Wednesday, June 01, 2005

 

Kaus Asks the Question

Mickey Kaus, writing in Slate, asks a question we MILBLOGS ask ourselves daily:
Maybe Feuer will answer what seems to me the great mystery of the press in Iraq: Why American reporters, almost to a man, had a more pessimistic view of the war than seems to have been warranted. I don't think you can simply say they were blindered by anti-war or anti-Bush ideology: these are conscientious, smart, experienced people of varying political stripes and they virtually all seemed to predict a greater disaster than transpired. That goes for the private, unprinted predictions of those few I encountered in person.
He goes on to note that he doesn't thus mean the war is a succes just yet, mentions the concerns of military commanders on the ground, but that clearly the war has gone better than one ever would have predicted based on their reporting.

I think we MIBLOGGERS and friends would answer that question pretty easily, don't you think?

No? well okay, aside from the fabled liberal media bias, how about the fact that they have fears for their own physical safety (there's still a chance they'll be targeted or caught up in an IED, even if it's a 1 out of a 1000 chance), that keeps them pretty tightly confined to the Hotel bar, and its clubby mix of malcontents?

Whatever the reason, we see it for what it is, and are as curious as the next American as to why that is.



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]