July 01, 2004


Does the UK Daily Telegraph’s John Keegan know how his copy is being treated by the Sydney Morning Herald? First Keegan was crudely abridged, and now his latest column runs under this heading:

The ideological certainties that drove the US into Iraq now seem naive and vainglorious, writes John Keegan.

Trouble is, as Professor Bunyip points out, Keegan’s column doesn’t match the SMH’s summary:

What Keegan actually wrote is that the war was "honest", "astonishingly successful", and inspired by "purity of political motives". He notes that some US assumptions about post-war Iraq reflected attitudes left over from the Cold War and that these failed to take the role of religion into account, so maybe, at a stretch, an editor with a limited vocabulary might be excused for using "naive".

But vainglorious? What phrase, clause, or sentence in Keegan's article suggests that?

None, so far as I can see. Also from the Bunyip: the thrilling evening escapades of a Michael Moore fan.

Posted by Tim Blair at July 1, 2004 04:09 AM

Keegan is one of the most astute military analysts around. He never gets hysterical ; simply picks off the critical areas. The SMH on the other hand are the screaming queens of military analysis.

Posted by: traps at July 1, 2004 at 05:38 AM

Paul McGeogh also had this to say in todays SMH " The timetable for formal trials for the 12 accused is unclear. Dr Allawi said the Saddam hearings would not begin "for a number of months", a timeframe that might allow US voters to hear of Saddam's atrocities in daily detail before the presidential election on November 2.

What a sneer. On one hand he has been pushing for as much as it has been worth, the 'illigitimacy' of the coalition's actions in Iraq. As can be seen here, he knows what went on though fails to give the truth in order to push his paper's own agenda.

This is the problem, when Saddam's actions come to light, rather than assessing those actions in the context of the American reponse, such disclosure will be used by the leftist media as a way of mocking Bush. I can see it now, Bush engineered the whole thing to get exposure before the election. At least the left can be honest about what really did happen, particularly as many have known all along.

Posted by: nic at July 1, 2004 at 11:41 AM

Guys, I linked to Jules story via Professor Bunyip and it got me real hot! Best TV fantasy for years!

Posted by: Bubbleboy at July 1, 2004 at 01:47 PM


I'm a god catholic lad, I had no idea if the writer was AC/ DC or both.

She writes for the Age? That fits, Only the ABC awaits her.

Posted by: nic at July 1, 2004 at 02:43 PM

Err, yes, I think "she" is kind of ac/dc, with what they call, in the trade, a "long clitoris" ...

Posted by: Bubbleboy at July 1, 2004 at 02:45 PM

'ere! lets not get 'et oop on whether this lass is indeed a man or a woman or summat else! 'jess close 'yer eyes 'an think of England! Why, after all, some person done told me that gender was 'an artificial construct, and who am I to argue with persons that knows about these things?

Posted by: Ernie Postlethwaite at July 1, 2004 at 04:02 PM

I can imagine that David Marr, Media Watch, would want to pounce on this "stretching of the truth", after all, he believes he keeps the media honest on such matters.

How silly of me, he'd only take the SMH to task if the story didn't find a way to hurl more shit on the coalition.

I'll bet my brothers left nut it doesn't get a mention on Media watch..

Posted by: scott at July 1, 2004 at 04:08 PM

No you fucking don't. Bet your own.

Posted by: scott's brother at July 1, 2004 at 08:03 PM