Media Monitor: Ask a ‘stupid’ question…

By Tom Elko
Friday, June 06, 2008 at 11:11 am

Smart Politics’ Eric Ostermeier discussed Minnesota Monitor’s content, audience and influence with news editor Steve Perry in a recent interview. However, one of Ostermeier’s questions prompted City Pages’ Jeff Shaw to weigh in with a post on “The Blotter” titled “Smart Politics asks a stupid question.”

The question in question:

Since political reporting comprises a large portion of the beats you cover, it is surprising you have no explicit guidelines against stereotyping based on political party and ideology. Don’t you think such stereotyping is perhaps the biggest cause of the growing partisan divide in this country? By permitting, if not encouraging, political stereotyping, does not Minnesota Monitor contribute to this partisan divisiveness in our culture?

After the jump, editor Steve Perry’s reply.Perry:

MM: No, I do not think “stereotyping” is the biggest cause of the growing partisan divide. I think factors such as a costly war mounted on the basis of fabricated threats, coupled with a stateside economy that is foundering badly and the approach of an election that will select a successor to the most unpopular President of the modern age, probably have a little more to do with the growing partisan divide than stereotyping does. And more fundamentally, I do not buy your premise that the growing partisan divide is a bad thing. Considering the enormous change of course at home and abroad that the Bush era has represented, I think anything less than a “growing partisan divide” would be a symptom of the failure of democracy.

An excerpt of Jeff Shaw’s response:

Let me contribute to divisiveness by pointing out that this is a bone-chillingly stupid question.

Equating political beliefs and ideology with qualities like race and gender isn’t just false equivalence, it buys into the whiny dodge that all beliefs are worthy of equal respect. First, race and gender are not like political party affiliation because the former qualities are not chosen. The question implies that painting with a broad political brush (“People pushing tax cuts for the rich are greedy”) is the same as ethnic stereotyping (“Jews are greedy.”)

Categories & Tags: Media| | | |

Comments

4 Comments

John K
Comment posted June 8, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

Bad intelligence does not equal fabricated threats Perry: “I think factors such as a costly war mounted on the basis of fabricated threats….”  There is nothing like 20/20 hindsight to rewrite history. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had at the time and shared by the British, Israelis, Russians, etc.

http://www.newsmax.c… 
Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:17 a.m. EST
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD ‘Stockpiles’ in 2003
In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed “stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials,” as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to “a neighboring state” before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.
The U.N.’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] “has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May,” the paper said, “about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.” “Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.”
Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that “nuclear-related materials” had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency’s supervision.
Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq’s deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:
“It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.”
Calling the operation “sophisticated,” Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured “cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites,” adding, “They knew what they were doing.”
The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq’s WMD program.
Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.
The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.

COMMISSION REPORT:  http://wid.ap.org/do…


Tom Elko
Comment posted June 14, 2008 @ 11:03 am

“stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials,” The monitored weapons were not why we went to war. We were told there were clandestine weapons stockpiles. Hindsight is only useful to people who change their position and realize the folly of their thinking. Many of us thought the war was a dumb idea to start with. We had our patriotism questioned. Where’s your hindsight now?


John K
Comment posted June 8, 2008 @ 8:39 am

Bad intelligence does not equal fabricated threats Perry: “I think factors such as a costly war mounted on the basis of fabricated threats….”  There is nothing like 20/20 hindsight to rewrite history. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had at the time and shared by the British, Israelis, Russians, etc.

http://www.newsmax.c… 

Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:17 a.m. EST

N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed “stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials,” as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to “a neighboring state” before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.

The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] “has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May,” the paper said, “about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.” “Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.”

Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that “nuclear-related materials” had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.

Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:

“It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.”

Calling the operation “sophisticated,” Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured “cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites,” adding, “They knew what they were doing.”

The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.

COMMISSION REPORT:  http://wid.ap.org/do…


Tom Elko
Comment posted June 14, 2008 @ 6:03 am

“stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials,” The monitored weapons were not why we went to war. We were told there were clandestine weapons stockpiles. Hindsight is only useful to people who change their position and realize the folly of their thinking. Many of us thought the war was a dumb idea to start with. We had our patriotism questioned. Where's your hindsight now?


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.