The Common Ills: Nathan Detroit was not a columnist

Friday, March 22, 2013

Nathan Detroit was not a columnist

Syndicated columnist Gene Lyons (at Philly Burbs) reviews the Iraq War this week including noting the fallout for those who spoke out (which does include Lyons). It's a strong column in many ways but it falters for me in one way -- possibly because either he thinks it's an obvious point so he doesn't make it or he missed it himself.

He's taking on Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post. From Lyons' column:

Among scores of examples, the one that’s stuck in my craw was allegedly liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. Reacting to Gen. Colin Powell’s anti-Saddam speech to the UN’s General Assembly — since repudiated by its author — Cohen wrote that, “Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction, but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.”
“War fever, catch it,” this fool wrote.

Richard Cohen being wrong isn't news due to the simple fact that so many were wrong. What's news about the above is Cohen's stupidity. Not in an opinion, in writing.

I like Richard Cohen and I know Richard Cohen. I will always applaud him for covering what was done to Jean Seberg. And I can usually defend his columns when friends have a problem with them even while noting I may not agree with his opinion but he's made an argument.

He didn't make an argument above. He didn't write like a columnist in the column Lyons is citing. He wrote bombastic and flashy. And that's what happens when you do that, especially if you're supposed to be a thoughtful columnist. There is no defense of Cohen's column. Not only was he wrong in real time (as events have especially made clear), but it's bad writing that is beneath him. He is not attempting to convey or explain, he's providing ad copy and ad copy doesn't belong on the op-ed pages.

Maybe that's just news to me.

In 2008, Cohen publicly took accountability for his column in a piece at Slate. He outlines why he believed war was the right thing. That's the sort of column he should have written at the time. He'd just have been wrong about war being the right thing. Instead, he didn't convey, he attempted to bully and intimidate and that's really not what his goal was.

The war fever was whipped up and he wasn't the only one to catch it. But if we're talking about what he did wrong, it's not having the wrong opinion. A columnist has to have an opinion -- or fake one -- once or twice every week in print. Like everyone else, columnists can be wrong it happens. Where Richard failed was in refusing to speak in his own voice and instead providing a megaphone for an attack machine. He's supposed to persuade, not bully or browbeat readers into submission.

To me, that's a story and it goes to the fact that those supporting the war in bellicose language were especially insecure about their public positions. If they'd been secure, there would have been no need to try to browbeat.

One story that's been picked up in Iraqi media this week -- for example, Al Rafidayn carries it here -- but largely ignored in the western media is that $138 billion is the amount the US and foreign companies brought in from reconstruction projects. KBR got the most with $72 billion. The story first appeared Tuesday in the Financial Times of London.

The following community sites -- plus Jane Fonda, Antiwar.com, Pacifica Evening News, the ACLU, NYT's At War and Ms. magazine's blog -- updated last night and this morning: