Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Astounding Admission by Time Reporter

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt interview Michael Ware, Time's man on the ground in Iraq. Now read the following transcript closely:

"HH: But I do think that that distinction between Islamists and insurgents has been well understood, and for a very long time. And I'd look for you to tell me when were you misled about that. But more importantly, going to the Islamists, about whom...you'll agree with me, they're evil. Won't you, Michael?

MW: Well, I certainly...I mean, one has to be careful that as the Islamic army of Iraq reminded just last week on Al Jazeera, the insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we're within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic. Suffice to say, it's very hard to relate to the goals or tactics that the hard-line Islamists employ.

The reporter of Time Magazine has just admitted that he can't bring you the full story from Iraq because the enemy is listening and watching and he therefore fears for his safety! ASTOUNDING!

Or how about this:

"HH: Well, do you think the Russian people were better under Krushchev than they were under Stalin? Neither of us saw Kruschev or Stalin, but both of us...

MW: Yeah, I wouldn't have a clue, you know?

HH: You wouldn't have a clue? Really?

Time Magazine's main reporter doesn't HAVE A CLUE if Stalin was worse than Kruschev??? And this guy's reporting and opinions are being fed to the world as the inside story from Iraq???????

Chek out Hugh Hewitt here for more.

12 Comments:

At 10:44 PM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

Chas,

It's late so I'll check this out tomorrow. In the meantime, can you tell me who Hugh Hewitt is?

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger MonicaR said...

CH - Troll and I listened to alot of this interview driving home from dinner at Mom-mom's house tonight. Really telling - some of the things he said. Loved the interview.

Here Alan - here's the Wikipedia entry on Hugh Hewitt. ;-)

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

Thanks, Monica.

I also just listened to the interview at Radio Blogger, Tuesday, March 28, Time Magazine's Michael Ware from Baghdad, 03-28ware.mp3. I highly recommend it.

Hewitt clearly had a point of view that he was pursuing, which is that Ware should not have reported on the insurgents and the jihadis in Iraq by actually interviewing them. Hewitt likened it to a US reporter interviewing German troops during WWII.

Ware clearly stated his point of view on journalism which you can agree with or not. I don't think Hewitt succeeded in discredititng him, even though Chas does.

 
At 10:05 AM, Blogger MonicaR said...

"which is that Ware should not have reported on the insurgents and the jihadis in Iraq by actually interviewing them."

That's not what I got out of it Alan. Not to be a pain in the butt - but what *I* got out of it was that Ware is now in a position in which he fears being truthful. To him maintaining the source while at the same time maintaining his body parts intact has become more important. He has to report on the jihadis in a sympathetic manner. He paints it as an honorable position, implies that he is gathering intelligence, but he is not. He implies that his reports have educated the public because we didn't understand the fractious nature of the insurgents. But he is wrong in that and HH attempts to point that out to him.

That's just a bit of what I got out of it.

 
At 10:09 AM, Blogger MonicaR said...

His admitted ignorance on the subject of Kruschev vs. Stalin is also astonishing Alan. Wouldn't you agree?

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

Monica,

HH, as you call him, was clearly on a mission and in your eyes he succeeded. HH lost me when he compared being in the Empire State building to being in Baghdad.

HH's argument is that there is a war going on and reporters representing one side in that war should not interview people on the other side. When his analogy to WWII went nowhere, he tried to go to the cold war. By the time he dragged out Stalin his interviewee wasn't listening anymore.

Ware is not going to please people who want reporters who are not neutral. He never agreed with HH that he changes the story because he is afraid, he just reports things that HH (and you and Chas) don't want to hear. When he said he had reported something that HH did want to hear, HH made it clear that he doesn't read Ware's stuff and missed some supposedly good news for you guys.

Bottom line: Ware says war causes everybody to lie. HH says only the bad guys are lying. No news here. Move along.

 
At 7:01 PM, Blogger MonicaR said...

"And given that we're within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic."

You chose to ignore this statement by Ware?

You are blaming Hewitt for what Ware said?

You're twisting all over the place to try to make this mean nothing Alan. It IS interesting to watch your gyrations, though. Then at the last - the old 'don't look at it - it means nothing' standby line when you said 'No news here - move along' that you leftys love so much. Amazing.

It's the same way you ignore the uranium that was found in Iraq isn't it?

 
At 8:17 PM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

Monica,

I'm "blaming Hewitt" for having an agenda just like you have an agenda to blame the media for the message. It's his program and he can direct it anyway he wants. He asked the questions and Ware answered.

Now, what you fault as "twisting" I call reasoning. I'm explaining what I heard based on everything (not "nothing") I heard, not on one sentence. There's over 6,000 words in the interview, and you only care about twelve. It's actually a very meaningful dialog about the nature of a free press versus the need for propaganda in wartime.

Here's the key question from Hewitt after he has determined that Ware has conducted interviews 18 times with the jihadists, and 30 or 40 times with the insurgents:
Now this brings me to the interesting issue that we talked about on CNN, and that is the morality of doing that. Why do you do that?

When Hewitt doesn't like the answer (that interviewing both sides makes for a more compete story), he tries to get Ware to agree that the jihadists are evil. At first, Ware makes the "diplomatic" reply that you don't like. Later, when Hewitt comes back to it, saying that:
[the jihadists] kill innocents, and that killing of innocents is evil, is it not, Michael?
Ware replies:
Well, absolutely.

Finally, I will take your suggestion and not sum things up at the end of my comments. If my "bottom line" sentence detracted from my argument, then I retract it.

 
At 12:56 AM, Blogger MonicaR said...

We were debating on a couple of key quotes of Ware that CH pointed out that he thought (and I thought) were astounding admissions.

Now you twist to say that I am basing everything I believe about the interview on those quotes alone? Where did I say that? Well - I didn't and it's dishonest of you to attempt it. Shame on you!

As for Hewitt pressing Ware to take a position either for or against the Islamists - why shouldn't he do that? Ware sounded quite sympathetic to them in several othe r places in the interview. I believe that Hewitt is very forthright about his position on everything here and hasn't tried to misrepresent himself in any way. Are you accusing him of doing that - misrepresenting himself as not owning his own POV?

Hewitt has apparently been getting tons of emails from lefties accusing him of forcing Ware to say the things he said. Sounds familiar as I heard it here first Alan. Did you email him? Didja?

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

Monica,

Now I see where the confusion arose. YOU were debating what CH said, and I was debating what was said in the interview. My apologies for not playing by those rules. My rule is that when someone posts a comment and a source, I go to the source for the complete context.

I now promise (see me crossing my heart) that I will not comment on people's blogs unless I am going to debate the Blogger's POV and not the actual cited source. As you might expect, this will free up tons of my time.

With that promise made, let me say that Ware's statement (which Chas quotes) that "one always must be diplomatic" does not equal "he therefore fears for his safety!" The fact that Ware doesn't appear to be a student of history doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a journalist, but, then again, I have never found TIME to be a reliable source. Too right wing for me.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger MonicaR said...

Oh stop whining. TIME, btw, is extremely left wing! If you want to have some real conniption fits I recommend The Weekly Standard. Now THAT'S a neocon pub. if I ever saw one.

I am not asking you to agree with what CH said about Ware's statement - I am asking you to STAY FOCUSED. My God. You're worse than my girlies sometimes except that I think you're deliberately obfuscating.

It is extraordinary that Ware is so ignorant of history. The man has a college degree. He is a prime example of what education systems in the West are turning out. It's not surprising that he went into law and then decided to be a journalist. Unbelievably ignorant of him. It's kind of frightening, really. One doesn't have to be a History major to know the information that Hewitt asked. One does not have to study history formally to know that history is important and to know history is beneficial to us in the present day.

Have a nice day Alan - I hope that you are enjoying the weather that we are enjoying here in the City of Brotherly Love.

 
At 12:53 PM, Blogger Alan_McDonald said...

OK. I'll stop whining. It is lovely here; I may even grill out tonight!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

http://www.forret.com/tools/trackback.asp?title=Astounding Admission by Time Reporter&blog_name=Jeremiah's Helper&url=http://jeremiahshelper.blogspot.com/2006/03/astounding-admission-by-time-reporter.html