Sunday, June 03, 2007

Joe Klein's Filters: Recipe for Dupedom?

One link leads to another debate and we learn something odd and alarming about how pundit Joe Klein shuts out views critical of the Bush Administration while basing his portrayal of events to the American people on military and intelligence sources.

When national pundits make a standing policy to shun and ignore critics (even those proved right on the invasion and occupcation of Iraq) while proudly stating their basis of views on some sanitized "middle" and official srouces, we have a pretty good example of a flawed and dangerous filter on our discourse and decisionmaking. (Allowing that may Joe was just pandering to Hewitt's base).

Here's my question for Joe:

Hey, Joe, my question here is relevant to how you filter in and out your information sources and what kind of a filter you apply to each.

This weird conversation you had with Hugh Hewitt is the basis of the question:

You say that "I don’t believe in much of the crap that’s coming from the left or right on this stuff..." Your filter is set to entirely shut out these people (me included, apparently).

Instead you get your information and views from "the middle" (do you ignore Juan Cole?) and the military and intelligence establishment: "I talk to our generals, I talk to our intelligence community,"

What kind of filter do you apply to the military and intelligence sources? Do you think they may have reasons to spin you one way or another, to emphasize some problems (Iranian influence increasing Iraq Shia violence) while ignoring other problems you may not ask about (Saudi influence increasing Iraq Sunni violence).

Or, they could be supporting one MidEast interest over another in other ways (see: Israel). They might even, who knows, hide their mistakes from you (which the people you ignore pont out).

Good reporting demands the toughest filter on official news sources. You do not sound like a skeptical, critical reporter when dealing with the government. The tactics you describe are those of an official dupe.

So many times the official version of events are at odds with realty. Do you see how alarming your portrayal of reality on official sources can be?

No comments: