May 11, 2004

Matt Welch is a smart guy

Posted by Ted

In the comments to this spot-on post (“When Criticizing Prisoner-Abuse Becomes ‘Politically Correct’”), Matt Welch makes a point that I’d like to cast in bronze and put on every blogger’s desk.

I have the perhaps quaint belief that one can want to fix abuses in our prison system, and wish to prevent another Abu Ghraib from happening, and still have enough time to criticize malodorous dictators and root for Shaq to swat Tony Parker like a common French gnat. The game of you-can’t-be outraged-about-X-unless-you’re-outraged-to-my-satisfaction-about-Y can be used, without end, about every human outrage ever produced. It is about as interesting, and far less rewarding, than plucking one’s nose hairs.

UPDATE: Before anyone says it: I’ve heard about the beheading of Nick Berg by Muslim terrorists. I am absolutely outraged- I’m sick to my stomach about it. If you could seriously entertain the thought that I wasn’t, why are you here? (Other than to enjoy my co-bloggers, I mean.)

Posted on May 11, 2004 11:53 PM UTC
Comments

It gets better and better does it not? Now allegations of child abuse.

Lets all go to sleep and hope that what when we wake up, Bush is out office, a democratic government is in place in Irak, security within Irak achieved, the US image is redeemed with the international community, soldiers return to their respective homes, democracy burgeons throughout the middle east, and the importance and legitimacy of the UN is restored. All this so we can go back to the seemingly peaceful business, of slashed taxes, monumental current account deficits, swelling national debt, rising crime and failing educational standards.

sigh…

Posted by Rascalnikov · May 12, 2004 12:24 AM

you-can’t-be outraged-about-X-unless-you’re-outraged-to-my-satisfaction-about-Y can be used, without end, about every human outrage ever produced.

True enough, but that characterization misses the point. How much more outrage we feel and express about X over Y reveals our values.

If we’re more outraged (as evidenced by word counts in the case of aroused bloggers) by abuses committed by the U.S. than we are by abuses committed by Nation Y, we’re actually confessing how much more we value the U.S. over Nation Y.

That response to complaints of “selective outrage” seems more to the point.

Posted by dan · May 12, 2004 12:42 AM

I suppose the apologies will steam in from the ME tomorrow. Probably around the time the mainstream media here presents the beheading slide show.

Posted by Michael Murphy · May 12, 2004 01:29 AM

The difference between the Berg killing and the Abu Ghraib torture, is that the former was intended to bother us, while the latter was intended to bother them. It’s revealing which provokes the stronger reaction.

Posted by Keith M Ellis · May 12, 2004 03:14 AM

This is a great issue and there are a lot of threads to it. I think it’s understandable for an American citizen to express in words her frustration with her own government, while at the same time not devoting a thesis to atrocities in the Sudan. This is simply a desire to see one’s own nation progress.

The picture gets more complicated when we go abroad to Europe. Why, many ask, does the Iraqi prison abuse story trump, in the main newspapers, all other human rights abuses? I’m not sure, but possibilities are endless. Here are a few:

1) Europeans identify with Western civilization and, thereby, put the spotlight on all Western human rights abuses.

2) Europeans, and the international citizenry in general, enjoy seeing the malignant hyperpower (as they see it) get caught in contradiction between its rhetoric and its action.

I have a feeling that much of the reason is the latter, which leaves me with a foul taste in mouth, and I think is what leaves most conservatives who harp on this matter similarly disgusted. I’d be interested in hearing what other explanations there are for the heightened media coverage of American atrocities abroad — I’m sure there are many.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 12, 2004 04:46 AM

Another (obvious) reason is Western domination of the media…

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 12, 2004 04:49 AM

The terrorist in Iraq couldn’t have chosen a better time to release their video. Public sentiment was almost going their way.

Caution! Graphic images.

http://home.comcast.net/~incubus52/lestweforget.html

Posted by IXLNXS · May 12, 2004 05:25 AM

There is no signficant moral difference between someone who sets attack dogs on a prisoner (and photographs it) and someone who saws off a prisoner’s head (and videotapes it). Decent people of any nationality or faith or non-faith or background will condemn both atrocities.

But the fact remains: either we kill AQ or be killed by them. Just when you thought AQ was learning how to exploit Bush hatred to their advantage, they remind everyone why they must be attacked and destroyed.

Posted by tombo · May 12, 2004 05:40 AM

rajeev,

I would suspect that the reason there is heightened media coverage of the US atrocities in Europe is because it’s enormously important and may well be seen to be a turning point in the war in the future. The US is the world’s only hyperpower and as a result what it does carries far more weight than what happens elsewhere. Everything that happens in the US gets far more coverage in Europe than visa-versa.

Posted by jdsm · May 12, 2004 05:44 AM

rajeev,

You could ask a similar question about the Australian press, and perhaps construct some kind of mild defense of the Australian press’s interest based on the fact that some Australian troops are in Iraq.

However, I think that defense misses the point, and that there’s a third explanation for heavy Australia coverage of US humans rights abuse (no idea about Europe):

3) The Australian press pays a lot of attention to US news (relative to that of other foreign countries).

US elections from the primaries on regularly make the front page of Australian broadsheets. A visit from US President gets far more publicity than a visit from the Chinese president. Allegations of US human rights abuses get massive coverage too, relative to abuses by other foreign countries, but it’s part of a larger pattern of media focus on the US in general, not a primarily a desire to highlight US failings.

I do not know if this is the case in Europe too.

Posted by Mary · May 12, 2004 06:05 AM

I think selective outrage is something that while an easy assumption to jump to is not necessarily correct. Most of the major blogs give greater focus to breaking news. As the Berg story unfolds I’m sure that there will be more “words” written on it. Even then, the Iraq and Afghanistan prisoner abuse story is more complex, i.e. involves more people, dates, events, eyewitness accounts, varying degrees of culpability. That more words are devoted to it are a result of the details involved, not neccesisarily the the degree of outrage versus the grisly murder of Mr Berg. In addition, some may be in my position; that I am so horrified by Mr. Berg’s murder, I’m at a lost for words to adequatley express that horror and outrage. It took me a week before I could write anything about Pat Tillman . Some bloggers are good at expressing thoughts and feelings in a few lines, while others can go on at length on the same subject. Sincerity is difficult to measure and shouldn’t be correlated or confused with brevity or length. Gloating and gotchas span the political spectrum, but I see far more of it on the right. Rationalizations are rampant, I am already seeing the prison abuses/tortures/mysterious death as somehow justified in light of Mr. Berg’s death. They are both wrong, many are just haggling over the degree of wrong-ness. Not just in the coming months, but in the coming years we will see many more Bergs’. The people that perpetuate these crimes should be punished, nothing more, nothing less. Most serial killers in the U.S. are white males between 24 and 35, we don’t make “white males” into a special group singled out for hatred and revenge, we just track down and punish the guilty ones and try to get on with our lives without invoking “holy” or “cultural wars”. Blind idolatry guides the Islamic radicals, we shouldn’t let it guide us.

Posted by buckshot bill · May 12, 2004 06:21 AM

And as is SOP in the EU bashing business, Rajeev forgets some of the obvious points why European media covers this extensively. He then has “a feeling” and ends up with “a foul tast in mouth”.
Consider that entirely of your own making, Rajeev.
Maybe you should have waited for the other opinions present, before drawing up such a daft conclusion.

Just to name one:

The US is supposed to be our ally. Our military are extensively connected through NATO. And almost all EU countries are currently cooperating with the US in various “war” zones, like Afghanistan and Iraq. This makes if and how the US enforces the Geneva conventions very relevant.

Even before these incidents there was a distrust of how prisoners were treated in the “war against terror”. For example, the Dutch army in Iraq checks up on all its prisoners that end up in Iraqi or coalition jails, i believe every other week. Since the beginning of their presence in Iraq. Then there is Guantanamo, where the US cosiders the Geneva conventions “not relevant”.

And I can assure you that there are at least another dozen different opinions why the issue is important to Europe.

But hey, were still partying over here because we really “enjoyed” that US torture fiasco.

Posted by somewhere in Europe · May 12, 2004 06:32 AM

I’m disgusted and appalled by the beheading of Berg.

I’m also disgusted and appalled by the prison abuses.

A few big differences: the prison abuses were done, misguidedly by some Americans, “in my name” (as an american), and under the color of authority the US military provides.

Also, all evidence suggests the some of the people abused were probably not “terrorists” or insurgents or anything similar. They were people picked up in sweeps from info provided by Iraqis with grudges or seeking to collect a reward. Read about the conditions in Iraqi prisons and you’ll understand how people who were initially predisposed towards the US but got stuck in jail, even if not abused, would come out not liking the US much.

Thus is the war of ideas, the war for hearts and minds lost.

We know the REAL terrorists, like al Qaeda folks want to kill us.

The abuses in the prison make it more likely that there will be more people who hate the US, and make recruitment more easy for them.

In short, the prison abuses hurt us in the battle of ideas.

I decry both for their inhumanity, but I decry the crimes committed in my name for both moral and strategic damage to my side — The side of the US and the west.

Keef

Posted by keef · May 12, 2004 06:36 AM

There is no signficant moral difference between someone who sets attack dogs on a prisoner (and photographs it) and someone who saws off a prisoner’s head (and videotapes it).

Lombo, that confession of moral equivalence— casually tossing aside as it does at least a few thousand years of civilization and jurisprudence—was so offensive that I can’t let it pass without asking you to ask yourself if you’d continue to maintain that there’s “no significant moral difference” between the two acts if some psychopath offered you, or someone you care about, a choice between them.

Any hesitation in answering that question delivers its own quiet verdict.

Posted by dan · May 12, 2004 06:36 AM

Why, many ask, does the Iraqi prison abuse story trump, in the main [European] newspapers, all other human rights abuses?

The blogosphere is positively swarming with idiots making apologia for the Abu Ghraib affair.

The invasion of Iraq was the biggest damn story of the last 2 years. All over the world, millions of people turned out on the streets to protest against it. It has dominated the news almost continuously. Events in Iraq headline in the media almost every day. Iraq has been almost singlehandedly responsible for the rise of the blogosphere.

And all of a sudden Europeans and other denizens of the world are supposed not to notice the shit happening at Abu Ghraib so that commentators like rajeev (who have a foul taste in their mouth about the suspicion that that attention is not fair and balanced, though never about the antics of the Bush administration or the Abu Ghraib personnel) can have minty-fresh breath in the morning?

Posted by BP · May 12, 2004 07:13 AM

rajeev: you just talk such crap. The reaction in the European media is the same as in the US and British media. Plus, there are allegations also for British soldiers, so it does concern Europe directly as well.

Plus, there’s that coalition thing, remember? There are several European countries currently supporting the US in Iraq, some with military presence to this day. I’m amazed how easily that gets forgotten.

So where’s the extra heightening? You don’t think it’s a big deal enough to grant such media - and political attention? The Abu Ghrabi abuses have been keeping the Congress and Senate and Army and Administration busy for the past week, so who is “heightening” what? You should level that charge to the government too.

If it’s on the top news in the US as well as UK and rest of Europe, it’s only normal due to what happened, it’s something that caused shock, scandal, outrage. It would be amazing if it didn’t. What other reaction could there be? Where is the enjoyment?

Seems to me no one is enjoying what is going on except the likes of Rush “fraternity pranks” Limbaugh and their less outspoken but equally insane followers. And the friends and family of Lynndie England and her mates who are defending and applauding the abuse as retribution for terrorism.

So please find another issue on which to delight in blanket statements about those goddam antiamerican foreigners.

———-

dan: If we’re more outraged (as evidenced by word counts in the case of aroused bloggers) by abuses committed by the U.S. than we are by abuses committed by Nation Y, we’re actually confessing how much more we value the U.S. over Nation Y.

That’s true, but perhaps a more correct way of saying it (in my view) would be that, we know that the laws and standards of the US are far higher than the current laws and standards of Nation Y.

If you hear of abuses coming out of the dozens of dictatorships or tyrannies existing in the world (the ones we didn’t liberate and bring democracy to - yet, I’m sure, just a matter of time), you are going to be as shocked. But not as surprised, baffled, amazed as when you hear of similar kinds of abuses (rapes, murders, etc.) committed by official representatives of a nation that is not only not a tyranny, but the leader of the non-tyrannies part of the world.

In other words, I think it’s more about obvious facts and legality, than values or ideals.

That’s why both the “at least we’re better than Saddam” and “you can’t be outraged about X if etc.” are both crap “arguments”. They ignore not so much the values of the US, but the fact of what the US is.

Plus, I have to say, while it’s normal abuses in democracies get more outrage, I haven’t noticed this supposed lack of outrage for abuses in other places where democracy and legality are non-existent. It’s a different kind of outrage because of different expectations, based on those facts. Not outrage vs. indifference, though.

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 08:52 AM

An American who was never particularly outraged by our previous president’s enjoyment of extramarital sexual favors, I can’t locate the place for the fulcrum that would balance this brutal act against the resumption of practices at Al Ghraib, like rape, that were more honored in the breach than in the observance.

In the invasion and the occupation, our soldiers kill many more of them than they do us. We don’t need suicide bombers when we have tanks, helicopters and cruise missiles.

With what do we console ourselves? That our folks don’t slice necks with knives on videotape?

Posted by bad Jim · May 12, 2004 09:04 AM

And all of a sudden Europeans and other denizens of the world are supposed not to notice the shit happening at Abu Ghraib so that commentators like rajeev (who have a foul taste in their mouth about the suspicion that that attention is not fair and balanced, though never about the antics of the Bush administration or the Abu Ghraib personnel) can have minty-fresh breath in the morning?

yeah, bp, it would seem so… Perhaps that should be added as a final clause to a revised Geneva Convention.

Something like: “Americans should always remember that whatever crime a few among its military personnel are caught committing, there is always something worse being done by the enemies of America, and even if these enemies are not ordinary military but guerrilla and terrorists who kidnap and behead people and then carry their decapitated heads around on mopeds and kill and terrorise and torture even their own fellow countrymen and women they claim to be fighting for, that is still good enough a term of comparison to reinforce the fact that the American military is still better than terrorists.

Since that - the American military being better than terrorists - is a little-known fact, with little historical evidence to support it, it should be re-emphasised at each opportunity, especially in order to derail media scrutiny and/or criticism, because the existence of a free press and the principle of accountability - while being wonderful rights granted to citizens of democracies, and another reason of why America is better than terrorists, who notoriously do not get criticised - play in the hands of enemies during a war. So they should be avoided.

The clause applies even more strongly for Europeans who are even twice as ignorant as Americans are of that obscure fact that - it bears repeating! - the American military is still way better than terrorists, and the American nation is still more democratic than Saddam’s Iraq. These facts should suffice in guaranteeing that, whatever one particular American government or military - or even only a few individual representatives of the same - are doing in Iraq, it will still be incommensurably better than what Saddam did.

All objections are dismissed.

Effective as of 12 May, 2004.”

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 09:10 AM

Actually, when you think about it, the extensive European coverage of Abu Ghraib, it’s kind of a compliment. One laughing broad with a cigarette dangling from her lips laughing and pointing at a naked Iraqi is more “repulsive,” “appalling,” “sickening,” etc. than, say, a million slaughtered Rwandans.

Posted by PardonMySyntax · May 12, 2004 09:34 AM

Pardonmysyntax: You may not realise this, but the first syllable of the word “newspaper” indicates that periodicals of this kind tend to give more extensive coverage to the events of the previous few weeks, than to events of ten years ago.

Posted by dsquared · May 12, 2004 09:44 AM

dsquared: but surely that’s another instance of selective, manipulated reporting by the liberal media?

I mean, why should newspapers report only the news, without even so much of a comparison of these torture crimes to the heights of atrocity reached by the likes of Gengis Khan, or Vlad the Impaler for that matter? Because that would put torture in Abu Ghraib in the correct historical perspective, and the liberal media don’t want that. They don’t want people to feel better about this whole torture thing by realising we’re still better than Gengis Khan. Because if only people knew that we’re better than Gengish Khan, people wouldn’t buy more papers. There. So. It figures. Damn liberal media.

And of course, in Europe it’s worse, because there, in that faraway land of monsters and dragons, the media and politicians are all on one position only, voicing a unanymous opinion, with no debate at all. So you don’t hear anyone coming up also with the kind of apologetic crap such as the WSJ or NRO are delighting in. You don’t hear anyone minimising the Abu Ghraib tortures by means of juxtaposition with the beheading of Americans or 9/11. Nah. No one’s doing that. No one’s even defending the very military presence in Iraq - even the countries that are in the coalition are acknowledging they’re there by pure mistake. Just because they had no other military tasks elsewhere, so they wanted to keep their armies busy.

That has been the news from Europe for today. Fair and balanced, and very informed. Trust me.

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 10:00 AM

the American military is still way better than terrorists, and the American nation is still more democratic than Saddam’s Iraq

Give it up already. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but that doesn’t give the US carte blanche to be only slighty less bad. Invading another country and killing thousands of its people is bad enough without figuratively (and literally) pissing all over them. The US should be held to the highest moral standards, having started this war on (partially) moral grounds. The least the US could do is treat Iraqis with common decency and respect and on those simple terms they have failed.

Posted by LTH · May 12, 2004 12:23 PM

Pepi - I also direct you to this.

Posted by lth · May 12, 2004 12:24 PM

Can anyone point me to a newspaper or media outlet that has run the Berg pictures?

Posted by Tom T. · May 12, 2004 01:19 PM

Pepi, you’re misinterpreting. I readily acknowledge that the coverage at home and abroad is the same. The question that is being posed by many conservatives is simply: why is there more coverage of American atrocities than there are of, say, Sudanese atrocities (as that’s the common analogy these days).

Blanket anti-Americanism? Of course not, but of the four reasons — my three and the one you offered — certainly each is of some significance, even the one you find so offensive.

Finally, a note on your attempt to turn moral outrage upon my lonesome self. Let me make one thing clear: I never claimed, and have not ever believed, that there is any “heightening” — I fully support all the media outrage the Abu Ghraib scandal has received. I think, actually, what we have here is more “lowering” of other atrocities than we have any “heightening” of this one.

This raises a point analagous to Ted’s original one; these kinds of qualifier statements should not be necessary, and one shouldn’t be attacked for not making them. Accusing me of being soft on torture (“you don’t think it’s a big enough deal…”) in response to what I thought was a civil request for reasoning, would make for a good drunken bar argument, but nothing more.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 12, 2004 01:41 PM

“Comparitive outrage” is simply a backdoor for ad hominem, and that’s exactly the way it’s being used. Leaving that idiocy aside:

-Berg’s death bothers us. That’s why it was done.

-Abu-Ghraib bothers us because things like that aren’t supposed to be done by us .

That’s why Rush, et al., are in such a hurry to minimize things like leaving a man to die, naked in his own feces, as mere “frat hazing,” or being just like porn, etc. Abu-Ghraib reflects on us. Berg’s death does not…
(…unless you want to consider his family’s argument that he may have been exposed to the danger by govt. error.)

Posted by GMT · May 12, 2004 03:47 PM

Any hesitation in answering that question delivers its own quiet verdict.

It’s revealing which provokes the stronger reaction.

These attempts at logical traps, while excellent examples of that ancient rhetorical trope called occupatio, are utter non-sequiturs in the service of ad hominem.
“Excuse me, stewardess, I speak freeper.”
[ahem]
‘if you do not rush to do my bidding, subscribing to the position I’ve just put in your mouth (and with an earnestness the level of which I will also judge), then I will “win,” because I will then be utterly and universally justified in assuming that you are of the ideological bent I have already assumed you are. Behold my logic and despair!’
Kindly grow the fuck up.

Posted by GMT · May 12, 2004 03:58 PM

Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but that doesn’t give the US carte blanche to be only slighty less bad. … The US should be held to the highest moral standards, having started this war on (partially) moral grounds. The least the US could do is treat Iraqis with common decency and respect and on those simple terms they have failed.

lth: doh! of course! and what do you think I was saying, if not precisely what you said above?

I thought it would be obvious I was mocking the apologists and minimisers who go all, at least we’re not as bad, where was your outrage for Saddam’s crimes, why aren’t you as outraged about Rwanda or Sudan or North Korea, etc etc.

If it wasn’t obvious to you, then I must have done a better impression of Peggy Noonan than I’d have thought.

(and that’s scary enough)

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 03:59 PM

here’s another specimen:
Webb’s World: Behead CBS

By Tedd Webb - Clear Channel News

I predicted the terrible beheading of American Nick Berg of Philadelphia at the hands of the terrorists in Iraq. I blame none other than CBS 60 Minutes. His blood is on their hands as much as it is on the hands of the thugs who murdered him. Do I hear any liberals crying out for an apology? None.

CBS knew the airing of those photos would inflame the Arab world, that was the purpose. To make the USA and George W, Bush look bad heading into the elections. It did not matter that it might cost more lives in the Middle East, so be it, that is one small price for winning the White House in November.

There should be rage against that network; you should let them know they are responsible for a tragedy that could have been avoided.

The left has no sense of country, no patriotism. The left is laughing at the road bumps we are experiencing in Iraq, they love it, they cheer like Palestinians on September 11th, 2001.

Woe be to them that put politics ahead of country. These people are so low they can crawl under whale crap with a top hat on, and that sits at the bottom of the ocean.

That’s How I see it!

Is there an anthropologist in the house?

Posted by GMT · May 12, 2004 04:09 PM

And here’s the issue again, Daily Show style, in that black humor so necessary to maintaining sanity in these times:
The Daily Show, 5/11/04:

Jon Stewart: Stephen, what do you think about this idea that we are hearing from Rumsfeld, and now Sen. Inhofe, that the press was somehow irresponsible for releasing these photos of abuse?
Stephen Colbert: Jon, I agree entirely with Secy Rumsfeld that the release of these photos was deplorable, but these actions of a few rogue journalists do not represent the vast majority of the American media.
Stewart: The journalists did something wrong?
Colbert: I’m just saying those journalists don’t represent the journalists I know. The journalists I know love America, but now all anybody wants to talk about is the bad journalists—the journalists that hurt America.
But what they don’t talk about is all the amazingly damaging things we haven’t reported on. Who didn’t uncover the flaws in our pre-war intelligence? Who gave a free pass on the Saddam-al Queda connection? Who dropped Aghanistan from the headlines at the first whiff of this Iraqi snipehunt? The United States press corps, that’s who. Heck, we didn’t even put this story on the front page. We tried to bury it on “60 Minutes II.” Who’s on that—Charlie Rose and Anglela Lansbury?
Stewart: Stephen, what do you think is at play here?
Colbert: Politics, Jon, that’s what. Pure and simple. I think it’s pretty suspicious that these tortures took place during a Presidential campaign. This is a clear cut case of partisan sadism. You know, come to think of it, I’m pretty sure those Iraqi prisoners want Bush out of office too. You know I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a pile of hooded, naked Iraqis has a job waiting for them in the Kerry Administration.

The facts and the satire grow closer together. What happens when they touch?

Posted by GMT · May 12, 2004 04:17 PM

the last sentence was mine, screwed up the formatting

Posted by GMT · May 12, 2004 04:20 PM

Rajeev: oh, I see, so I was only misinterpreting. Kinda like Ted misinterpreted that outstanding article by Amiel by reading some minimising/apology for torture in her claims about the necessity of humiliation?

I readily acknowledge that the coverage at home and abroad is the same.

Really? In the post I was replying to, you were saying there was “heightened media coverage of American atrocities abroad”.

…why is there more coverage of American atrocities than there are of, say, Sudanese atrocities (as that’s the common analogy these days).

May one of the reasons - besides the many others already given, and besides the most glaringly obvious one - be that no country in Europe is currently allied with Sudan in a military coalition in charge of a third country?

Has that even occurred to you?

I didn’t find your reason “offensive”, rajeev. I said it’s crap. As in, utter nonsense. You have already decreed there is “blatant anti-americanism” in the “heightened” media coverage abroad. And that “Europeans, and the international citizenry in general, enjoy seeing the malignant hyperpower (as they see it) get caught in contradiction between its rhetoric and its action”.

You have decided thats the main reason why the media are covering the torture scandal. You discarded all other obvious reasons. As well as the fact this scandal is getting equal if not more coverage in the US for again obvious reasons.

I am not turning outrage against you. I am just honestly baffled that you should even have to ask why it gets so much coverage anywhere. In Sudan too, probably.

Funny, I don’t recall anyone ever asking that question about Clinton’s much publicized extramarital adventures. Surely more politically relevant than documented war crimes… But nevermind.

I’m also baffled that you should write this:

Let me make one thing clear: I never claimed, and have not ever believed, that there is any “heightening”.

when, again, a few paragraphs above, in the comment I was replying to, you wrote not only that non-Americans (=anti-Americans, of course) were “enjoying” the torture-on-Iraqis scandal, but also this:

I’d be interested in hearing what other explanations there are for the heightened media coverage of American atrocities abroad — I’m sure there are many.

So, rajeev, I’m curious, how do you manage to say the very contrary of what you wrote one comment before? And expect me to anticipate you were going to deny you ever said what I was replying to?

This sure makes for a “drunken bar argument”, indeed. My head is all dizzy just from trying to follow your statement-denial progression.

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 04:28 PM

Pepi - apologies. I am obviously the suck.

Posted by lth · May 12, 2004 04:57 PM

I predicted the terrible beheading of American Nick Berg of Philadelphia at the hands of the terrorists in Iraq. I blame none other than CBS 60 Minutes. His blood is on their hands as much as it is on the hands of the thugs who murdered him. Do I hear any liberals crying out for an apology? None.

gmt, I’m 100% sure I read something that contained that very “argument” today, but sadly I don’t remember where. And of course the difference is the writer was not joking.

Jon, I agree entirely with Secy Rumsfeld that the release of these photos was deplorable, but these actions of a few rogue journalists do not represent the vast majority of the American media.

Indeed. There’s always good old Peggy!

Politics, Jon, that’s what. Pure and simple. I think it’s pretty suspicious that these tortures took place during a Presidential campaign. This is a clear cut case of partisan sadism. You know, come to think of it, I’m pretty sure those Iraqi prisoners want Bush out of office too. You know I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a pile of hooded, naked Iraqis has a job waiting for them in the Kerry Administration.

Crikey. It doesn’t sound that far-fetched at all, actually. (That people would say that it was all staged, that is..).

Satire is entirely superflous these days.

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 04:59 PM

lth: no need to apologise, really! I just found it amusing :)

You’re entirely excused for that mistake, given what gmt has highlighted above about the increasingly blurred lines between parody and reality…

Posted by pepi · May 12, 2004 05:01 PM

Alas! I’m caught in contradiction. What really happened was my alter-ego took over back there and wrote the first post.

No really, for what it’s worth, “heightened” was a word of convenience. And yes, drunken bar conversations do often start off with one saying “rajeev, you just talk so much crap.”

My primary point is that there are a lot of reasons for the “disparate” (suitable word?) coverage between atrocities. My original post was worded politely enough, and I did not appreciate your tone of voice when you responded to me.

My original post was sloppy. I used the word “Europeans” when I should have said, “a number of Europeans.” Further, I agree with you that anti-Americanism is not the sole reason for the heightened coverage — I’ve said this again and again — but it is equally premature to say that anti-Americanism plays no role in the coverage. This is why anti-Americanism was only one of three reasons I threw out there. For Christ’s sake, the point of my post was in pleading for others to give me other reasons, and the responses I got — with notable exceptions — were seething with vitriol.

Finally, I do not equate non-Americans with anti-Americans. Please, Pepi, just stop trying to equate me with some caricatured Rush Limbaugh; I’m sick of defending myself here, and I’m much more liberal than you seem to think.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 01:33 AM

Alas! I’m caught in contradiction. What really happened was my alter-ego took over back there and wrote the first post.

No really, for what it’s worth, “heightened” was a word of convenience. And yes, drunken bar conversations do often start off with one saying “rajeev, you just talk so much crap.”

My primary point is that there are a lot of reasons for the “disparate” (suitable word?) coverage between atrocities. My original post was worded politely enough, and I did not appreciate your tone of voice when you responded to me.

My original post was sloppy. I used the word “Europeans” when I should have said, “a number of Europeans.” Further, I agree with you that anti-Americanism is not the sole reason for the heightened coverage — I’ve said this again and again — but it is equally premature to say that anti-Americanism plays no role in the coverage. This is why anti-Americanism was only one of three reasons I threw out there. For Christ’s sake, the point of my post was in pleading for others to give me other reasons, and the responses I got — with notable exceptions — were seething with vitriol.

Finally, I do not equate non-Americans with anti-Americans. Please, Pepi, just stop trying to equate me with some caricatured Rush Limbaugh; I’m sick of defending myself here, and I’m much more liberal than you seem to think.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 01:34 AM

My last post on this thread, I’m going to pull a “Bush” (that is, contradict myself once, defend myself twice, then apologize):

I apologize for the blanket comment I made about Europeans on my original post. It is not at all representative of my beliefs. While there certainly are people out there who enjoy watching America contradict its rhetoric — and those are the ones I find revolting — my statement was so general and logically incoherent that it merited the harsh rebukes from Pepi and others.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 02:12 AM

rajeev: as long as you know what your opinion actually is… You contradicted yourself twice, not once. I take it your last and final opinion on the matter of coverage of the torture scandal outside the US is that there is indeed heightened coverage, correct?

Now, here’s my last attempt at explaining why I said “you talk such crap”. And I never thought someone picturing non-Americans relishing the torture scandal would have such high standards of discourse that a “you talk crap” would be considered vitriol. But anyway.

The point is not the blanket statement itself, so you don’t need to apologise for that. I couldn’t care less if you thought all Europeans were sadistic American-hating scum. The point is that:

1) there is NO heightened coverage of the torture scandal in Europe - point me to instances that prove otherwise - besides, for the past days, all sorts of other stories have made the top headlines (Glasgow explosion; elections in India; the killing of Nick Berg; violence in Israel; local news - etc. etc.)

2) it’s been the same attention as in the US, for the obvious reason it is a huge story of concern for all countries involved in Iraq - European countries - UK first of all of course (Britain having its own rather big allegations scandal, with tabloid printing pictures every day - and why did you not even consider that?), then, Poland, Spain, Italy among others - still have their troops there, in the coalition, under US control, so it is obvious they should be a little bit concerned about the torture allegations and the consequences of that, don’t you think?

I’d rather you responded to that, than apologise for something I already told you was not “offensive”, only incorrect and conveniently biased with assumptions that do not happen to be true to anyone following both the US and European media.

Besides, I never even discussed “anti-Americanism” per se, or denied or dismissed the existence of it. It is not the point here. While there is certainly the kind of kneejerk anti-Americanism, the bias kind, what you describe as “people out there who enjoy watching America contradict its rhetoric” conveniently sidesteps a reaction that is not of enjoyment but of criticism and outrage at the fact the current US government (not “America” at large) “contradicted its own rhetoric” - or, better, did not seem to manage the torture allegations, reports, denounciation, etc. very well.

It seems there’s a lot of folks having that reaction in the US in the first place.

In fact, I’m reading the most outraged comments in American press and weblogs. I suppose that’s one of the things that happen when you have a democracy.

I wouldn’t certainly think everyone who is outraged in the US in the first place was just waiting for that sort of thing to happen so they could point the finger at the Bush administration and say, see, we told you they were bad for us! vote for Kerry!

I would imagine that there are many people who are outraged just like, say, many members of the military - US and British and coalition countries alike, who went there, worked their ass off, risked their lives, even managed to build decent relations with locals in many cases - were outraged. Because what happened sucks very badly from all directions you look at it.

I don’t see you even taking that kind of reaction into consideration when you speak of the coverage and public attention to this scandal.

OR am I only being pedantic?

Posted by pepi · May 13, 2004 08:10 AM

it is a horrible act to take another human being’s life.

all the same, the united states of amerika has been doing it for years[decades even].

why is it that we lament the demise of berg, but care so little about the demise of so many non-combatant iraqis?

quite candidly, unless berg was a spook, he was insane to be rambling about a war zone.

i think he had spook relationships. and i think that those spooks abadoned him.

his dad got it right. it was the bush admin that exposed berg to their boy, zarkawi.

let us never forget that zarkawi could have been picked up by the bushies at almost anytime over the last several years. but for some reason, the bushies refrained. that should make you consider that zarkawi was/is our boy.

if berg wasn’t a spook, then he was a fool or an idiot. wandering around iraq in this era is a very stupid stunt - virtually suicidal.

no tears for a fool.

and no anger over his “offing”. it was predictable.

avenging berg for his stupidity would be like driving into a head-on so as to avoid hitting a squirrel on the road.

not wise.

Posted by albertchampion · May 13, 2004 09:19 AM

Pepi, I believe I made it clear in my post above, the following are my thoughts on the issue:

1) I don’t think there was heightened coverage — that was, again, a word of convenience — I do think there is disparate coverage, between events that occur in America and the Sudanese crisis. I think that’s fairly undeniable, and yes it is fair to levy that judgment, as I do, against all people and governments worldwide. This is where you’ve been misreading me all along: I never claimed that Europe is covering the story more than America; I was simply saying that in general worldwide the story is getting more coverage than the Sudanese crisis. This was an observation to which I gave three possible reasons, one of which was a blanket idiocy.

2) My claim of anti-Americanism, as I said above, was exagerrated. I had meant to put a qualifier before I uttered the word “Europeans.” By anti-Americanism I mean both types: those that oppose the concept of America in general, and those that oppose only the current administration. Obviously, the former exist only in radical fringes.

3) On your point about the US military and coalition countries: that’s a good reason for disparate coverage. Read my original post. I asked for other reasons, politely enough — no need to castigate me for not mentioning that one. In fact, though I’ve heard it before, I thank you for mentioning it. And of course you’re not being pedanctic; but I must ask, why do you take that scathing tone and ask me if I think you are? Do you honestly believe I think that reason is trivial and academic? Again I feel that you’re assuming I’m someone I’m not. That’s just it Pepi: you need to ease off the vitriol. You keep getting nasty, and I keep staring at you blankly, interested in what you’re saying but cringing at your attitude.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 02:54 PM

rajeev: hello? do we both speak the same language here? where did your apologies end up? and how come you can still keep contradicting yourself?

you write that I have been “misreading” you all along, and that you never claimed that Europe is covering the story more than America” - well gosh I hate to be so boring but can you please re-read again your first post? where you asked why the heightend coverage abroad, and why in particular for Europe (“it gets more complicated when we go abroad to Europe”), and might it not be because Europeans enjoy America being caught contradicting its rhetoric?

I would gladly consider all that scrapped in light of your later apology, if you didn’t keep reinforcing the statements you made there, while at the same time denying you ever made them.

Consider me baffled.

Baffled also at the way you manage to sidestep the discussion on the real point.

You asked, why is this Abu Ghraib story getting more coverage than Sudan.

Several different replies on that have already been given to you by me and other posters.

Could you maybe give them a passing look instead of getting hung up on me being “nasty” or “vitriolic” by simply pointing out your inconsistency?

On your point about the US military and coalition countries: that’s a good reason for disparate coverage

No, not “disparate” (which is the same as heightened, different, more - I don’t suppose you mean “disparate” as less, do you ?) - the coverage is the same. Actually, even less prominent by now outside the US because there are also other national news.

The fact European countries are in the military coalition with the US, and UK being on the front line there with mre troops than anybody else, and their own scandal too - those are reasons for the coverage being equally intense overall over the past weeks/days. Is that clearer?

In light of that, as well as the other reasons previously given also by others, and in light of the facts on Abu Ghraib themselves, I am genuinely baffled that anyone could wonder why in the past few days in the US and Europe there has been more coverage of this than of anything else.

There you go. Hope that is not too vitriolic for you.

Posted by pepi · May 13, 2004 04:09 PM

Pepi, this IS a massive miscommunication. This is what I’m saying:

1) There is DISPARATE coverage WORLDWIDE between the torture scandal and the Sudan crisis.

2) The coverage is EQUALLY disparate everywhere (more or less). I did not ever think that the coverage is greater abroad than it was in the United States — that wasn’t even the question I was asking. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, as in re-reading my original post it can be taken both ways. At the time I thought it was clear because at the start I acknowleded that coverage was heightened in the US relative to Sudan, and I explained that away, then I posed the question of why it was ALSO HEIGHTENED (emphasis: also) in Europe relative to Sudan. This is what I meant, so scrap any other interpretation you may have had.

3) I have taken account of all the reasons people gave, and I appreciate them. I am “hung up” on your attitude because I had made multiple attempts to lighten this conversation, all of which were summarily rejected by you. You continue, also, to assume that I haven’t been reading people’s reasons. How many times must I say this? I have read them — they make sense to me. Thank you!

You keep insisting that I claimed that the coverage was greater in Europe than it was in the US — AND THAT, I never did claim. Perhaps I was not clear enough — fine, but now you know what I meant.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 05:50 PM

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, as in re-reading my original post it can be taken both ways.

Yes, indeed. But, despite that initial crass generalisation on Europeans, despite the straw man about antiamerican sadism lurking behind there being more coverage of this rather than Sudan, I will now take you word that by “heightened coverage abroad” you meant that the coverage is heightened everywhere, and while you do find a good reason for that in the US, you are in doubt about Europe.

I profusely apologise for my lack of powers of mind-reading and my stubborness in taking words literally as they appear on the page in the sequence they appear in. That was so not creative of me.

Did I get it right now?

See, that “interpretation” of your question just sounds so much more surreal than the first one, I did not even take it into consideration.

I really fail to see the logic in even needing to ask why the Iraqi torture scandal would get relatively more attention than Sudan in the media of the countries of the coalition currently occupying Iraq.

As in the media of those involved with the US in other operations (Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.). And in the media of their neighbouring countries. And in the media of countries that have US military bases in them. (here’s a quick game: name one that doesn’t). And like Freedman would say, in this big global village where telecommunications etc. etc.

Seriously. Would you ask the same question (why more Iraq than Sudan in the US/British/Eurocontinental news) - of the Nick Berg killing? Since it also pertains to Iraq?

And if not, why not?

Posted by pepi · May 13, 2004 06:27 PM

Of course I would, and have elsewhere, asked the same question regarding Nick Berg. This is why, in one of my earlier comments on this thread, I said the problem is not so much “heigtening” the torture scandal as it is “lowering” the crisis in Sudan.

Finally, Pepi, you have a penchant for exagerration. Let me spell this out for you one final time. In my original post I said there was heightening in America and there was heightening in Europe. You interpreted me as saying there was heightening in Europe above and beyond the heightening in America. You do not have to be telepathic to discern a difference between the two claims.

Posted by Rajeev Advani · May 13, 2004 08:26 PM

Interesting to note the east coast media’s sudden onset of scruples concerning publication of the Nick Berg, “God is Great” butchering by Zarqawi. This BTW is the same terrorist, one of many, whom Saddam had harbored and funded in Iraq prior to the war and who has already killed one US diplomat and god knows how many Kurds and Iraqis.

Editors so far have been given two sets of grisly and morally repellent photos.

Photo-set A consists of images that horrify Americans (and anyone else) of good will, enrage arabs and Europeans of less than good will, and cause many Americans to oppose the war against Islamist fascism. This photo-set harms Bush’s re-election chances.

Photo-set B consists of images that enrage and horrify Americans (and anyone else) of good will and cause many Americans to rally behind the war against Islamist fascism. This photo-set helps Bush’s re-election chances.

East coast US and European and arab editors have given exhaustive play to photo-set A while in nearly all cases refusing to give any play to the photo-set B.

Wonder why?

A hint: Someone did a search of ABC News reports on Abu Ghraib between 4/29 and 5/11 and found 58 instances. He then searched ABC News reports for instances of mentions of Saddam’s mass graves from January 2003 to the present and found 5 instances.

Regards,
Tombo

Posted by tombo · May 13, 2004 11:31 PM

Tombo, you claim that:
“[…]Zarqawi. This BTW is the same terrorist, one of many, whom Saddam had harbored and funded in Iraq prior to the war[…]”

Where are your evidences? Because if I’m not confused, that Zarqawi is the one whose base was in the US protected zone of Iraq, and that Bush refused to attack before in spite of military demands to do so.

DSW

Posted by Antoni Jaume · May 14, 2004 09:33 PM

If it’s true that the Bush admin could have easily dispatched Zarqawi and failed to do so for political reasons, then Bush should be impeached. I’d like to see the actual evidence, though, before I leapt to such a conclusion.

Rgds,
T

Posted by tombo · May 14, 2004 11:36 PM
Followups

→ A Partisan Beheading?.
Excerpt: I found the blogosphere's response to the Nick Berg story interesting. Kevin put the link up to the video and I put it on one of my extra servers. That started a flood of activity. As you can see below...Read more at Wizbang
→ A Partisan Beheading?.
Excerpt: I found the blogosphere's response to the Nick Berg story interesting. Kevin put the link up to the video and I put it on one of my extra servers. That started a flood of activity. As you can see below...Read more at Wizbang
→ A Partisan Beheading?.
Excerpt: I found the blogosphere's response to the Nick Berg story interesting. Kevin put the link up to the video and I put it on one of my extra servers. That started a flood of activity. As you can see below...Read more at Wizbang
→ Quote of the Day.
Excerpt: From Matt Welch, no commie, via Ted Barlow whose dog wears pure red, white and blue:I have the perhaps quaint belief that one can want to fix abuses in our prison system, and wish to prevent another Abu Ghraib from...Read more at Classless Warfare
→ Linking Fool Friday.
Excerpt: Another busy week with little time to post. Best get caught up now. I am long overdue in reciprocating a link to fellow Virginian Mediocre Fred. His recent post on shenanigans out of the Maryland governor's mansion is quite entertaining....Read more at FoolBlog
→ Linking Fool Friday.
Excerpt: Another busy week with little time to post. Best get caught up now. I am long overdue in reciprocating a link to fellow Virginian Mediocre Fred. His recent post on shenanigans out of the Maryland governor's mansion is quite entertaining....Read more at FoolBlog

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.