All Cindy, all the time
The Guardian makes its contribution to Sheehan-mania today with a new piece by Gary Younge headlined “US right targets anti-war mother”.
Which is not to say that Younge is wrong. There has been plenty of criticism of the “bereaved mother”, and, indeed, most of it from the political right. But, far from simply making his audience aware of the criticisms, Younge’s article is plainly intended to discredit any such criticism as little more than partisan, “personal attacks”. He quotes an anonymous “pro-war commentator” as characterizing Sheehan as a “nut”, and cites Hitchens’ dismissal that Sheehan is “spouting piffle” and engaging in “dreary, sentimental nonsense.” Of the large quantity of substantive criticism (James Taranto, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, or Linda Chavez, to cite a few), including Hitchens’ own well-reasoned objections to the Sheehan media frenzy, Younge has no time whatsoever. Clearly he is only interested in criticisms which make the critics, not Sheehan, look bad.
Or, for that matter, marginalized, which explains the presence of the “rightwing” characterization, despite Hitchens’ questionable bona fides as a full-fledged man of the right. Funny, that, how supporters of Sheehan are, well, just supporters, but her detractors are “rightwing”. (In fact, if The Guardian is any indication, there is virtually no such thing as an American leftwing. A search of their website articles for “rightwing US” turns up 51 articles. A search for “leftwing US” turns up exactly one…oddly, an article about mothers.)
The Guardian even manages a dig at Sheehan’s poor husband, who, as was noted yesterday, has filed for a divorce. After warning of increased “personal attacks on Sheehan as a result of this news, Younge tells us:
Yes, The Guardian is just that low.
Rightwing criticism of a bereaved mother who is camped outside President George Bush's Texas ranch in protest at the conflict in Iraq intensified yesterday as her campaign struck a nerve with growing anti-war opinion in the country.Forget for the moment Younge’s confusion between “growing anti-war opinion” and “bored reporters stuck in the West Texas heat”. Despite the “intensified” criticism from the right, Younge manages to cite by name the criticism of only a single person, Christopher Hitchens. Granted, Hitchens’ intense support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has deprived him of his previously exalted position on the left, resulting in his (self-) banishment from the pages of The Nation, and being a Brit probably makes him of a bit more interest to a UK audience than your average American pundit. But a man who continues to accuse Henry Kissinger of being a war criminal hardly stands out as your typical American right-winger.
Which is not to say that Younge is wrong. There has been plenty of criticism of the “bereaved mother”, and, indeed, most of it from the political right. But, far from simply making his audience aware of the criticisms, Younge’s article is plainly intended to discredit any such criticism as little more than partisan, “personal attacks”. He quotes an anonymous “pro-war commentator” as characterizing Sheehan as a “nut”, and cites Hitchens’ dismissal that Sheehan is “spouting piffle” and engaging in “dreary, sentimental nonsense.” Of the large quantity of substantive criticism (James Taranto, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, or Linda Chavez, to cite a few), including Hitchens’ own well-reasoned objections to the Sheehan media frenzy, Younge has no time whatsoever. Clearly he is only interested in criticisms which make the critics, not Sheehan, look bad.
Or, for that matter, marginalized, which explains the presence of the “rightwing” characterization, despite Hitchens’ questionable bona fides as a full-fledged man of the right. Funny, that, how supporters of Sheehan are, well, just supporters, but her detractors are “rightwing”. (In fact, if The Guardian is any indication, there is virtually no such thing as an American leftwing. A search of their website articles for “rightwing US” turns up 51 articles. A search for “leftwing US” turns up exactly one…oddly, an article about mothers.)
The Guardian even manages a dig at Sheehan’s poor husband, who, as was noted yesterday, has filed for a divorce. After warning of increased “personal attacks on Sheehan as a result of this news, Younge tells us:
Patrick Sheehan, who was her high school boyfriend, is seeking a share of insurance money and benefits awarded by the US government after their soldier son's death in Iraq.Sure, he’s seeking a share of all of their California-defined community assets, as pretty much all divorce participants do, but filling us in on the petty details of the divorce is hardly Younge’s point, is it? Better you be left with the impression that her husband seeks to profit from his son’s death than you think that even he is tired of her shenanigans.
Yes, The Guardian is just that low.
2 Comments:
Scott,
The MSM has gone out of it's way to promote this story and there are some real big stories out there at this time. Able Danger to name but one. Seems the Clinton administration dropped the ball on UBL too many times to say the least. The MSM is trying desperately to drain the morale of the US military as well as the public back home. This may come back and bite the MSM as the public is starting to get sick of the continued bashing of the military and the administration.
Regards,
Natalie
In an interview in the Sunday Times, Python man Terry Jones says I miss truthful news. The BBC has lost objectivity. It has become a mouthpiece for the government. War veterans are protesting in George Bush's backyard of Crawford, Texas, against the Iraq war, which I think is remarkable, but you won't hear about that on the BBC.
Obviously, you and I must have imagined all this anti war stuff from the BBC.
Post a Comment
<< Home