July 15, 2003

LIVE AT, OR NEAR, THE SCENE

Ordinary Iraqis think the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council is a bunch of junk, according to the ABC’s Mark Willacy:

Ordinary Iraqis are very dismissive of this body. That's not really surprising, because they do regard it as a bunch of exiles who are merely puppets for the real power, which is the American administration.

You mention names like Ahmed Chalabi in the streets of Baghdad and you get very dismissive responses. They see him as a crook, as someone who is a friend of the State Department and the Pentagon in Washington.

Willacy phoned that report in from ... Jerusalem.

UPDATE. Salam Pax, reporting from Baghdad for The Guardian, is obviously talking to different ordinary Iraqis:

I am happy, we all are. The general sentiment is: "Yes, of course we know it is not a real government, but it is a start." The mix is right; they just have to work more on the choice of characters, and they need a massive PR campaign. People just don't know who they are, especially the women ...

Whatever, as one very wise taxi driver told me later, this is only temporary. When we get to choose, it will not be the same people we have up there now. This is really the first step and if we stumble, it is not a problem; we learn.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 15, 2003 09:19 AM
Comments

oops, you been tagged from Glenn Reynolds (from Kentucky is it? Is that closer to Jerusalem?)
Not to mention President Bush, who invaded the place: I don't think he spent a lot of time there.

Posted by: gberke at July 15, 2003 at 10:00 AM

Knoxville, Tennessee. Not to nitpick...

Posted by: D at July 15, 2003 at 10:06 AM

Geez Willacy, tell us what you really think! I wonder if we had stuff to deal with like this during the occupation of Japan and Germany:

"Ordinary Germans and Japanese are dismissive of this body..." SFW? Blecch.

Posted by: Derek at July 15, 2003 at 10:09 AM

to be obvious, i think the point being made is that reporting "street level opinion" from location A from a desk in country B is unethical. how do you know what people in A think? it's speculative.

Posted by: miguel at July 15, 2003 at 10:10 AM

This is Brad, reporting live from Colorado. Most Iraqis I've talked to think the governing council is A-OK and that Mark Willacy is full of camel shit. Now... where do I go to get my newspaper job?

Posted by: Brad at July 15, 2003 at 10:15 AM

"reporting "street level opinion" from location A from a desk in country B is unethical. how do you know what people in A think? it's speculative."

It's not "speculative"; it's dishonest. As in lying.

About what I would expect from ABC; not down to the level of CNN and BBC, but closing fast.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at July 15, 2003 at 10:27 AM

Yeah, how could he possibly have any idea. It's obviously impossible that Willacy has ever worked in Baghdad, or that the ABC might have other reporters there. Jeezum crow, from the absurd reaction here, you'd think he'd lied about WMDs or something.

Posted by: thesaintlyalangreenspan at July 15, 2003 at 10:35 AM

Speaking from my Grapevine, Texas headquarters I can report that while Iraqis may not have received a full share of democracy, whiskey, and sexy yet most are grateful for no longer being fed into shredders.

Posted by: Randy R. at July 15, 2003 at 10:49 AM

Well, Tim, at least you are preaching to the choir today.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2003 at 10:50 AM

Sorry. I meant to say "At least you are NOT preaching to the choir today."

Posted by: Michael Totten at July 15, 2003 at 10:52 AM

The choir is asking no references to Jason Blair and NYT. Tim

Posted by: Gary at July 15, 2003 at 10:59 AM

Calabasas, California reporting, Willacy phoned that report in from ... (a bar in) Jerusalem.

Posted by: Henry at July 15, 2003 at 11:02 AM

It is possible the correspondent is covering something else in Jerusalem at the moment -- he is, after all, the "Middle East" correspondent. Matthew McAllester, Newsday's Middle East correspondent, could file dispatches from Iran one day and Hebron the next, long before he was lost in Iraq. The journalists covering Bush's Africa jaunt sometimes were in two different countries on the same days. Don't Jayson Blair Mr. Willacy yet.

Posted by: Brian at July 15, 2003 at 11:48 AM

The plural of anecdote is not necessarily data. Perhaps Mr. Willacy should disclose his survey method? Just asking Abdul at the local stop-n-choke is not adequate, even if it is in Baghdad and even if he includes all Abdul's male relative, the store staff, and local hangers-on.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 15, 2003 at 12:29 PM

just how do journalists determine what "ordinary _______" think anyway? Presumably, they interview a few and report the findings. That leaves alot of room for editorializing.

I suspect another journalist could go find a couple "ordinary Iraqis" who are excited at the prospect of self-government, or conversely a couple ordinary Iraqis who wish Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were back in charge.

Whenever I read a journalist reporting what "ordinary people" think I am dubious. What methodology was used to make this determination? How many Iraqis did the reporter interview? How does one identify an "ordinary __________"?

Basically, this kind of reporting is just entertainment or editorializing. It tells almost nothing, yet its passed off as news by once-respected outlets.

I can report that "ordinary Americans" think that respect for journalists is decreasing. I just asked my mother. She thinks they are usually full of sh-t.

Posted by: jim at July 15, 2003 at 12:38 PM

So, I'm unclear here - is the issue whether or not Mr. Willacy ever actually visited Baghdad to solicit the Iraqi man-on-the-street opinions, or is it that man-on-the-street opinions don't really mean anything? One outrage at a time please, no shoving.

But I agree with what was brought up: please think a little about how overseas journalists might operate. Visit someplace, collect data, go somewhere else and report it back to home base. How unusual is that? Is there any indication anywhere that he didn't visit Iraq recently? Now, if he been interviewing a man-on-the-street live on camera and it had turned out he was in Jerusalem that'd be a different story.

But it's not.

Think, people, before jumping up and down - the floor may be rotten below you.

Posted by: Barry at July 15, 2003 at 01:49 PM

Correction to above: He wasn't on TV, it was ABC radio. My mistake, but it doesn't change anything.

Posted by: Barry at July 15, 2003 at 01:50 PM

I wonder if we had stuff to deal with like this during the occupation of Japan and Germany

Just the State Department, which wanted to renovate the imperial system; and the Soviets, through the Far Eastern Commission and the Allied Council for Japan, who wanted to - well, you know what they wanted to do. ;-)

Posted by: Michael Ubaldi at July 15, 2003 at 01:55 PM

Are these the same streets of Baghdad surrounded by those tobacco fields that, according to Jayson Blair, nestled Jessica Lynch's hometown? If not, whom are we to believe?

jim: I think I'd trust your mother more than any journalist, nowadays.

Posted by: Finnish-American at July 15, 2003 at 01:57 PM

Barry:

someplace, collect data, go somewhere else and report it back to home base. How unusual is that? Is there any indication anywhere that he didn't visit Iraq recently?

The assembly met for the first time today (yesterday? Time zones, y'know), so it would have been a quick rush back to Jerusalem in order to get reactions after the group had been contituted; any reactions prior to that would have been speculative.

Posted by: timekeeper at July 15, 2003 at 02:03 PM

Visiting Iraq "recently" doesn't get Willacy to Jerusalem expediently. It's not like there are direct flights from Baghdad to Jerusalem.

Posted by: Fred Boness at July 15, 2003 at 02:14 PM

Possibilities:

1) Other reporters in Iraq communicated the information to Jerusalem, and he reported it.

2) How long has the makeup of the council been more or less public knowledge? Perhaps speculation as to the composition of the council has been running through the streets for the past week, and now that the membership is set the grumblings can be reported as fact.

i.e., last week:

Average Iraqi: You know, that guy A. - he is no good. If he gets on the council, he will just be a puppet of the Americans.

Guy A. gets on the council, the reaction of Average Iraqi gets reported. If Guy A. did not get on, then the report is...um, unreported.

3) Airplanes fly to Jerusalem every day.

Posted by: Barry at July 15, 2003 at 02:23 PM

Psst, Barry, there are different people here expressing different opinions. I know that can be confusing, but ain't life grand.

Neither observation could have merit. One could have merit, the other not. Or both could have merit. They could even be, shhh, interrelated. Darn that anxiety of analysis.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were someone to tell us what to think. Mr. Willacy, what do ordinary people think about such matters?

Do tell! ;^)

Posted by: jim at July 15, 2003 at 02:28 PM

Comical Barry.

Posted by: Lee at July 15, 2003 at 02:28 PM

With the exception of Egypt and Jordan, Arab countries will not allow you to enter if you have any evidence of coming from Israel (passport stamps, etc.). Apparently, when you pass the Egyptian border at Rafah or Tabah, the Egyptians will put a stamp in your passport, so everybody can see that you passed Rafah or Tabah and so you must have been in Israel, and they won't let you in even then. I seriously doubt there are flights from Baghdad to Jerusalem.

Posted by: scott h. at July 15, 2003 at 02:54 PM

Ummm... things may have changed slightly in Baghdad, after certain recent events...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 15, 2003 at 02:58 PM

Yeah, hopefully the new government will be a vast improvement. The point is if there was a flight to Jerusalem it would have to be brand new, and I get the feeling there wouldn't be a demand for it.

Posted by: scott h. at July 15, 2003 at 03:19 PM

No matter how much rationalizing anyone wants to do, the fact remains that this story positively reeks of the author's own opinion and nothing else. Now that they believe the danger has passed and it is safe to emerge from their holes, the liberal press is spinning like mad to undermine GW's victory.

Posted by: Reid at July 15, 2003 at 03:22 PM

Barry,

Have some issues with your above points;

1) Other reporters in Iraq communicated the information to Jerusalem, and he reported it.

As an ex-journalist, I can tell you that you never ever take facts from other sources and report them as your own - even within your own orginization. What you would hear is "Reports from within Baghdad blah ... blah ... blah ..."

2) How long has the makeup of the council been more or less public knowledge? Perhaps speculation as to the composition of the council has been running through the streets for the past week, and now that the membership is set the grumblings can be reported as fact.

So, people who didn't like George W. getting elected didn't get any coverage until after his inauguration? How about Blair or Musharraf? They weren't really upset about it until after it happened?

3) Airplanes fly to Jerusalem every day.

Umm, not from predominately Muslim countries. I am almost 100% sure that El Al (Israel's airline) does not have twice-a-day service to Tehran and Baghdad. Although, I will give you it is possible that he chartered a flight from Baghdad that landed in Turkey or some other semi-neutral country before continuing service to Jerusalem (I doubt you fly directly from Iraq to Israel unless your intent is to get shot down). Even then, I suspect that Allied forces have a fairly tight grip on all incoming and outgoing air travel, and a charted flight would not be easy to come by.

However, with that said, I don't see this as a mighty concerted liberal spin. Rather, I see journalist(s) trying to make a name for themselves - either erronously or unethically.

Posted by: Curious Observer at July 15, 2003 at 04:38 PM

You know you're an idiotarian when...

You know Mumia Abu Jamal is framed by Amerikkka but that Ahmed Chalabi was found guilty in a fair trial by the Jordanian government.

Posted by: Andjam at July 15, 2003 at 04:46 PM

i used to be a reporter for a decent-sized us paper (about 100,000 circulation). i was routinely told to seek out interviews "on the street" that said X. if i couldn't find one, my editors would tell me to keep looking, since "someone out there must think X." i know a few reporters (at times) ended up just using the ubiquitous "un-named sources say ..." line. of course, sometimes an annyonymous source really is legitimate ... but it makes you wonder.

Posted by: miguel at July 15, 2003 at 06:24 PM

There is no commercial airline service from Baghdad to anywhere. There's no way this guy talked to Baghdadis and made it to Jerusalem in time to write a reaction story. It's possible that a stringer in Baghdad interviewed some Iraqis and phoned in their reactions, but it's weird to byline the story from Jerusalem with no credit to anyone in Iraq. (Well, it's very NY Timesy.)

Posted by: Joanne Jacobs at July 15, 2003 at 08:08 PM

Why is the fourth estate determined to be a fifth column? I think we should be told.

Posted by: Mark Gullick at July 15, 2003 at 08:15 PM

It's because of their sixth sense that the seventh sign is imminent.

Posted by: md at July 16, 2003 at 12:40 AM

I'll give you ten-to-one odds the Iraqis are willing to give the Council more than a second in power to prove themselves worthy in that third-rate country.

Posted by: Jake D at July 16, 2003 at 02:49 PM

Hope this helps. I can report from much closer to Baghdad than Jerusalem. Mark Willacy's report is slanted at best, more likely just plain full of shit.
Diggs
US Army
Op Iraqi Freedom

Posted by: Diggs at July 16, 2003 at 05:01 PM