When NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel recently returned from Afghanistan, he told MSNBC‘s Morning Joe, “I honestly think it’s probably time to start leaving the country.” Engel added, “I really don’t see how this is going to end in anything but tears.”
Engel’s comments caused Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz (10/12/09) to raise an eyebrow at a reporter stating an opinion: “That sounds awfully opinionated for a working reporter,” wrote Kurtz.
But we had to wonder if what really attracted Kurtz’s scrutiny was Engel’s stating of an opinion, or the opinion itself?
After all, for years FAIR has documented the phenomenon of journalists stating opinions in support of hawkish U.S. policies with virtual impunity—even when their views were catastrophically in error.
And so we wondered if Kurtz would even have commented if a network news reporter had suggested that the U.S. needed to escalate its military efforts in Afghanistan. We needn’t have wondered.
Lara Logan, who holds the same position at CBS News as Engel does at NBC—chief foreign affairs correspondent—may be a more vehement cheerleader for escalation than Engel is for withdrawal. In a recent interview with Bob Orr on CBS News‘ Political Hotsheet, Logan expressed a disturbing devotion to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and chief proponent of escalating the war there: “I don’t understand why no one will listen to the man you put your faith in and said he is the guy who is going to do this for us….”
Since Logan too “sounds awfully opinionated for a working reporter,” we wonder how it is she escaped Kurtz’s scrutiny?
For us, it isn’t so much that journalists have and express opinions—the public is better served when we know what reporters are thinking—but we are troubled when disapproval and despair over the lost standards of journalistic objectivity are trotted out only for reporters whose opinions are at odds with official views.
So we are glad to know of Logan’s hero worship, even if it is at odds with the worthwhile journalistic ethic that says reporters should hold the feet of the powerful to the fire—not massage them.
Corrected version: The original version of this post gave Stanley McChrystal’s first name incorrectly.
To me, journalistic “objectivity” means honestly interpreting reality. I’d say that’s what Engel’s engaged in, wouldn’t you?
Now, in saying that, I don’t know whether he gives a rat’s ass about the “tears” of Afghan mothers who’ve seen their children dismembered by their “liberators”‘ high-tech weaponry. It may be that he only feels the pain of American mothers whose children have died for what he would more than likely consider a noble but failed effort to bring “democracy and freedom” to a “benighted land”.
So, if that’s the case, I guess he doesn’t have that strong a grip on reality, does he? But at least he’s well acquainted enough with it to know that, as in Vietnam, there’s no good way this will end for the US, and it should cut its losses.
That’s parsecs away from a moral view of this hell, but it is a realistic one.
But the promise of power and pipelines tends to dissuade policymakers from dealing in reality, doesn’t it?
And so the body count climbs.
Hello, and Engel is right on. I spent 8 years living among those people in the early 70’s and they are exactly as he describes. There is a lot of opposition to his opinions however these individuals have not been there. Visit there, live there and you will change your mind quickly. My life and those of my family were constantly in danger. We were required to have a gun on us at all times. This is a violent and cruel society for the most part, and history supports. This not my opinion, this is my experience. Let’s get out of there!
It isn’t any wonder that Kurtz would object or “open mouth without thinking” —he is constantly going off the end that pleases his feelings at the time. Most of what he relates to is “old Bush data acknowledged as fair and balanced”.
The real item that should be displayed by all is “why did U.S. go to Afghanistan in the first place. Referring to history that relates to Clinton era —he was doing military work before he left office. So the idea that 911 was the only reason U.S. entered a fray that no one seems to understand is purely the thoughts that Howard seems to dwell on.
Why is no one ever – ever – mentioned the Pipe Line that Wasn’t and Isn’t. That piece of history goes on without comment because no one wants any one to believe the actuality of the oil intrigue that was clamoring for an audience when Bush took the reigns in 2000 —and that Oil Pipe Line would probably been acknowledged except after all the planning and conversing with Bush —the “brothers” could not get the financing —-that they would agree to. Still there is a possibility that it may be constructed.
But to not agree with Richard Engle is sad —-he knows the terrain and he knows the people – other reporters seem to concentrate on the lower south part —more flat land – but the mountain area is the unspoken problem —the Talaban use gorilla type warfare —other troops attempting to fight them are lost in the fact they have never been trained for this type of definiteness in trying to win where winning is not reality —–just keeping balanced is all that is possible. So, Richard is right —as he has been and sometimes does not step out and shout it —-he should every chance he gets —perhaps someone in the Administration will take notice and just “get it right”.
Spending more money and fighting “what they call an enemy” is getting more and more obvious to be the wrong way to attempt to enlighten the politicians.
Why not just follow the norm to do !!!!!!!!! Just gather all the “important” politicians who want this war — into a coliseum —-give them all rubber base ball bats —at the sound of the gong when wall street clicks in —-let them all fight it out —–bethcha there would not be an Iraq or Afghanistan incursion that lasts.
The people do not want to fight each other —they don’t want to kill each other —- but politicians want the glory train to go by their front door —-and they have only voice recognition as to the losses of both lives and dollars —–what the hey —-they are in the comfort zone in Washington D.C. —–
Who wants to tell the politicians first —-get your own bat by the way.
When you have the temerity to speak against the official ‘reality’ you are on the hit list to be downgraded and down trodden. Roy Engle has stepped across that invisible boundary. Being “unbiased” really means to be non-committal or without analysis of what is said and done. That is a tame press that will reflect whatever is shined on it from the GOMOs. Good for Mr. Engle, I hope he isn’t punished for it.
FYI, in listening to this post on Counterspin, then checking the blog version, I noticed in both cases a small error. The name of the commanding general is *Stanley* McChrystal (you have David). Cheers…
David Patreaus is in charge not Stanley Patreaus. The need for proofreaders is still here.
Speaking truth to power is still a dicey thing here. They may not kill you or imprison you just yet, but they can kill your reputation and limit your access.