Snark and sneer
The mainstream media doesn't much reflect America when it comes to a variety of issues. The media is largely secular and even more leftist than the communities they represent -- and that's probably true even in San Francisco.
So, it should come as little surprise that Poynter highlighted this letter from former newsman Michael Graham on its "Romenesko's Media Notes" column.
I was a newspaper reporter a long time ago. My friend and former colleague David Cay Johnston suggested I post this question on your website:
What is Jesus telling George W. Bush to do about Iran?
This is not flippant or facetious. Bush told Bob Woodward he gets his counsel from a "Higher Father." He has ignored the will of the people and just about everyone who knows anything at all about the Middle East. Now he is recklessly saber-rattling again, risking disaster.
Is this the hidden reason?
Graham saying that this is "not flippant or facetious" doesn't make it so. It is flippant and facetious. It is full of snark and sneer.
It's a question that tells us far more about the person asking the question than it could ever tell us about the person answering it.
And Graham -- thankfully a former newsman -- tells us just what he and his friends think about President Bush's foreign policy. Those who agree with Graham know everything there is to know about the Middle East, and those who agree with the president know nothing at all.
On a related note: I encourage you to check out this editorial -- with accompanying helpful graphic to see how many of the American people are on Graham's side, and how many are on President Bush's.
0 comments on “Snark and sneer”
Tags
I read that as "The media is largely secular and even more leftist than the _communists_ they represent"
Maybe communities was a typo? 🙂
I think you missed the point. Is George Bush listening to Jesus or is he listening to the people he serves? It is not flippant or facetious to raise this issue; he is our leader and we have the right to ask where he gets his advice. I'm not so alarmed when our political leaders get their inspiration from their religion, but when they claim that they're getting specific advice on specific issues specifically from religious leaders who have long since died, I get a little concerned.
This is not to say that Bush knows nothing of the Middle East; on the contrary, he is privy to lots of information, and I'm sure he's well informed. Yet when he seems to eschew this information and move in directions that are contrary to the people he serves, lots of people, including Mr. Graham, rightfully deserve to ask the question: Where the hell is he getting his advice and what the hell will he do next?
Dan, hate to break this to you, but despite "Titanic" director James Cameron's claims, Jesus Christ is still alive.
Does that make you feel any better?
Also, I've read nothing from anyone -- including Woodward -- that would characterize President George W. Bush's faith as one where he's getting "specific advice on specific issues."
Finally, are you as critical of FDR's actions in the run-up to the American involvement in World War II? The "lend-lease" program and all of that aid going to the Brits in the late '30s were certainly contrary to the directions of the people he served.
You can debate whether or not Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, but I'd rather have leaders lead than simply have the country's day-to-day policies and direction left to the whims of a fickle and largely uninterested and ignorant public. We're lucky to get about half of the voting-age population interested in the issues once every four years. (You and I are undoubtedly among the exceptions.)
By and large this small "r" republican form of government works.
I stand by my assertion that this question is nothing more than disdainful snark directed from on-high by people who typically find Christians sadly misguided when they rush out to church on Sunday mornings, but dangerous wackos whenever they're elected to office.
Mr. (Ms?) Hoystory:
Whether or not Jesus is not even debatable, so your statement that Jesus is still alive biases my perception of the rest of your response. I mean, the Christians say, "He died for our sins". That means he died, right? Please explain.
Anyway, I don't see your connection with FDR on this issue. Are you saying that the war in Iraq has a parallel with WWII? I doubt it; I mean, if that's the case, then why didn't this country mobilize itself for war as it did in WWII? Instead you have a president that refused to provide overwhelming force in Iraq, dismissed the notion of a draft and cut taxes during a time of war. Methinks your analogy with WWII is ill-founded.
"...I'd rather have leaders lead than simply have the country's day-to-day policies and direction left to the whims of a fickle and largely uninterested and ignorant public." Man, now you're starting to scare me. It almost sounds like you're justifying authoritarianism. Tell me it ain't so!
Finally, I suggest you email Mike Graham and find out if he really is an "on-high" person who typically finds Christians sadly misguided. Your statement about Mr. Graham's disposition sounds awfully biased. I mean, you don't even know the guy, do you? And unlike Jesus, he's still alive, so you can communicate with him. I suggest you give it a try.
Frankly, this is painful. Dan, I encourage you to go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of the New Testament and read any (or all) of the first four books. This discussion is like trying to talk about calculus and you don't even know your numbers. Yes, Jesus died, and after three days he rose from the dead and is alive today. You can believe it or not, but there's a basic level of cultural literacy that's necessary for us to have a reasoned debate.
As to FDR, you (and Graham) dinged President Bush for not following the will of the people. FDR wasn't following the will of the people to keep America out of that European war when he was surreptitiously sending armaments and aid over to Britain in the late '30s through the lend-lease program. If I recall correctly, the Brits finally paid off that loan in the last five years -- I'm pretty sure there was no interest charged though.
"Instead you have a president that refused to provide overwhelming force in Iraq..." -- Debatable. The Iraqi military collapsed in three weeks. I think there's little doubt now that there weren't enough troops around to totally pacify the country in the aftermath, but three weeks is pretty dang close to overwhelming.
"...dismissed the notion of a draft..." -- The vast majority of the political class of both parties have dismissed the notion of a draft. A professional, volunteer Army works quite a bit better as most have found out in the past three decades. Bush gets flak for allegedly ignoring the military, now he gets flak for not doing what no military commander has wanted -- a draft. Damned if you do...
"...cut taxes during a time of war..." And the economy picked up and tax receipts are higher than ever. I'm not saying you could necessarily do the same thing in a larger, more difficult conflict, but it seems to have worked.
"Man, now you’re starting to scare me. It almost sounds like you’re justifying authoritarianism. Tell me it ain’t so!" Nope, not justifying authoritarianism, merely small "r" republican government. People who don't like who won like to claim it's authoritarianism -- but then again, they usually think Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are great "democrats."
Finally, I don't feel the need to query Mr. Graham. His letter is clear and succinct. He was a journalist and obviously a good friend of Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston, so I'm pretty confident that he is capable of putting his thoughts down in an accurate manner.
Finally, if you click on the main page, you'll see a short note in the right at the top of the right sidebar entitled "About Me."