Vicarious vitriol

As a rule, I don't reprint the words of others on this site; too many blogs do that, and taken together it often turns the Internet into an echo chamber dominated by one or two narrow viewpoints. I'll make an exception this time because the polemic below is both well-reasoned and entertaining... and because its target is someone who has annoyed me for years--Thomas Friedman. (Lately he reinvented himself as a Green, which I definitely can't take lying down.)

Flat N All That by Matt Taibbi

For those who don't know the man, he is a famous author and New York Times columnist. Not because he is insightful or talented or diligent or knowledgeable; his only qualifications seem to be an unwavering support of whatever the New York establishment wants at the time (electricity and banking deregulation, the invasion of Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, lavish corporate subsidies without oversight) and his marriage to a multibillionaire. His analysis, predictions, and advice are almost always catastrophically wrong. His artless writing and baffling logic would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. For instance, here is his view on the Gaza attack:

"Israel’s counterstrategy [in 2006] was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future. […] In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to educate Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population…If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims."

Truly chilling. This man can justify anything. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I should add that Friedman is not by any means writing alone. For example, during the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003, the New York Times played fast and loose with the facts in its news section, which gave more weight to Friedman's pro-war arguments. (Remember Ahmed Chalabi's insider account, the White House's secret WMD evidence, "Saddam gassed his own people", "Iraq can strike within 45 minutes", "Saddam kicked out UN inspectors"?) Throughout America's TV and radio networks, newspapers, and magazines, there were similar pundits and journalists who repeated the same arguments and half-truths enough times that they seemed self-evident. As with Friedman, they bent logic and facts to the breaking point to stay on message. And six years later, 25% of Iraqis were killed or displaced and America threw trillions of dollars into a hole in the ground (mass grave?), which could have paid for universal high-quality health care and education in both countries.

Friedman &co are not a sign of American stupidity, callousness, or ignorance. Friedman, especially, has little in common with real Americans, those who buy their own groceries, worry about their jobs, or drive an aging car on their yearly vacation. They are a symptom of concentrated private media ownership, witting or unwitting agents in a concerted effort to shape public opinion in the desired direction. I can't say that for a fact, but it seems more likely than the alternative, which is that American journalists and editors are exceptionally sloppy, illogical, and credulous.


Bonus reading: There are some places which do offer intelligent commentary and debate, such as the Manchester Guardian Online, ZNet (see also here), Informed Comment, or TomDispatch. They clarified a lot of things which mystified me as a young man, eg. how someone like Friedman can be a famous and respected commentator. These articles from Noam Chomsky and Justin Podur are the some of the ones I read back in the day, but there are many articles, lectures, and books on these and other issues out there.