Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Wikipedia:

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times in Washington D.C. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion garnered much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for the New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false.

Miller was later involved in disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. She spent three months in jail for claiming reporter's privilege and refusing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak. Miller retired from her job at the New York Times in November 2005. Later she was a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. On December 29, 2010, numerous media outlets reported that she had signed on as a contributing writer to the conservative magazine Newsmax. [2][3]

I believe Bradblog may also have commented in passing on a few other minor terminological inexactitudes at the NYT over the years.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm well aware of that - and that the NYT admitted this and apologised for it and is likely to be more careful. So what ? This does not mean that everything in the NYT can be dismissed.  Has anyone else, besides Angry Arab, who can't read, disputed the NYT article? Have any of the people referred to as the leaders and some of whom referred to Sharp, disputed the NYT account ?  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 06:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no doubt that people in the middle of a revolution can't possibly think of anything more pressing than writing LTEs to a foreign newspaper they don't even read.

But clearly you'd rather believe any old nonsense from the NYT - with its proven track record of dishonesty - than someone with this bio:

As'ad AbuKhalil, born March 16, 1960. From Tyre, Lebanon, grew up in Beirut. Received his BA and MA from American University of Beirut in pol sc. Came to US in 1983 and received his PhD in comparative government from Georgetown University. Taught at Tufts University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Colorado College, and Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Served as a Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC. He served as free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, an experience that only served to increase his disdain for maintream US media. He is now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley.

Now - how on Earth could an individual with that background possibly offer an informed opinion about the Middle East?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
any old nonsense from the NYT

So you consider that in this instance (whatever its record, and we surely agree on that) the NYT is talking "any old nonsense"? Care to back that up with particulars?

As for the Angry Arab's credentials, sure. Does that make him an indisputable authority in every case?

As always, reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"But clearly you'd rather believe any old nonsense from the NYT - with its proven track record of dishonesty - than someone with this bio"

There's no evidence yet that it is nonsense, or reason to suppose that a report on the successful overthrow of a long-time ally of the US gov is significantly mistaken. As to Angry Arab I don't care about his credentials so much as what he says and as I've pointed out several times already he gets basic things wrong in commenting on the NYT article.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed on everything but the first sentence. While the NYT has apologized it has hardly mended its ways. See this for example.
by generic on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Although I'm not happy with your offhand remark that the Angry Arab can't read.
by generic on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 07:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
he's a professor, for crying out loud, at a reputable university.  better academic credentials than many that you cite.

also, saying he can't read can be construed as a really racist statement.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 08:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would help if you noted what had already been said - do I have to keep repeating myself too ? I've already pointed out that he: 1) he claims that Sharp is claiming credit when the NYT article he's commenting on explicitly says Sharp is not doing this and is a modest, retiring guy. 2) He claims "nobody" in Egypt knows Gene Sharp, but in the same article organisers of the revolution refer to him and the Muslim Brotherhood have published one of his books online.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so Sharp is modest.  He founded an institute, for crying out loud.  how "modest" can he be?

that is also a subjective opinion, and hardly worthy of debate.

so, a few people seem to know his name.  that hardly proves anything.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is ridiculous.
In the original diary I quoted three very different sources with three different takes on the world in general. I did this for the obvious reason. These sources quoted a lot of Arabs who WERE on the street saying the man was influential, even seminal in places.
When it became clear that not a lot of the critics here either knew or intended to know much about Gene Sharp (the whole point of the diary), I laid down enough google food, from such a wide array of sources, that only a stone, someone totally disinterested or an ossified ideologue could fail to have an informed opinion.
And still we read references to sources so discretedited that they are laughable, and angry arguments from people who have not even read the post well, or the early links, let alone any of the work of Gene Sharp.
WSow. This is a low point around here.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quoting a source is not necessarily proof, you realize.  For example, someone just removed a line from the Wikipedia entry for Gene Sharp.  

And the NY Times with its neo-con agenda and dubious think tanks seem to have more validity here than left wing angry academics.  

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You quoted the NYT, Prospect and Voice of America.

You didn't quote any original Arabic sources.

And does this mean you're saying that Sharp has no links whatsoever to organisations like the ICNC? Or that you're saying the VA reports are simply lies?

Because if so, that's a hell of a stretch given the evidence trail - especially the ICNC link.

You know, it's not actually all that difficult to check Ackerman's history and connections.

I'll take the point about Einstein, but it still seems hi-falutin for someone who claims to be modest.

I'm not much bothered about Zunes' letter of support, because I'd rather look at the facts - and the facts really aren't as simple as you're claiming at all.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and I did quote an Arabic source.

but it got poohpoohed because some people here don't like him.

this doesn't seem to be a very rational method of evaluating the Truth.

it must be a new low in the history of this site.

by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 01:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had to do your linking of Angry Arab for you, lazy as you are.

This must be a new low in your short history with this site.

Get off your high horse already.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
IIRC, the commencement speaker at CSU-Stanislaus this year  was the noted scholar and intellectual Sarah Palin.
by greatferm (greatferm-at-email.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 01:58:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I saw Angry Arab's email address was @CSUstan I couldn't stop laughing...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 02:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Coincidentally, that was my reaction to the uncritical adulation here for the original NYT piece.

Also, this.

AbuKhalil loves Cal State Stanislaus and its students and would not consider trading it -- even for the more highly regarded UC Berkeley, where he is a visiting professor each spring.

"You know how shallow some Lebanese are about designer names, designer shoes, designer human beings, designer universities, excessive elegance?" he asked. "When I first came to Stanislaus, my mother was like, 'When are you going to leave? When are you going to leave?' She is a very well-educated person, very Francophile and very status obsessed. I had to tell her, 'You know, if you really want my happiness, you have to end this conversation. You have to accept that your son is happy at a non-prestigious university.' "

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't laughing at the prestige of the campus, but at the Afghanistan, Pakistan, CSUstan...

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
the uncritical adulation here for the original NYT piece.

Do you really believe what you're writing? Or are you just dishonest?

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:09:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't consider being told that my post was a "new low for ET" when I questioned the facts and the tone of the NYT piece to be either.

YMMV.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your post?

Take a look at who Migeru said that to.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:57:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you mean you didn't appreciate what stevesim said to you... I don't know, maybe you understand what he's saying. My mileage varies.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 08:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, now! How many Arabic scholars can there be in the greater Stanislaus metro area? Oh, the joys of a career in academia.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 at 01:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series