Paging Harry Levins

If the Post-Dispatch’s resident military matters writer is scanning the web, I hope he notes and comments on this take on Iraq by a group of grunts - two staff sergeants, three sergeants, and an Army specialist - in a NY Times oped. While there’s much in the article that should give everyone pause back here in the States, the assessment of the political situation is key:

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

Not that this is a surprise, but it’s still depressing: there is more clarity and realism in this political snapshot of Iraq than we have heard, ever, from the Commander in Chief. Or any presidential candidate, Democratic or Republican. Or anyone in Congress. The soldiers here offer no easy solutions: just a realistic view of where we are now, the better to proceed without illusions. If the larger news media retains an ounce of responsibility, this oped will get at least as much tub-thumping attention as did the questionable O’Hanlon/Pollack piece.

Not bloody likely, of course.

Addendum: Like I said: not bloody likely.

(HT Kevin Drum.)

One of these things just doesn’t belong here

Tell me…can you guess which one?

(Answer key for people who don’t read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch online.)

At the Post-Dispatch, Drudge equals social networking

You may have noted the recent LA Times piece on how news organizations scramble for notice by über-gossipmeister Matt Drudge.

Every day, journalists and media executives in newsrooms across the land hope they’ll have something that catches Drudge’s fancy — or, as he has put it, “raises my whiskers.” Most keep their fingers crossed that he’ll discover their articles on his own and link to them. Others are more proactive, sending anonymous e-mails or placing calls to him or his behind-the-scenes assistant.

It’s a reminder of the pathetic state of journalism in these United States - though not a surprise. That story came to mind today as I skimmed a piece at the website of my hometown paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I saw that the P-D had jumped on the social networking bandwagon, providing “Save & Share” links at the end of its stories. “Save & Share” is old news for such online papers as the Washington Post; the usual options for sharing stories include such venues as del.icio.us, Digg, reddit, Facebook, and the like.

All well and good, and all fairly innocuous, except that one of the “social networking” options provided by the P-D is, ah, “Drudge.” That is, it’s your standard “Send News Tips to Drudge” webform.

Now perhaps the term “social networking” is flexible enough that it can be stretched to include begging for notice on Drudge - or more specifically, encouraging your readers to beg for such notice on your behalf - but if so, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I have no idea how many newspapers engage in this practice, but even one is too many. It’s a clear example - not that we needed another one - of Drudge’s influence.

An observation by Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and quoted in the LA Times piece, comes to mind:

“The dirty little secret about Drudge,” Rosenstiel says, “is that he’s a gateway for conventional journalism.”

The Post-Dispatch makes that point clear enough.

Troop reduction or reshuffle?

Bad enough that this NYT headline - “Mixon: U.S. Troop Reduction Could Begin in Jan. 2008″ - is thoroughly misleading, as Maj. Gen. Mixon is describing only the possibility of reducing the number of troops assigned to northern Iraq, but reporter Ann Tyson seems strangely incurious about just where those reassigned troops are going.

Mixon’s announcement sounds like a preparation of the political ground for a surge within the surge; those “reduced” troops could well be bound for Baghdad, where the Iraqi police are less than trustworthy and bodies are filling the streets.

Your liberal media at work

ABC News takes pains to include Edwards haircut meme in article on celebrities and “their people.”

“Pop-pop”

I’ve come to the conclusion that Harry Levins is consciously and deliberately writing terrible, God-awful ledes in an attempt to force the editors at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to take him off the crime blotter beat. Nothing else makes sense.

Today’s entry (link now defunct):

6 wounded overnight on city streets

Some of the pop-pop noises overnight in St. Louis went beyond firecrackers.

Oh, the humanity.

More Levins gems here, here, and here.

“A strong sense of unease”

As a television viewer who stopped watching the CBS Evening News the moment Bob Schieffer made way for Katie Couric, I take considerable pleasure in learning that stomachs are queasy at the Tiffany Network:

The falloff of Katie Couric’s audience since her CBS Evening News debut “has provoked a strong sense of unease internally, according to newsroom employees. Many are alarmed that the program isn’t faring better, especially after a massive marketing push this summer that included radio spots and bus ads,” Matea Gold reports.

I hear that Kaopectate helps with that whole unease thing. Best to invest in Pfizer now, as CBS News execs will likely start ordering the stuff by the gross. Here’s an interesting note: Couric’s ratings now trail that of her predecessor, Schieffer, in his last week as anchor.

I’m guessing that Couric will probably do better as time goes on - but not by a lot, and not enough to escape third place. Too bad.

Technorati Tags: Katie Couric, CBS News, Television

Serendipity, sort of: New blog at the Post-Dispatch

A couple of weeks ago - and in the wake of a ranking of top blogging newspapers by NYC prof Jay Rosen and his grad students - I wrote my own quick critique of the blogging efforts of my town’s own daily, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I also posted a link to the critique at the P-D site, which was graciously published.

One point I raised toward the end of the piece was the absence of a relationship between the paper and the outside blogging community - that is, bloggers who aren’t P-D staffers. This is far removed from the lively example of the Oklahoman, which highlights the work of several “community bloggers” from the Oklahoma City area.

I did single out the seeming sole online exception at the P-D, the very funny and pointed work of Dana Loesch, a real live area blogger…except that her work was presented at the P-D site as a column (called, like her actual blog, Mamalogues) rather than a more interactive blog. Didn’t make sense…especially for a paper trying to make a name for itself, blog-wise…but there it was.

But as I said, that was a couple of weeks ago, and things have changed. About three days after I said my piece here, Loesch became a full-fledged P-D blogger in addition to being a columnist at the paper. The new effort is called Pop Mama, and it’s a welcome addition to the stable of bloggers there.

Of course, it would be the height of immodesty to suggest any connection between my critique and the addition of Loesch as a blogger at the newspaper. And I’m scared of heights.

Anyway: that’s one outside blogger at the P-D, which is one more than they had. It’s a start. I had promised to return to the topic of newspapers and outside bloggers, and I will in earnest whenever time allows.

Matt Blunt: Unfit for office

It’s always gratifying when a newspaper displays the courage of its convictions. Such a moment occurred with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s editorial denunciation of Matt Blunt, alleged Missouri secretary of state and candidate for governor. This blog has previously documented Blunt’s questionable tactics and poor stewardship of the election process in this state. Now the P-D slams Blunt for what should be, must be the final straw for fair-minded Missouri voters (link defunct; article now tucked behind the paper’s subscription wall):

In his public statements and official actions, Secretary of State Matt Blunt has undermined people’s confidence in the fairness of next week’s election in Missouri.

His latest comment, made this week, was that there is nothing illegal or even wrong about private voter registration groups failing to send in registration cards they had promised to mail to election officials. He was reacting to reports that a group funded by the Republican National Committee had destroyed Democratic voter registration forms in Nevada, Oregon and Minnesota.

Mr. Blunt seems not to have talked to his own general counsel, Terry Jarrett. Mr. Jarrett said this week that “in certain circumstances, egregious circumstances, there might be some general fraud laws that would apply to these folks if (they are) doing something fraudulently” in failing to turn in registration cards.

Chuck Hatfield, a Democratic election lawyer, went step a further. He said that destroying voter registrations “may constitute an election offense in that it is impeding or preventing…a person’s vote.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Blunt’s office has been giving St. Louis election officials questionable advice that could hold down the vote in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis city.

Voters who show up at the polls without personal identification and who don’t want to go back home to get it, may be given the option of voting a provisional ballot. Gary Stoff, the Republican director of the St. Louis Election Board, initially said these voters would be told that the ballot “may or may not” be counted. In truth, however, election officials will not count the ballots, he said.

Mr. Stoff acknowledged that “the voter would think there is at least the possibility that that ballot is going to be counted,” even though it won’t be. But, he said, the board was just following instructions from Mr. Blunt’s office.

Late Thursday, however, in response to questions from the Post-Dispatch editorial page, Mr. Stoff reversed himself and said these would-be voters will be told the truth: Their ballots won’t count.

These are only the latest examples of Blunt’s attempts to game the system against voters - clear partisan bias that has already earned Missouri unwanted national attention. So endangered are the coming state elections that the P-D has taken the strong step of calling for Blunt to recuse himself from current election issues and hand decision-making authority over to the Republican and Democratic co-directors of elections. Failing that, says the P-D, Blunt should immediately move to reverse the effects of his damaging and misleading instructions to election officials around the state.

The possibility that Blunt will take either step is so remote as to be nonexistent. Fortunately, we voters of Missouri have a special veto power available to us, veto power we should exercise. Matt Blunt has demonstrated repeatedly that he is not fit even for the position he holds now, let alone the highest office in the state. Missouri voters should deny Matt Blunt their votes on November 2.

« Previous Page