressing their contempt for the First Amendment — “The government needs to slap down the press,” urged The Anchoress — would prefer that information about the war in Iraq be disseminated only by the United States military, despite the fact the bipartisan Iraq Study Group just concluded that for years the U.S. military wildly underreported violence inside Iraq.

Well…that’s crap. First of all, what I wrote was, “The government needs to slap down the press and demand some accountability,” which is very different from “the government needs to slap down the press.”

I never have – and never would – advocate the government “shutting down” (or shutting up) the press, which is what, in leaving off half my sentence, Boehlert is implying. What I have advocated – endlessly – is the government keeping the press honest by saying to it, “oh yeah? Who are those ‘some’ you quote as ‘saying’ this? Where is your evidence to support this charge?”

And those are not unfair questions to ask the press…although lately they do seem to think it is. Really, they’re just checks and balances.

I think little of Boehlert’s charge that “warbloggers” (of which I am not one) have contempt for the first amendment (here is a hint, sir, the first amendment is all that allows bloggers -“war” or otherwise – to blog freely. Why would any blogger be contemptuous of it? The one statement bloggers writing from both the left and the right can agree on is at we adore the first amendment. Whether Nancy Pelosi feels the same way is actually the more interesting notion.)

I think even less of his idea that these so-called warbloggers “would prefer that information about the war in Iraq be disseminated only by the United States military,” which is insulting to both intelligent bloggers and the military, and I find odd his assertion that “The warbloggers’ strawman is built around the claim that if the AP hadn’t reported the Burned Alive story…then Americans would still gladly support the war in Iraq.”

When in heaven’s name did any of us ever utter such foolishness? What many of us have said that the press seems to be ignoring any positive news and working to destroy public support of the war on terror in all its forms – what with fauxtography issues and doubtful sources and the narrative that we only went to war because of Saddam’s WMD, and the whole Wilson/Plame/Niger Yellowcake non-story that aimed to cast doubt on America’s motives, and the NY Times’ completely inaccurate report on what 5 judges had to say about the NSA foreign wiretap program – but why go on, that’s just more of people seeing and hearing what they want to, right? Right, so let’s move on.

Boehlert wrote, “The warbloggers’ deliberate and daily condemnation of wartime correspondents as being cowardly, unethical, and un-American is likely unprecedented in American history…” Well, yeah, blogs are new and so pretty much everything connected with them is unprecedented. But as a lifelong avid consumer of news and news-by-products, my own opinion (and I suspect I am not alone) is that the press’ embrasure of “fake but accurate” truthiness and “prove-the-negative” accusation as the acceptable new journalistic standard is equally unprecedented.

Or, maybe not. Maybe the press has always operated exactly as it operates today, and we simply never noticed before.

For all Boehlert’s angry writing, this fact remains: The AP has reported that multiple mosques were burned down and multiple human beings were burned alive. Within the report, they quoted a source they’ve used often – so often that a blogger noticed and said, “hmmm, who is this guy, is he legit?” And that raised* other questions. If four mosques were burned, why are there no pictures of them? It Captain Jamil Hussein is a ready source of information why is this ubiquitous and apparently terrain-familiar fellow so hard to find? If six people were burned alive, where are the families keening for the cameras, or at least speaking to the press?

And that raises* other questions, too. If the AP values its credibility why does it offer nothing to back up its story beyond it’s statement that it “stands by” the thing? Why would it not seriously investigate and address the questions about this story in a comprehensive manner – one that either validates their story with something solid, or re-assures its readers that, having been misinformed, the AP is redoubling its efforts to present the news with accuracy. That would be the professional and mature way to address all of this – and it would quell the bellyaching of the bloggers, too.

Instead, the AP seems content to do some piecemeal track-covering and “let slip the dogs of war” upon those troublesome bloggers.

It seems odd to me. One of the things we all learned from both the Nixon and Clinton administrations is that “the coverup is worse than the the thing you tried to hush.” If the AP had simply looked into its own story with professional concern for accuracy, (instead of defensively closing ranks and trying to bite those who dared to question it) and then either verified it or corrected it, this whole matter would be dead and long-forgotten.

Instead, it just goes on and on…

Classical Values has a great piece on all this and Stephen Spruiell says Boehlert has a point, but he kills it all by himself through his own excesses.

*Note: [“Originally read “begs the question,” – admin]

Related: That famous “warblogger” Instapundit rounds things up with a raised eyebrow and remembers some stuff the press would probably prefer he forget.
Has Jamil Hussein been found? Did he or did he not talk to the AP?
Rick Moran concedes Iraq is dangerous/deadly and wonders if that means the news doesn’t have to be accurate.
Malkin stays on it and answers critics
Allahpundit seems annoyed by Boehlert’s characterization of bloggers
Eason Jordan draws no conclusions, yet
Seedubya says he’s been ‘Dowdified’ by Boehlert
Captains Quarters and Jules Crittenden supply balance.

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS: While you’re here, please look around. Today we’ve also got my last book recommendation of 2006, how Pat Conroy Bravely validates my father’s thoughts, thoughts on Whether Christmas needs to be moved, further thoughts on why Dehlia Gallagher or Lester Holt might have made CBS happier, some ruminations on It’s a Wonderful Life, what Vespers are like in Advent and links to two glorious Christmas pieces. Also, this very post has inspired a lesson in grammar you might find very interesting! Enjoy!