Reading todays NY Times I came across an article describing a new crackdown in Baghdad initiated by Iraqis. The author, Marc Santora, provides us with a fairly good description of what the new plan entails. Of course, in the vein of all modern journalism, he feels the need to balance the article (at least in his mind) by giving voice to those who may feel the plan is ill advised. My problem is with how these journalists provide these opposing voices, read on…
On Tuesday, senior American officers expressed surprise about the plan to resettle people who had moved from their homes amid sectarian cleansing. But they declined to be identified, saying they did not want to contradict the Iraqi general.
General Qanbar indicated that the plan would be carried out evenly across Baghdad. But critics said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who has come under intense criticism for pursuing a sectarian Shiite agenda, might be trying to appease his detractors and may not actually carry out the plan. Some feared that his government might not apply the same pressure to residents of Shiite areas.
Notice the slight of hand, the ginning up of opposition? No? Look at these statements:
senior American officers
But critics said
Some feared
You probably read those two paragraphs and thought nothing amiss, so used to this technique we have become. This isn’t reporting, it’s theater. It’s an agenda looking for a script writer. Who are the ’some’, who are the ‘critics’? Your neighbor’s 13 year old son? A disgruntled former government employee? Or perhaps they’re made up from whole cloth, ghosts in his head? With this kind of faux news, one will never know.