September 26, 2007
IF WE AREN'T WE TO YOU AREN'T YOU OBJECTIVELY UNAMERICAN?:
Katie’s World (Peter Wehner, 9.26.2007, Commentary)
At her National Press Club event yesterday, we heard this from CBS News anchor Katie Couric:The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying “we” when referring to the United States and, even the “shock and awe” of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the “Today” show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, “Will anybody put the brakes on this?” And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.
There is a lot to unpack in these few sentences. For one thing, Couric’s aversion to using the word “we” when referring to her own country is both weird and revealing. After all, she is part of the United States, a citizen of America, and so she is part of “we.” Hers is an example of a certain journalistic sensibility that feels as if members of the media are compromising their objectivity by referring to their country as if they were a part of it. And I suppose in The World According To Katie, it would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics to hope for America to prevail in a war to depose Saddam Hussein and bring liberty to his broken land. Hence, I suppose, her discomfort with how well the initial stages of the Iraq war went.
This is unfortunate enough stuff from the media, but it seems even worse that Nancy Pelosi thinks only Republicans are at war. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 26, 2007 8:07 PM
"And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in."
Profiles in Courage?
"And is this really being properly challenged by the right people?" Like a TV anchor?
These people didn't speak up when they should have because it was "difficult", and let thousands of fellow Americans and tens of thousands Iraqi civilians die. Blood on their hands, no?
Support the war when it was going well and claimed credit for its success, piled on when it was not. Weasels?
The real courageous people are GWB for doing what he believes was right. And the Dem Congressman, whose name I forgot, who voted against the war putting himself in "a very difficult position", but wanted to finish it after visiting the troops. Again, putting himself in "a very difficult position".
Posted by: ic at September 26, 2007 11:22 PMNothing new here:
Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html
I think it is just a reflection of this. The link is to my post and contains several links.
If anyone cares.
http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=8510#respond
Posted by: Mikey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 27, 2007 7:02 PM