The Macho Naivete of Right Wing Desk Jockies

[paft.livejournal.com]

From Think Progress:

Marty Peretz, on pro-Mubarak mobs attacking foreign correspondents: Frankly, I thought that you guys were – and women – engaging in a little professional narcissism. Revolutions are not birthday parties. And what happened in Beijing, in Prague, in Budapest, in Berlin, uh, was about the same as what is happening now. And since the media has in fact made itself, by announcing its techniques a very legitimate target in a certain way. I mean, it’s cruel, but if you’re going after the regime, the regime will go after you. This regime is not a sweet regime. This regime is not tolerant…

Think Progress put together a video round-up of the right wing media reaction to the reporter beatings. What comes through is an apparent inability to grasp that covering dangerous situations is a reporter’s job. Denouncing a foreign correspondent for going in to report on a volatile situation is kind of like denouncing a fireman for heading towards a fire.

There’s also a thudding ignorance that conflates hard working reporters with cable anchors. Marty Peretz has the gall to pretend that correspondents like Amanpour need to be told that revoluations “are not birthday parties” and “this regime is not a sweet regime.” Especially offensive is Mike Gallagher’s rant about Amanpour and Anderson Cooper, where he implies that Amanpour is anti-American and says of Cooper:

Maybe that isn’t where you ought to go wandering around Anderson, all, what are you about 5’7” – 5’8”? What do you go Anderson about 160? With your little perfectly coiffed grey hair and your little delicate features you might not want to go over to Egypt and walk around the middle of a crowd that’s screaming 'death to America.'

The fact that you’ve seen Anderson Cooper or Christiane Amanpour being interviewed in a studio doesn’t mean they’re merely pampered celebrities. Cooper did on the spot reporting in Rwanda during the genocide. Amanpour has worked as a wartime journalist in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

It is beyond hubris for the likes of Gallagher and Peretz to paint either of these seasoned correspondents as fluffy-headed naifs.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

However would we know what's happening in Egypt without people wading into dangerous crowds? However would we know the internals of alligators without brave men sticking their heads into their mouths?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

If it were just Cooper, I could see more of a point, but from what I've read there were a lot of journalists who were roughed up or thrown in jail or had their equipment stolen or destroyed so it seems a bit off to say that Cooper should have expected it (like the idiots who put their heads in alligators mouths).

On a side note, based on the inclusion of the lead clip of Brian Kilmeade, the people running that site are either extremely disingenuous or seriously friggin stupid.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Why "if it were just Cooper?" He established his career by going into hot spots and covering them. This is not just some narcissistic celebrity with delusions of immunity. It's a hardworking reporter doing the same job he was doing BEFORE he was well known.

And what is it about the Kilmeade clip that you think indicates the people at Thinkprogress are stupid or disingenuous?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

They're apparently brain-dead when it comes to understanding sarcasm, or they understood what Kilmeade said but posted the (edited) clip hoping their viewers wouldn't. My money is on stupid as they mentioned that "Fox News has had at least three of its reporters harassed or beaten".

Why "if it were just Cooper?"

There are a lot of reporters over there, they've been covering this story for over a week. If only one or two were being roughed up, it would indicate a decent chance that they were being overly risky or just plain stupid, or perhaps they were even looking for it. But since it has happened to numerous reporters from apparently any country whatsoever it seems like an all out assault on the media is taking place so the fact that one was roughed up doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that he was trying to cover the story.

[paft.livejournal.com]

ng: They're apparently brain-dead when it comes to understanding sarcasm, or they understood what Kilmeade said but posted the (edited) clip hoping their viewers wouldn't. My money is on stupid as they mentioned that "Fox News has had at least three of its reporters harassed or beaten".

Thinkprogress is pointing up the implication at Fox that if Mubarak supporters had confined themselves to going after Al Jazeera, that would be okay.

[paft.livejournal.com]

p: But he probably is a narcissistic celebrity too. lol

And you base this on...?

[paft.livejournal.com]

In other words, you base it on nothing.

[paft.livejournal.com]

P: In other words... It is a perception and an opinion.

No. It's a prejudice.

P: You can't cite references for it. And it was foolish of you to ask.

For prejudices? No, you generally can't. They're rarely based on reality.

What you're doing here is called "talking through your hat."

[paft.livejournal.com]

See, the difference is that if someone asks me about Panookah's prejudices, I won't just say, "Because I just feel like he must have prejudices rather than opinions based on observable fact." I cite actual statements by Panooka.

Now, run along little fellow. It's a bit late for trolls.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Yes?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The assumption made, be it ever so faulty, is that the risks are absolutely necessary to acquire the info.

But that's just my rational problem solving self.