Wednesday, April 28, 2004
In regards to yesterday's op-ed by David Brooks at NYTimes, Looking through keyholes...
Trying Times believes that Brooks will provide optimum fodder for its new weblog. In his latest op-ed, Brooks admonishes the Washington Press Corps for its pervasive coverage of the fallout of the recent 9-11 hearings while allegedly ignoring the more pressing concerns of the Iraq conflict. In addition, Brooks maintains that the attention paid to Bob Woodward's latest book, Plan of Attack, is part of the press' obsession with gossip-mongering. How Brooks finds the logic to equate the coverage of the 9-11 proceedings and the obsession with Bob Woodwards book is unfathomable. Trying Times believes that Brooks' intent is to associate the conspiratorial, tabloid nature of the Woodward book coverage ("Was Colin Powell in the loop on Iraq? When did Bush ask the Pentagon to draw up war plans?") with the press coverage of the 9-11 Commission and hearings. Through this obfuscation, Brooks would have us believe that the Press cares not for any of the important conclusions of the hearings but for the tabloid value of Richard Clarke's public appearances before the committee, in which he called out Condi Rice and G.W. Bush's dissimulation of the event's leading to 9-11. T.T. would in general agree that the press' has an unholy obsession with shoddy tabloid journalism. However, T.T. disagrees with the application of that stereotype in this instance. While it seems American's did not want to properly engage his admissions and charges (judging by poll's comparing the public's belief in the accuracy of Clarke's versus Rice's testimony), Clarke's appearance played an important role in public discourse on the subject, in addition to helping force the administration's hand in regards to Rice's testimony. Clarke's book and testimony were important players in the public's ability to further understand the circumstances leading to 9-11, and the coverage given was appropriate. As for Brook's berating of the continuing coverage of Woodward's book, Trying Times believes the public has a right to knowledge of Administrative decision's made in the run up to war in Iraq, and that is what Plan of Attack provides. Perhaps if the Bush Administration were somewhat less secretive about their goals and practices T.T. would find more occasion to agree with Brooks' contention.
Concerning the general assertion that Iraq deserves more attention than other issues, the following question will be posited : How many stories must take the back burner to this conflict? The Iraq war is a continuing, ceaseless narrative of chaos and disappointment, at least if your watching and listening to "Liberal Media" outlets like, say, CNN. Eventually, the country must find the time to deliberate (yes, partially through the work of the Washington Press Corps) about issues here at home that the Administration would like us to continue to ignore: the environment, jobs, inadequate funding of Homeland security measures, indefinite security detention of enemy combatants, etc. To make time for other issues is the only the only thing maintaining the American Public's sanity.
Trying Times asserts that David Brooks' continuing column along with the other op-ed pieces churned out daily at the paper of record are perfect illustrations of the invalidity of his latest article's remonstrations. Press coverage of The Iraqi conflict is nothing if not ubiquitous (read:never ending). If the press decides to cover other issues as well, we should all be grateful.
Trying Times believes that Brooks will provide optimum fodder for its new weblog. In his latest op-ed, Brooks admonishes the Washington Press Corps for its pervasive coverage of the fallout of the recent 9-11 hearings while allegedly ignoring the more pressing concerns of the Iraq conflict. In addition, Brooks maintains that the attention paid to Bob Woodward's latest book, Plan of Attack, is part of the press' obsession with gossip-mongering. How Brooks finds the logic to equate the coverage of the 9-11 proceedings and the obsession with Bob Woodwards book is unfathomable. Trying Times believes that Brooks' intent is to associate the conspiratorial, tabloid nature of the Woodward book coverage ("Was Colin Powell in the loop on Iraq? When did Bush ask the Pentagon to draw up war plans?") with the press coverage of the 9-11 Commission and hearings. Through this obfuscation, Brooks would have us believe that the Press cares not for any of the important conclusions of the hearings but for the tabloid value of Richard Clarke's public appearances before the committee, in which he called out Condi Rice and G.W. Bush's dissimulation of the event's leading to 9-11. T.T. would in general agree that the press' has an unholy obsession with shoddy tabloid journalism. However, T.T. disagrees with the application of that stereotype in this instance. While it seems American's did not want to properly engage his admissions and charges (judging by poll's comparing the public's belief in the accuracy of Clarke's versus Rice's testimony), Clarke's appearance played an important role in public discourse on the subject, in addition to helping force the administration's hand in regards to Rice's testimony. Clarke's book and testimony were important players in the public's ability to further understand the circumstances leading to 9-11, and the coverage given was appropriate. As for Brook's berating of the continuing coverage of Woodward's book, Trying Times believes the public has a right to knowledge of Administrative decision's made in the run up to war in Iraq, and that is what Plan of Attack provides. Perhaps if the Bush Administration were somewhat less secretive about their goals and practices T.T. would find more occasion to agree with Brooks' contention.
Concerning the general assertion that Iraq deserves more attention than other issues, the following question will be posited : How many stories must take the back burner to this conflict? The Iraq war is a continuing, ceaseless narrative of chaos and disappointment, at least if your watching and listening to "Liberal Media" outlets like, say, CNN. Eventually, the country must find the time to deliberate (yes, partially through the work of the Washington Press Corps) about issues here at home that the Administration would like us to continue to ignore: the environment, jobs, inadequate funding of Homeland security measures, indefinite security detention of enemy combatants, etc. To make time for other issues is the only the only thing maintaining the American Public's sanity.
Trying Times asserts that David Brooks' continuing column along with the other op-ed pieces churned out daily at the paper of record are perfect illustrations of the invalidity of his latest article's remonstrations. Press coverage of The Iraqi conflict is nothing if not ubiquitous (read:never ending). If the press decides to cover other issues as well, we should all be grateful.
This blog is intended as a space for my general political views. Specifically, but not exclusively, this space will be used to respond to the daily views of national op-ed columnists.
