The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    acanuck's picture

    Spinning the revolution

    By acanuck on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:00pm |

    Sometimes, seemingly inconsequential things make me really, really angry. And by inconsequential things, I mean articles that appear in the Washington Post. Like this one:

    Free, fair elections still distant prospect for Egypt

    By Craig Whitlock and Mary Beth Sheridan
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, February 8, 2011; 9:21 PM

    CAIRO - As Egypt comes under pressure to hold free and fair elections, democracy activists are expressing growing doubts about whether a ballot slated for September is feasible, and fearing that it could set the country's reform movement back even further.

    While millions of Egyptians have taken to the streets to clamor for freedom and the removal of President Hosni Mubarak, the country's pro-democracy forces have been so battered and marginalized by decades of repression that advocates say it would take many months - if not years - to lay the groundwork for open and credible elections.

    "Democracy activists" and "advocates, we're told, "have "growing doubts" about holding presidential elections as scheduled in September. In fact, they say, it might take "years" to even lay the groundwork for such "open and credible elections." 

    But please indulge me and read the whole damn article:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806004_pf.html

    By my count, exactly ONE pro-democracy advocate, Negad El Borai, is identified as calling for "a coalition government, perhaps for as long as a year, until a proper election can be held." NOT years. There may well be other Egyptians who want a transition lasting that long or longer, but they are not quoted in the story. So the evidence of "growing doubts" is simply not presented.

    Don't get me wrong. A broadly based coalition government taking a few extra months (beyond September) to ensure a properly organized, internationally monitored election may very well be a good idea. If that's what the Egyptian people want. But for now, as far as I can see, it's simply what the Washington Post thinks they should want. It's inside-the-beltway spin.

    Here's a giveaway: The two names on the byline are Post staff writers. The person in Cairo who did the interviews on which the lead and the headline are based is listed merely as "contributing" to the story. Read critically, folks. Especially if you're reading the Post.

    Comments

    Learn, think be careful!

     "Tehran 1979" a pro-Western dictator,the Shah,was overthrown by an alliance of reformists and Islamists.After Shah fall,Islamists smashed the reformists,establishing  anti-Western regime sponsoring anti liberal,democratic values using terror and radicalism worldwide.

     Obama Middle East policy is "anything but Bush.It castigates Bush for being unrealistic regarding the promotion of democracy in the Arab world.

     A:Obama policy outcomes:

    *Lebanon takeover by Hisbula terror group sponsored by Iran

    *Disappearance of Iranian anti Islamist opposition following the brutal crackdown of post election demonstrations

    *Erdogen leads Turkey to partnership with Iran and pro Islamist groups 

    *Palestinian refusal to direct peace negotiations with Israel

     

    Bush's support for democratization led the rise of Hamas Islamic terrorists-a branch of Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza.

    B:Obama repeats Bush's mistake in Egypt,the leading country in Arab world.

    Obama calls for the inclusion of "non-secular" groups in the new government.

     

    Islamists anti-Western values and democraticy  are ideological,not related to any American policy.

    Obama abandon of USA allies,embracing the Islamists, harms the standing of USA allies and strengthen anti-Western Islamists worldwide


    by Ariely (not verified) on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:18pm

    You need to study history just a little more. Start with how the Shah in Iran gained power in the first place, and consider how that led to the current theocracy. While you're at it, study up on current events and then tell me who "Hisbula" is. :P (I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but some misspellings are so atrocious that they ought to be a capital offense.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 8:36am

    There are some who say that the Washington Post will not commit journalism in this millenia.

    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 4:55am

    Egypt's move towards a democracy is a pipe dream. Mubarak has kept the political field void of rhetoric to secure his hold over Egypt. There may be lots of talk about a move towards democracy today, however who has the political power with the support of the military to lead such a task? The revolt failed to have a group ready to take charge if they succeeded...they're leaderless. That makes them easy targets for reprisals at a later date. It is hard to call a mob, regardless of size, a revolt. A revolt has forsight of what will occur after they overthrow the political powers..a mob just gathers to shout out their greivaces to those who act as if they care because a mob is has very little power to force their will. The compromise will allow some other power group to lead, but the issues that started the "revolt" will still be there without a fix to satisfy the public. So what was the purpose of it all? What was solved that makes Egypt better?


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 6:28am

    To be consistent with the neo-con/WashPost/Republican principles of 'spreading God's gift of Freedom' perhaps we need to invade Egypt, dismiss the police and Army, ban Mubarek's party, have a couple of elections, and then turn the place over to whoever has the strongest militia and the backing of Iran.

    Or maybe we should mind our own business and let Egyptians decide, with coaxing from Europeans, who may be more trustworthy to give good guidance as their governments are not in thrall to the Israel lobby.


    by NCD on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 10:51am

    I caught Dem Now! on the radio this morning. This was the best article:

    “The Great Tragedy is Obama Chose Not to Hold Out His Hand”: Robert Fisk on the Gap Between U.S. Rhetoric and Action in Egyptian Uprising


    by Donal on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 11:11am

    Thanks for the comments, folks, but this post wasn't really about Egypt. It was about what now passes for journalism, and how readers need to inoculate themselves against its noxious effects. I can't emphasize this enough: READ CRITICALLY. Not just articles about Egypt. Everything.

    Overworked reporters and editors are always hard-pressed to find a fresh, new angle. I sympathize (been there, done that). But far too often, the result is worthless drivel. And if they also try (as many feel compelled) to accommodate the political/ideological leanings of their publisher/owner, it is likely to be total bullshit.

    An obvious first rule: Read beyond the headline and the lead, to the body of the story. The headline should accurately reflect the lead. Even more important, the writer should provide evidence that what the lead says is true. Like actual quotes, from actual named people. And those quotes should say exactly what the reporter paraphrases them as saying.

    Don't accept the lame "sources say" and be very skeptical of statements by "experts" or "analysts" from think tanks you've never heard of. Or even ones you've heard of; many are just lobbyists in academic clothing. 

    I've harped on this before. Two examples, for your reading pleasure:

    http://dagblog.com/business/decline-fall-plunge-and-demise-journalism-3169

    http://dagblog.com/world-affairs/irans-nukes-its-not-just-centrifuges-are-spinning-903

    Like I said, question everything you read or hear from the media, regardless of how authoritative the source claims to be. Sometimes the bullshit is fairly innocuous (like this Washington Post story). Other times, it's a deliberate attempt to mislead by people with malicious agendas.

     


    by acanuck on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:48pm

    If Mara Liasson from NPR were here, she'd tell you that your concerns fall outside the mainstream of political thought on the matter. ;O)


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 5:03pm

    I'm sure she would. I'm sure they do. Consider that a badge of honor.


    by acanuck on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 5:05pm

    And I certainly hope you understand my attempt at irony here.

    Mara Liasson is (IMHO) extremely proficient at legitimizing her political opinions (usually Reaganesque) as common doctrine by using terms "People are saying..." or "experts believe..." or "the more mainstream view is offered by John Bolton..."

    It's insipid and requires, as you say, vigilance on the part of the listener to not allow these asshats to shape your worldview when they pretend to merely be reporting about it.

    BTW... Will Canada ever succeed as a democracy? Some experts suggest that they suffer for lack of a legitimately conservative Tea Party Movement, while others think it's the LaBatt's that stands between them and enlightenment.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 5:31pm

    I got it. NPR is Washington-based, just like (obviously) the Post and AP's capital bureau. I think there is something about the proximity to power that causes people to absorb, then channel, the conventional wisdom handed down by those they assume to be "in the know" if not their actual betters. It's that Washington "bubble" Obama promised he'd try to escape from time to time. (Not often enough, clearly.)


    by acanuck on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 3:22am

    As for Canada, no, we're happy being a monarchy. Thanks for inquiring.


    by acanuck on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 3:24am