>Journalists are paid to research, substantiate
and report the news in a
>balanced fashion, which is exactly the diametric opposite of most of the
>weblogs out there.
>balanced fashion, which is exactly the diametric opposite of most of the
>weblogs out there.
I would quote from a Texas Maven in relation to all
of that stuff about news in a balanced fashion:
Here is her report on the difference between the
France of Freedom Fries, Cable TV and Wrong wing "journalists" and the reality
that perhaps once constituted "Journalism" but is no more.
REH
Posted on Thu, Feb. 20, 2003
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, eh?
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, eh?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
Creators Syndicate
We have been enjoying a lovely little spate of
French-bashing here lately. Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who admits that
French-bashing is "shtick" (as it is to many American comedians), has
popularized the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to describe the
French.
It gets a lot less attractive than that.
George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried."
That was certainly amusing.
One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler.
On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny.
In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.
Relying on the Maginot Line was one of the great military follies of modern history, but it does not reflect on the courage of those who died for France in 1940. For 18 months after that execrable defeat, the United States of America continued to have cordial diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany.
One of the great what-ifs of history is: What would have happened if Franklin Roosevelt had lived to the end of his last term?
How many wars have been lost in the peace?
For those of you who have not read Paris 1919, I recommend it highly. Roosevelt was anti-colonialist. That system was a great evil, a greater horror even than Nazism or Stalinism.
If you have read Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild, you have some idea. The French were in it up to their necks.
Instead of insisting on freedom for the colonies of Europe, we let our allies carry on with the system, leaving the British in India and Africa, and the French in Vietnam and Algeria, to everyone's eventual regret.
Surrender monkeys? Try Dien Bien Phu. Yes, the French did surrender, didn't they? After 6,000 French died in a no-hope position. Ever heard of the Foreign Legion? Of the paratroopers, called "paras"? The trouble we could have saved ourselves if we had only paid attention to Dien Bien Phu.
Then came Algeria. As nasty a war as has ever been fought. If you have seen the film Battle of Algiers, you have some idea. Five generations of pieds noirs, French colonialists, thought it was their country.
Charles de Gaulle came back into power in 1958, specifically elected to keep Algeria French. I consider de Gaulle's long, slow, delicate, elephantine withdrawal (de Gaulle even looked like an elephant) one of the single greatest acts of statesmanship in history. Only de Gaulle could have done that.
Those were the years when France learned about terrorism. The plastiquers were all over Paris. The "plastic" bombs, the ones you can stick like Play-Do underneath the ledge of some building, were the popular weapon du jour. It made Israel today look tame. For France, terrorism is "Been there, done that."
The other night on 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney, who fought in France and certainly has a right to be critical, chided the French for forgetting all that sacrifice. But I think he got it backward: The French remember too well.
I was in Paris on Sept. 11, 2001. The reaction was so immediate, so generous, so overwhelming.
Not just the government, but the people kept bringing flowers to the American embassy. They covered the American Cathedral, the American Church, anything they could find that was American.
They didn't just leave flowers -- they wrote notes with them. I read more than 100 of them. Not only did they refer, again and again, to Normandy, to never forgetting, but there were even some in ancient, spidery handwriting referring to WWI: "Lafayette is still with you."
Look, the French are not a touchy-feely people. They're more, like, logical. For them to approach total strangers in the streets who look American and hug them is seriously extraordinary. I got patted so much I felt like a Labrador retriever. I wish Andy Rooney had been there.
This is where I think the real difference is. We Americans are famously ahistorical. We can barely be bothered to remember what happened last week, or last month, much less last year.
The French are really stuck on history. (Some might claim this is because the French are better educated than we are. I won't go there.)
Does it not occur to anyone that these are very old friends of ours, trying to tell us what they think they know about being hated by weak enemies in the Third World?
Perhaps since they gave that mediocrity in the
White House that affirmative action apointment to Harvard Business School the
world has taken a different look at what they profess to be Hahvawd
Qwaleteh.
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: [Futurework] another view on blogging at
Harvard
> HAS HARVARD GONE MAD?
> Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&id=7824
> Hi John and Suzanne, I just had to write in regarding your recent
> NewsScan article entitled "Blogging Comes to Harvard." Is this guy (Dave
> Winer) for real? Or more to the point, what is Harvard thinking? Someone
> there has been blinded by the hype of weblogs, and failed to realize that
> the premise of weblogs is the publication of one's diary entries publicly.
> To suggest that blogging is a skill as valuable and basic as word
> processing or e-mail is ludicrous. To further imply that journalists could
> be replaced by weblogs which are, by nature, based entirely on conjecture
> and opinion, is an insult to the entire profession of journalism.
> Journalists are paid to research, substantiate and report the news in a
> balanced fashion, which is exactly the diametric opposite of most of the
> weblogs out there. Weblogging is hype and frequently blogs consist of
> nothing more than the egotistical rantings of individuals who don't have
> enough people to talk at. Shame on Harvard for giving them more standing
> than they are worth. (Julian C. Dunn)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
