Richard Cohen's remark about not blaming journalists for getting the run-up to the war is more pernicious than even you have described. It goes beyond the "steneographer" mentality, because the Washington press corps belittled or ignored the voices of those who raised questions about the wisdom, timing and repercussions of an invasion of Iraq. If they had been really doing their jobs instead of playing one side (Bush's) of the story, we may not be in the position we are today. For instance, if an administration like Rumsfeld says he doubted we would be in Iraq for longer than six months, or Wolfowitz says there was no history of sectarian strife in Iraq, and the press does nothing to question such absurdities, they should turn in their media passes and let those who are fully conscious cover the White House.
Posted by kansi at August 16, 2005 02:31 PMCohen almost NEVER connects the dots.
Years ago, we used to correspond. Then he and the WP people were offered bribes from the Bush people in 2000, before the election. Suddenly, he became, literally overnight, anti Gore.
I got published, chiding him. He never spoke to me again.
Posted by Elaine Supkis at August 16, 2005 02:34 PMAm I mistaken here, or was Cohen, at one point in time, a liberal? What happened?
Posted by Foilwoman at August 16, 2005 02:41 PMAs a journalist, my favorite question was, "Who else knows that?" or "Who else should I talk to about that?"
With the demonstrated decline of journalistics standards, no wonder we no longer hear follow-up questions
Posted by stumpy at August 16, 2005 02:43 PMCohen can write, and apparently is worldly and educated.
That does not make him a damn good columnist. I've never liked him for precisely the reason outlined here: the Truth means nothing to him. This is some social gig to him, a way to schmooze and look smart and sell papers.
He doesn't care abou the Truth or Justice or freedom. It's all about Richard Cohen.
Posted by paradox at August 16, 2005 02:49 PMBecause the real threats to our democracy, namely this administration, feast on guys like Cohen, who never see the bigger picture beyond their window offices and next cocktail party invitation, every day.
Yes.
Posted by SJS at August 16, 2005 03:00 PM" 'I don't fault reporters for getting it wrong,' he said."
Hmmm, but why would readers want to pay for reporters to get it wrong?
Don't reporters ever question why a "source" is telling them something? If it's an administration source, the question should be, why have they not put this in a press release, held a press conference or given a speech?
What good is "access" that uses you to spread disinformation, propaganda and lies? That's not access -- that's being a whore.
Posted by Marie at August 16, 2005 03:05 PMBeat me to the punch on Cohen's piece. My mind is still digesting it 30 minutes after reading it. That was one of the worst op-eds I have seen in awhile. And I read all of Thomas Friedman's stuff.
Anyone see a contradiction here?
"It is the solemn obligation of a columnist to connect the dots."
(A few hundred words later)
"We understood so little about Iraq. We thought it was just another place where people wanted to be free and vote for the school board."
I am not a big time columnist, just your average citizen. Apparently I connected a lot more dots than he did because I never believed the bullshit. Iraq is/was not Mars, anyone who wanted to connect some dots could have and would have understood why the war was immoral, illegal, and doomed to failure.
Either tell us you just don't give a damn, and that is why you understood so little. Or tell us that you thought you understood a lot but were wrong. But don't tell us that your "solemn obligation" is to "connect dots" and inform us, and then tell us that you understood very little while you (unwittingly) misinformed us.
Posted by Justin at August 16, 2005 03:11 PMI really believe that what Fitzgerald does will determine whether we can save our democracy or not. He can begin the end of the bush fascists. But if no one is held accountable for the bush gang crimes, there is no turning back. We will surely be headed for total destruction of our democracy.
Posted by dag at August 16, 2005 03:11 PMI saw Ted Koppel explaining to Jon Stewart one night the difference between "truth" and "fact". Apparently, the mainstream media is only concerned with reporting facts- as in "it is a fact that Rumsfeld said this".
What hppened to the idea that a free press was supposed to seek out the truth that is hidden by those with agendas?
You watch Meet the Press and the others and scream at the TV, "why are you letting him/her get away with that?"
Posted by Pete at August 16, 2005 04:04 PMI would pay money to see John Stewart tell Richard Cohen, "Please. Stop. You're *hurting* us."
Posted by melior at August 16, 2005 04:09 PMWhen 250k war protesters marched in DC on a cold day winter day the Post could only count 50k. Such arithmetic has leaked into their readership.
Posted by Ken Melvin at August 16, 2005 04:36 PMNo offense, but maybe you can clarify. I'm confused by this piece of the post -
First you say, "What's troubling here is that Cohen is a damn good columnist, who is able to see the big picture as you can see from his piece today. "
Then, you end with, "Because the real threats to our democracy, namely this administration, feast on guys like Cohen, who never see the bigger picture beyond their window offices and next cocktail party invitation, every day."
That doesn't seem to jibe.
For the record - Cohen was for the war before he was against it. He managed to reposition himself with a mea culpa column that conveniently let himself off the hook for supporting the war so that he could pivot to more critical columns.
Even though it was blatant, would that the Post's editorial board could do likewise.
Posted by DBJ at August 16, 2005 04:37 PMCohen as a "damn good columnist"?!? Was that sarcasm? Cohen is a dinosaur pseudo-con who believes himself to be a liberal, only because he was one once. I've rarely read anything from the dope, but the main column I remember was his mindnumbing attack of Fahrenheit 9/11. If you want to pull your hair out in anger read Baloney, Moore or Less
As with most "liberal" pundits (Ellen Goodman comes to mind), he couldn't actually disagree with much of it, though the few points he made were as minor as they were wrong. And he ended it by suggesting that the anti-war protestors were to blame for him not doing his damn job. Here's the quote: "I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless."
Stupid indeed. So now it looks like Cohen's got another boogeyman to blame for his own incompetence. When the storyline was Moore's 9/11, Moore and his ilk were to blame. Now the blame lies with the sources. But always someone else's fault. Just as everything is with the right-wingers he thinks like. Cohen needs to be put out to pasture.
Posted by Doctor Biobrain at August 16, 2005 04:40 PMCohen has always been a little pussy who is too afraid to think what he really thinks, is easily coerced, and always throws a sop to the right to maintain his Beltway "credibility". Personally, I have no respect for the little pussy at all.
Posted by The Fool at August 16, 2005 05:07 PMSo what is new or surprising here? Cohen's just another dime a dozen lying Yid ball in the MSM. Shall we make a list of them?
Posted by Protos at August 16, 2005 05:11 PMDBJ and DoctorBiobrain:
Good catches and critiques. Corrections made.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 16, 2005 05:17 PM1) Everybody did NOT getting wrong. I am no expert but based on my reading of foreign sources on the Internet I knew Bush was lying. Knight Ridder chain also did a good job telling its readers that WMD claims were doubtful.
2) Richard Cohen and the rest of his buddies in the Sally Quinn Special Class thought Whitewater was a "big deal" and spent almost a decade persecuting the President and his wife in witchunts.
Posted by Nan at August 16, 2005 05:21 PMBTW, I have more contempt for the Richard Cohens of punditocarcy than I do for Bill O'Reillys. At least Bill O'Reilly puts up a fight and sticks up for his side. Richard Cohen is the Alan Colmes of the WP op-ed page. He is the pretend liberal. He doesn't even put up a fight. He was one of the first pundits to demand that Al Gore concede during the Florida debacle.
Posted by Nan at August 16, 2005 05:29 PM"yid?" what the fuck? "yid?" wrong because he's jewish? how about just wrong? give me a break.
Posted by dennis at August 16, 2005 05:51 PM'A Little Crime'
The story never was the Plame leak. She was leaked overseas and it followed her five years to the day. She hid behind the five year informant law to attack the White House.
She is being investigated by Organized Crime Task force because she went to 'Vanity Fair' and admitted she was a CIA operations officer (OOPs) for cash with the intent of killing other operations officers and, possibly, Hillary Clinton on her visit to the middle east. All happened immediatley after the article. Maybe she did'nt like the look of her in 'Vanity Fair' the movie.
Plame is an expert in WMD like most operations officers courtesy of Dr. WMD, Rice. Rice started the war after training Bush at the mansion. The yellowcake, etc. was a foreign operation aimed at the White House and Rice. Plame used Wilson here and that is how OOs work.
Plame is destroying the US government and the CIA because she is miffed. Plame is a disgrace to the US, the CIA, and daddy who got her the job.
Second generation idiots.
Posted by at August 16, 2005 06:00 PMThank the great soul for LW blogs and their minute by minute archiving of the Bush Dim Ages. There should be a Wall of Shame for the sad, sorry, lazy, narcissistic, morally bankrupt media when the damage is curtailed and, I hope, reversed.
Posted by Peanut at August 16, 2005 06:01 PMOld stereotype of the US reporter: rolled up shirtsleeves, loosened tie, unimpressed by social status, alert to motives, sceptical absent corroboration, and full of useful watchwords like "don't take no wooden nickels".
It's an aeon away.
Posted by AlanDownunder at August 16, 2005 07:28 PMActually, I think he rather proves a point with his statement. Not that his defending the issue is right, but that it illustrates a difference in mindset. There is, in my opinion, a difference between a reporter and a journalist. There are far too many of the former and far too few of the latter nowadays.
A reporter does just that - reports. They don't examine, analyze, investigate. They just parrot. That's why the current administration can get away with the malarkey that seems to come non-stop from all camps on the right. They spew garbage, and it is repeated verbatim. Uninterested viewers and readers, who think they can trust what they see and hear, simply take these reiterations and consider them fact.
A journalist actually examines. They anaylze what they are told. They search for the truth. They hear a statement and think first "is is true"? They look for the nugget of real information and work from there. That's how real journalism works. That's how the fourth estate is supposed to protect the average John and Jane Q. Public.
My full rant on this topic - Rove, Plame, Journalist, Reporter - It's All In The Definitions
Posted by Leo Soderman at August 16, 2005 07:48 PMHey: stop calling Cohen a pussy. Call him a wanker, call him a jerk-off, call hims a creature who procreates through spawning, but don't call him a pussy, a cunt, a twat, a vagina, a vulva, or anything remotely female. I, and all my parts, am insulted.
Posted by Foilwoman at August 16, 2005 07:51 PMCall him a dick.
Posted by paradox at August 16, 2005 08:57 PMNo disrespect, I didn't mean to be punchy, ma'am.
Posted by paradox at August 16, 2005 08:58 PMDuring the 2000 election (debacle!) Cohen admitted he voted for Gore...said he should have voted for Bush. Credible guy, don't ya think?!
Posted by Sandra Baskind at August 16, 2005 09:02 PM"So what is new or surprising here? Cohen's just another dime a dozen lying Yid ball in the MSM. Shall we make a list of them?"
I've got a better idea. Why don't you fuck off and die, Nazi filth?
Posted by DU Jimbo at August 17, 2005 04:48 PMWow! We got anti-Semites, Plame conspirators (it was all her idea, can't you see, you fools!), and apologists for Cohen, tongue-in-cheek or not. Cohen does write a "good" column. He is glib, readable, seemingly rational, and leads his readers to "sensible" conclusions. These are often quite wrong.
It didn't take a wmd analyst to see that the CIA was doing its usual job, telling politicoes what they wanted to hear so they could continue raping the world--in the name of peace of course. Who didn't know that Bush was lying? He has no other mode. Did you ever watch him pray? He squeezes his eyes real tight, grimaces, and communes with this maker. Is there anything to call this, and its general acceptance, other than collective madness?
Posted by rumbustious at August 17, 2005 07:28 PMI can't understand how Cohen can even consider writing that "this is a little crime, if even a crime at all" when it is plainly written in law texts that it is indeed a crime, and a fairly major one at that.
Posted by beverins at August 17, 2005 08:26 PMThe impression I got was that the CIA tried to tell w's gang the truth, but the White House TOLD them to lie. YMMV.
Posted by DU Jimbo at August 17, 2005 09:32 PM