| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
The Journalistic Concept of Eminent Plausibility
“Now, it is possible that no interrogator at Guantanamo Bay
ever flushed pages of the Quran down the toilet, as the now-
retracted Newsweek story reported . . . But surely the larger
point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently
plausible. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation
techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in
Iraq and Guantanamo as . . . officials have also confirmed.” ---
Anne Applebaum, columnist for the Washington Post, writing
in defense of Newsweek.
This column by Anne Applebaum illustrates with crystal
clarity the difference between the elite media and most of the
rest of American society. To Ms. Applebaum’s way of thinking,
the “larger point” has nothing to do with the story’s
authenticity nor with the very real and destructive
consequences of printing it, but is rather about the story’s
“eminent plausibility.” What she‘s basically saying is, Hey, we
all know that insensitive American interrogators are doing
things offensive to Muslim prisoners behind closed doors, so
even if Newsweek was unable to definitively prove that a Quran
got flushed, everyone ought to just get off their case!
To the rest of us, however, the larger point is something
more like this: If you don’t have any proof or substantiation of
something, then you shouldn’t print it. And in this particular
case, even if you did have proof, why risk inflaming the
irrational passions of millions of fanatics, damaging the war
effort in the process, all for no possible good?
See the difference in the thought processes? One side is
concerned about the authenticity of the Newsweek story as well
as how it effects the war on terror. The other side could give a
hoot. In fact, it looks as if the average journalist is more
concerned about a terrorist’s Quran getting flushed than
he/she is about flushing the American war effort down the
toilet. That might explain why the public’s regard for
journalists hovers somewhere around that of used car
salesmen, personal injury lawyers and identity thieves.
Unfortunately, the very concept of a war on terror may be
difficult for a lot of journalists to wrap their heads around
since so many of them perceive our military action as an
imperialistic, oil-grabbing, right-wing Christian crusade
launched by a power-mad, fundamentalist president who stole
the office from its rightful heir, Al Gore. Expecting a fair
presentation of the news--particularly war news--from them is
probably a pipe dream at best.
But let’s get back to Applebaum’s fascinating concept of
eminent plausibility. Is it eminently plausible that a war
against apocalyptic Islamic terrorism can be successfully
waged if it is shackled by the timorous rules of a liberal,
therapeutic culture that cannot bear to give offense to or
impose any sort of discomfort upon the most heinous, fanatical
murderers on the face of the earth?
It would certainly be hunky-dory if interrogators could
extract important information from captured Muslim
terrorists through happy-headed palaver or warm and fuzzy
encounter sessions. But people who would blow up thousands
of innocents with nary a twinge of conscience generally need
coaxing of a more stringent nature. Consequently, the
interrogators might have to occasionally raise their voices a
bit. Or sometimes they might shake a fist in a prisoner’s face.
And they might even on occasion show disrespect to the holy
book that is at least partially responsible for inspiring the
terrorists’ insanity.
Speaking of holy books, you can’t help but wonder if
Applebaum and her cohorts have the same concern about the
one that Christians revere as they have about the Quran.
Imagine that an abortion clinic has been bombed and
authorities have a suspect who is a member of some right-wing
religious group. Then imagine that during his interrogation an
overzealous cop takes his bible away and flushes it down the
toilet. Do you think Ms. Applebaum or any other mainstream
American journalist would have any particular problem with
that? Do you think she would be pointing fingers at
“interrogation techniques designed to be offensive” to
Christians? The plausibility of such a scenario seems less than
eminent.
Now, to put it all into perspective, who cares if interrogators
flushed a Quran? If it might rattle a reticent terrorist, then
flush away. Jiggle the handle a couple of times if you have to,
keep a plunger on hand and flush another one. The terrorist
enemies of our country are owed neither copies of the Quran
nor respect for their religion, the twisted interpretation of
which is largely responsible for their depraved acts. That they
get either of those, as they generally do, is an amazing privilege.
Also in her column, Applebaum expressed rank
mortification at how the Bush administration milked the
Newsweek screw-up for everything it was worth, obviously in
the hopes of discouraging other media from running with every
piddling, military-related scandal they can dig up. But it’s
hard to fault the Bushies for that since they understand that
the media have the breathtakingly easy ability to significantly
undermine the already excruciatingly difficult war against
terror. And since the mainstream media generally express no
particular preference for who ultimately wins that war, they
need to be deterred as much as possible from sacrificing
American progress for the sake of gratuitous scandal.
Before America entered Iraq, an average day under Saddam’
s nightmarish rule transpired something like this: Human
beings were dropped head first into shredding machines;
children were tortured in front of their parents; people were
put into steel coffins and left in the desert sun to bake to death;
hapless acquaintances of Saddam’s son Uday got fed to his pet
lions for trivial transgressions; and mass graves filled steadily
with the corpses of Iraqi citizens.
The depravity of it all boggles the human mind and causes it
to reel in revulsion. But instead of being on board with
America’s mission to fight such monumental evil and try and
plant the seeds of decency in that troubled part of the world,
journalists fixate endlessly on rumored Quran flushings and
other useless trivia, all the while clueless about the bigger
picture.
Is it eminently plausible that they will soon regain the
respect and trust of the American public?
“Now, it is possible that no interrogator at Guantanamo Bay
ever flushed pages of the Quran down the toilet, as the now-
retracted Newsweek story reported . . . But surely the larger
point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently
plausible. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation
techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in
Iraq and Guantanamo as . . . officials have also confirmed.” ---
Anne Applebaum, columnist for the Washington Post, writing
in defense of Newsweek.
This column by Anne Applebaum illustrates with crystal
clarity the difference between the elite media and most of the
rest of American society. To Ms. Applebaum’s way of thinking,
the “larger point” has nothing to do with the story’s
authenticity nor with the very real and destructive
consequences of printing it, but is rather about the story’s
“eminent plausibility.” What she‘s basically saying is, Hey, we
all know that insensitive American interrogators are doing
things offensive to Muslim prisoners behind closed doors, so
even if Newsweek was unable to definitively prove that a Quran
got flushed, everyone ought to just get off their case!
To the rest of us, however, the larger point is something
more like this: If you don’t have any proof or substantiation of
something, then you shouldn’t print it. And in this particular
case, even if you did have proof, why risk inflaming the
irrational passions of millions of fanatics, damaging the war
effort in the process, all for no possible good?
See the difference in the thought processes? One side is
concerned about the authenticity of the Newsweek story as well
as how it effects the war on terror. The other side could give a
hoot. In fact, it looks as if the average journalist is more
concerned about a terrorist’s Quran getting flushed than
he/she is about flushing the American war effort down the
toilet. That might explain why the public’s regard for
journalists hovers somewhere around that of used car
salesmen, personal injury lawyers and identity thieves.
Unfortunately, the very concept of a war on terror may be
difficult for a lot of journalists to wrap their heads around
since so many of them perceive our military action as an
imperialistic, oil-grabbing, right-wing Christian crusade
launched by a power-mad, fundamentalist president who stole
the office from its rightful heir, Al Gore. Expecting a fair
presentation of the news--particularly war news--from them is
probably a pipe dream at best.
But let’s get back to Applebaum’s fascinating concept of
eminent plausibility. Is it eminently plausible that a war
against apocalyptic Islamic terrorism can be successfully
waged if it is shackled by the timorous rules of a liberal,
therapeutic culture that cannot bear to give offense to or
impose any sort of discomfort upon the most heinous, fanatical
murderers on the face of the earth?
It would certainly be hunky-dory if interrogators could
extract important information from captured Muslim
terrorists through happy-headed palaver or warm and fuzzy
encounter sessions. But people who would blow up thousands
of innocents with nary a twinge of conscience generally need
coaxing of a more stringent nature. Consequently, the
interrogators might have to occasionally raise their voices a
bit. Or sometimes they might shake a fist in a prisoner’s face.
And they might even on occasion show disrespect to the holy
book that is at least partially responsible for inspiring the
terrorists’ insanity.
Speaking of holy books, you can’t help but wonder if
Applebaum and her cohorts have the same concern about the
one that Christians revere as they have about the Quran.
Imagine that an abortion clinic has been bombed and
authorities have a suspect who is a member of some right-wing
religious group. Then imagine that during his interrogation an
overzealous cop takes his bible away and flushes it down the
toilet. Do you think Ms. Applebaum or any other mainstream
American journalist would have any particular problem with
that? Do you think she would be pointing fingers at
“interrogation techniques designed to be offensive” to
Christians? The plausibility of such a scenario seems less than
eminent.
Now, to put it all into perspective, who cares if interrogators
flushed a Quran? If it might rattle a reticent terrorist, then
flush away. Jiggle the handle a couple of times if you have to,
keep a plunger on hand and flush another one. The terrorist
enemies of our country are owed neither copies of the Quran
nor respect for their religion, the twisted interpretation of
which is largely responsible for their depraved acts. That they
get either of those, as they generally do, is an amazing privilege.
Also in her column, Applebaum expressed rank
mortification at how the Bush administration milked the
Newsweek screw-up for everything it was worth, obviously in
the hopes of discouraging other media from running with every
piddling, military-related scandal they can dig up. But it’s
hard to fault the Bushies for that since they understand that
the media have the breathtakingly easy ability to significantly
undermine the already excruciatingly difficult war against
terror. And since the mainstream media generally express no
particular preference for who ultimately wins that war, they
need to be deterred as much as possible from sacrificing
American progress for the sake of gratuitous scandal.
Before America entered Iraq, an average day under Saddam’
s nightmarish rule transpired something like this: Human
beings were dropped head first into shredding machines;
children were tortured in front of their parents; people were
put into steel coffins and left in the desert sun to bake to death;
hapless acquaintances of Saddam’s son Uday got fed to his pet
lions for trivial transgressions; and mass graves filled steadily
with the corpses of Iraqi citizens.
The depravity of it all boggles the human mind and causes it
to reel in revulsion. But instead of being on board with
America’s mission to fight such monumental evil and try and
plant the seeds of decency in that troubled part of the world,
journalists fixate endlessly on rumored Quran flushings and
other useless trivia, all the while clueless about the bigger
picture.
Is it eminently plausible that they will soon regain the
respect and trust of the American public?