The Common Ills: Christian Science Monitor smears Iraqi protesters

Friday, April 26, 2013

Christian Science Monitor smears Iraqi protesters

I don't know what the hell's wrong with that non-paper. The last big thing had me calling 'friends' at the paper. You may remember the column pimping the lie that Vietnam veterans were spat on when they returned. I'm not in the mood to spend two days working the phone to fix their latest error.

Arthur Bright isn't so bright. His idiotic piece is entitled "Anti-government protests in Iraq devolve into sectarian fighting."

Scores of Iraqis have been killed in two days of sectarian fighting in central Iraq, raising concerns about a new Sunni uprising against the Shiite central government.

Agence France-Presse reports that 128 people have been killed and 269 wounded since Tuesday in fighting between security forces and anti-government protesters in Sunni-majority regions of the mostly Shiite country. The protesters have been calling for the resignation of Shiite Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki, whose government they say has been targeting Sunnis.

The Los Angeles Times writes that observers have long feared that violence would erupt from the protests, which began in December.

The link on "long feared" goes to Ned Parker's article. Bright's an ass who is either ignorant or he just wants to smear the protesters. He's never written about them before but somehow he decided he was an expert today.

There's a reason that paper is no longer in print.

Here's the opening of Ned Parker's article:

Battles between Iraqi government forces and Sunni fighters left at least 17 people dead Wednesday as sectarian tensions showed little sign of abating and threatened an insurrection in Sunni provinces.
Dozens of people were reportedly killed during two days of violence that started Tuesday after Shiite-led security forces stormed a Sunni protest camp in northern Iraq. Authorities announced Wednesday that 50 people had died the previous day in Kirkuk province, home to the town of Hawija, where the bloodshed started. More died as the violence spread across the country.

The protests devolved into violence? No, the attack on Hawija -- by Nouri's forces -- is -- pay attention filthy trash at the Christian Science Monitor -- "where the bloodshed started."

How dare that piece of trash blame the protesters. Bright doesn't know a damn thing.

What's he saying here:

The Los Angeles Times writes that according to Iraqi authorities, the bloodshed began in the town of Hawija, near the northern city of Kirkuk, with 50 people killed, though the violence spread across the country quickly.

I'm sorry, Bright, who did the killing?

You don't go into that, do you? But he's already smeared the protesters so anyone reading who doesn't know the situation will assume it was those "Islamist" protesters. Really Islamists? There are Islamists in Iraq?

Oh, that's shocking. Who could have ever guessed that? What his point other than trying to scare people about the protesters? I honestly think that "Islamist" alarmist reaction is religious baiting.

Bright doesn't know a damn thing which makes him perfect for the Christian Science Monitor. When we speak to students about the wars sometimes one will bring up the state of the newspaper business and offer excuses. Newspapers are profitable. Norman Solomon's addressed that topic in depth. And for those that aren't? A lot of the time, it's their fault. I like to tell this story.

If you want to subscribe to the New York Times, they give you X weeks at X price and then after the trial the price goes up to whatever it is a month. Here is why the Christian Science Monitor is no longer in print. They couldn't answer basic questions.

They promoted their trial subscription. But people considering subscribing didn't want to sign up without knowing what the regular price was after the trial. That's not surprising.

But they couldn't get an answer. They would be told -- in e-mails -- the trial subscription rate. You could e-mail the subscription over and over and they would never tell you the regular price.

That ran off potential customers. And it became obvious what was happening because there was a huge drop-off in trial subscriptions when the subscription department refused -- for six months -- to answer that question.

The Christian Science Monitor went under as a print edition because no one had a brain for business including the importance of customer service. Nobody's going to subscribe to anything if you can't tell them how much it's going to cost. They were idiots. It's on them, no one else.

Arthur Bright's piece today indicates there's still a lot of stupid at the Christian Science Monitor.

That was also evident when Jill Carroll was rescued. The unilateral, freelance reporter was kidnapped in Iraq. Instead of allowing her to be the strong woman that she is (Carroll is now a fire fighter), the paper insisted on sob-sister crap about poor Jill, pathetic Jill, blah, blah, blah. It was as though she was little Mary Pickford and not a grown woman.

To be clear, I'm talking about the paper's treatment of Carroll in their articles. I'm not talking about Carroll. She's strong. She didn't ask to be made into the nation's victim. And they'd never have done that with a male reporter who was kidnapped.

Ned Parker's noted above. There was a question in the e-mails that Beth handles in today's gina & krista round-robin. But I'm dealing with it here too because an editor with the Times called to ask about Ned Parker's writing -- why wasn't he being linked?

You may have noticed Iraq coverage has picked up at other community sites. We are all appalled by how little coverage there is in the US. We don't just whine, we try to do our part to change things. I was asked who is someone solid to follow? I said Ned Parker. That's why you're seeing him noted at the other sites. Because he is being noted there, I've not noted him here because I don't want to be weighing in before they can. Ned doesn't need explanation, he doesn't need footnotes. Ned Parker is the strongest reporter on Iraq in the last ten years. That's going to hurt the feelings of two friends but it's true. I have no problem with Ned's reporting. The Los Angeles Times is spending money on international coverage. I do understand that, I told my friend on the phone (the editor) that we'd start including links to Ned after the others had.

After Ned? Tim Arango of the New York Times is one to follow right now.

The following community sites -- plus Tavis Smiley, Antiwar.com, Adam Kokesh, Ms. magazine's blog and Pacifica Evening News -- updated last night and this morning: