>From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:51 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Washinton Post issues mea culpa for prewar coverage
>
>--- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've no idea whatsoever how you can come to that
>> conclusion from the
>> statement.
>
>I guess I�ll have to explain it. And they say I have a
>reading comprehension problem :)
>
>> In fact even the conclusion seemed flawed since
>> "Monday Morning Quarterback"
>> specifically refers to somebody that claims that
>> they could have done
>> something better than somebody else.��
>
>No wonder we can�t agree.
>Monday Morning Quarterback =
>One who criticizes or passes judgment from a position
>of hindsight.
The phrase very clearly refers to somebody who claims to have more knowledge
than the person in the position to actually do the thing. It's akin to
"back seat driver".
The ACTUAL quarterback would never be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" - only
the schmoes criticizing him at the water cooler the next day can be. I was
not at all gainsaying the idea that the criticism came with the benefit of
hindsight (my definition included that). I was challenging the idea that
the phrase applied to self-criticism whether it be an individual or an
organization.
It's also odd to me that you seem to think that the definition I gave is
enough to force a disagreement. What is "criticizing or passing judgement"
if not claiming that you could have done it better (or, more specifically
know how to have it done it better)? I still don't think that the phrase
applies to self-criticism, but the core definitions seem the same.
>The article itself says:
>"If there's something I would do differently -- and
>it's always easy in hindsight -- the top of the story
>would say, 'We're going to war, we're going to war
>against evil.' But later down it would say, 'But some
>people are questioning it.' The caution and the
>questioning was buried underneath the drumbeat. . . .
>The hugeness of the war preparation story tended to
>drown out a lot of that stuff."
>
>And�
>
>Reviewing the story in his glass-walled office last
>week, Downie said: "In retrospect, that probably
>should have been on Page 1 instead of A17, even though
>it wasn't a definitive story and had to rely on
>unnamed sources. It was a very prescient story."
>
>See how I came to that conclusion now?
Not at all. Your conclusion was:
"Sounds like they're claiming that if they weren't so
focused on supporting Bush they would have known the
WMDs didn't exist. "
Neither quote indicates that their actions would ever have given them
knowledge about weapons. Neither indicates a "regret of action". In other
words they do not regret a lack of investigation into the matter. The
statement specifically addresses a lack of urgency for material they ALEADY
HAD.
It does NOT sound (again, at least to me) like they're claiming a focus of
support for Bush caused them to miss opportunities for investigation (if I
may paraphrase your statement).
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion of what things sound like,
but you've not convinced me that the substance of the material clearly
indicates your views at all.
My original comment was that it didn't sound, to me, like you had read the
article based on your sarcastic "I knew back then there were no WMDs but
didn't tell anyone" comment. You reply to that with a passive-aggressive
implication that I've a reading comprehension issue and an assumption that I
didn't read the article myself.
Why are conclusions you've come based on your reading intelligent and clear,
but those that differ indicative of comprehension issues or failure to even
consider the material?
>> In this case
>> they are saying that they
>> allowed themselves to become lax, not placing
>> themselves in another's
>> position.��Woodward is specifically saying that, in
>> his opinion, this
>> complacently was universal among the major media and
>> that furthermore nobody
>> was willing to make this claim out of fear of later
>> embarrassment.
>
>Downie said the paper ran several pieces analyzing
>Powell's speech as a package on inside pages. "We were
>not able to marshal enough evidence to say he was
>wrong," Downie said of Powell. "To pull one of those
>out on the front page would be making a statement on
>our own: 'Aha, he's wrong about the aluminum tubes.' "
Downie was faced with a risk: take a possibly important stand with
potentially weak evidence or play it safe. He chose to play it safe but
regrets not taking the stand.
This does not indicate that the investigation (or any investigation) was
somehow clipped short or lost resources due to support for Bush. Rather it
indicates to me, a good, but conservative, journalistic decision that is
regretted for the chance it represented.
In fact he specifically states that it was the lack of enough evidence
(indicating that they did have at least some evidence) that caused him to
choose the way he did, not some blanket policy to support Bush.
>> They were very clear, again, that this apology
>> related to actual, published
>> articles, not imagined research or investigation
>> that they could have
>> possibly done.��In other words it wasn't that they
>> "could" have known
>> anything: it was that they had writers that were
>> questioning the
>> administration but they failed to give them the
>> exposure that the stories
>> deserved.
>>
>Actually:
>In mid-March, as the administration was on the verge
>of invading Iraq, Woodward stepped in to give the
>stalled Pincus piece about the administration's lack
>of evidence a push. "We weren't holding it for any
>political reason or because we were being pressured by
>the administration," Spayd said, but because such
>stories were difficult to edit at a time when the
>national desk was deluged with copy. "People forget
>how many facets of this story we were chasing . . .
>the political ramifications . . . military readiness .
>. . issues around postwar Iraq and how prepared the
>administration was . . . diplomacy angles . . . and we
>were pursuing WMD. . . . All those stories were
>competing for prominence."
The stories were written, the investigation complete. The statement was
about their handling of information they already had, not regrets about
information they could have gathered if only they didn't support the
president so much.
They're very clear here that they were not (as you're statement indicated)
supporting Bush by running stories friendly to him. They were not stating
regrets over lack of effort or investigation.
They are making a clear statement: many wheels were in motion, many elements
were fighting for focus. They made the decision at the time to give more
promotion, time and effort to essentially the same things everybody else was
(this was the "groupthink" that Woodward spoke about). And this is what
they're now apologizing for.
>> There was no claim (direct or implied) of supporting
>> Bush that I could see.
>> Instead there was a regret for trusting the
>> administration-backed
>> intelligence as much as they did coupled with a herd
>> mentality when it came
>> to determining "top stories".
>>
>>"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon
>>correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions
>>were on the front page. Things that challenged the
>>administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday.
>>There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going
>>to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary
>>stuff?"
This doesn't say (to me) "we support Bush" in any way. Rather this says
(again, to me) "the train's left the station!" In other words they were
well into running the stories on the events of the day, not on how we
arrived at the events of the day.
You can definitely assume reasons for why they wouldn't "worry about all
this contrary stuff", but considering that Bush wasn't mentioned and the
stance of the Post in the past it seems very unlikely that it was due to
"support for the president".
>>I guess my reading comprehensions pretty good after
>>all :)
A high opinion of yourself is always a good thing to have.
>Maybe you need to read the original article instead of
>an article of the article. It�s like playing
>telephone. I can�t wait to here what your definition
>of that is :)
When did I say that I didn't read the original article? Why assume that my
comments come from ignorance rather than an honest, intelligent
interpretation of the statements at hand?
You make statements of opinion and I inquired how you could possibly come to
them from the material at hand. You attempted to explain it, but I simply
can't see how the conclusions follow the facts. I'm actually pretty good,
usually, at understanding how people come to believe things whether I agree
with that belief or not. However in this case I can't see how the facts
support your conclusions.
Whether we chalk that up to an inability to comprehend on my part, an
inability to inform on yours, a combination of both or blindness caused by
preconceived notions on one or both our parts I'm not sure.
I do know however that you have a very reliable habit of accusing those that
disagree with you of a) being liberal (as if that were an insult) b) not
understanding the material pertinent to the discussion and c) not even
reading the material pertinent to the discussion.
You argue aggressively, which is fine, but also destructively, which is
tiresome.
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
