Dean's World

Neo-Neocon has an interesting post about press accountability, past and present. For some reason, it brought to mind an old quote by President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt that is particularly popular these days among Bush-hating obsessives:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~ Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Presumably Roosevelt was saying that to defend his own stinging attacks on President Wilson.

However, I notice a certain shell game being played here by those who pull out this chestnut: many of them appear to think "criticism" and acting like a completely irresponsible jerk are the same thing.

When you say a President has "lied" about something when it is perfectly possible he was simply mistaken, you are doing more than "criticize." You're acting like a jerk. If you do it in a matter involving a war with troops on the ground, you're being a selfish, unpatriotic jerk. Ditto if you assert he took us to war just to fatten his pockets. Or that he's routinely allowing and even encouraging the abuse of prisoners based on the flimsiest of evidence.

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to pretend "criticism" means "I can say any slanderous, libelous, irresponsible and destructive thing I want, and you have no right to question me or criticize me for it."

And yes, that's right, I said that some such behaviors are not just nasty, they're unpatriotic. Oh golly! The spirit of McCarthyism is galloping across America because I questioned some people's patriotism!

Please. Give me a break. It is my first amendment right to criticize my fellow Americans.

And as we have seen recently with Michael Isikoff and the folks at Newsweek, America sadly has a great many selfish, unpatriotic, mean-spirited jerks, most especially in its press corps.

All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:

(link)

Ken McCracken (mail) (www):

Ah but the best thing about all of this is that the opinions just roll and tumble out. The Jerks may irk, but you know you wouldn't have it any other way.

5.16.2005 8:43am

Dave Schuler (mail) (www):

You may be right about the folks at Newsweek, Dean, but I'm not so sure. I wonder if it's not two factors working together. First, there's the reporter's desire for “the big scoop”. This came into sharp focus for many journalists when two young reporters brought a presidency down. Now everybody wants to do it. Second, laziness—all the news that's easy to get. It's easy to make a few phone calls, get a single remark from a single source, and run with it. And certainly a lot easier than, say, digging up real information on the thugs overseas who'd like to destroy us and everything that makes the Press possible.

The solution to both of these problems is that shoddy reporting should also end careers.

5.16.2005 9:28am

Dean Esmay:

Dave: If a man's concern for his career eclipses his concern for the safety and success of our troops in the field, then what does that say about him?

5.16.2005 10:23am

maor (mail):

"If a man's concern for his career eclipses his concern for the safety and success of our troops in the field, then what does that say about him?"

Not much.
He could be a politician, a journalist, a defense contractor....
;)

5.16.2005 12:49pm

Tito (mail):

Dean, just a note, this one will probably be "teeth grinding". My patriotism has been questioned all over the place because of my questioning of the Iraq invasion. Heck, it was questioned because I thought that maybe our middle east policies affect how we are viewed in the middle east. (You know the whole supporting of various despotic regimes.)

Just to counter point, your argument about the liability of newsweek (which I agree with you whole heartedly on) is the exact same reason I have issues with the Bush Administration.

"When you say a President has "lied" about something when it is perfectly possible he was simply mistaken". I can say that exact same thing about newsweek. The whole run up to the war was based on stuff that the administration at best "were mistaken about".
I expect the president more accountable than newsweek.

All that being said, I totally agree with you that newsweek was totally irresponsible and did help our enemies. Though if they did have proof that this was true, do you think they should have kept quiet? I do not. If it was true, the people that did it are responsible, not Newsweek for reporting it. (And yes, the rioters are also responsible.)

Also, regarding the entire situation in Iraq, I still believe we were lied to on the reasons we went in, but I am happily wrong in how I thought it would turn out. In fact I don't think I've ever been so happy to be wrong about something in my life.

5.16.2005 1:18pm

As usual, someone said it better than me and with more references.
this time it was QandO

5.16.2005 1:36pm

Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):

"That dress doesn't look good on you. Here's a sexier one." is criticism. "You're ugly and I wish I never married you." is something else.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen put his finger on it long ago:

"One who is divorced from his country has had one or two other divorces before: a divorce of spouse from spouse, a divorce of soul from God. A civilization in which a Mrs. Green can become a Mrs. Brown or a Mrs. Black can become a Mrs. White is a civilization in which an American can become a Red."

5.23.2005 5:28pm