Posted by
Neophyte Pundit on Friday, October 26, 2007 12:13:38 AM
I have often said, and I will gladly say it again, Michael Yon's dispatches are the best reporting on the war in Iraq anyone can read. He is fair and balanced in the truest sense of the words. His unbiased look at the war through the eyes of a former soldier and is not tied to any political agenda driven sensationalism that passes as journalism in today's world. His most recent is a prime example,
Beauchamp and the Rule of Second Chances.
The AP, the NYTimes and others could learn a great lesson from sending in truly independent journalists, those with no particular ax to grind other than reporting what they see and the feelings and emotions that the everyday soldier endures in Iraq. What passes as mainstream media (MSM) today is is blinded by it's own PC driven, agenda driven, liberal bias that it is hard to even get past headlines, let alone taking in an article in it's entirety.
The newsroom is so biased and loaded with liberals that when asked they will tell you they are neither Dimocratic nor Liberal. A Republican and/or conservative journalist is typically a token to balance out the unbalanced, unfair journalism that they would claim as neither. When gathered together editors and/or reporters, as well as anchor persons they all espouse how fair and balanced they are. Unfortunately, they all suffer from being locked in a room together and suffer from myopia. When everyone in the newsroom is liberal there are only shades of liberalism, there's the far out leftists (NYTimes) and then there is left on center. In their world left of center is considered conservative.
Okay, okay, I will step off the soap box and get to my point about Michael Yon and the Beauchamp affair...
To his credit, and to the discredit of his editors at the New Republic, Beauchamp was given a choice, a second chance. Following his lurid fictional writing, thoroughly "vetted" by TNR, he was discovered as charlatan. His stories were just that, fictional yarns dreamed up to enhance his writing skills. His choice, leave or continue to serve as a soldier. As Michael describes, to his credit, Beauchamp chose to remain. Whatever personal demons he might have had leading into his going to Iraq in the first place, they may well be exorcized by grueling combat in Baghdad, and he could pay the ultimate price, with his life. That is admirable, I will grant that as well. Michael saves his best for last, absolutely excoriating The New Republic, even going so far as to call them out as cowards!
And I quote:
"Though Beauchamp is close, I’m not going to spend half a day tracking him down when just this morning I woke to rockets launching from nearby and landing on an American base. Who has time to skin Beauchamp? We need him on his post and focused.
As for The New Republic, some on the staff may feel like they’ve been hounded and treed, but it’s hard to feel the same sympathy for a group of cowards who won’t ’fess up and can’t face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by their collective lapse of judgment. It’s up to their readers to decide the ultimate fate.
The New Republic treed like a bandit . . . personally, I think they would make a nice Daniel Boone hat."
Once again, great stuff Michael, that is Pulitzer writing. But, just as the Nobel Peace Prize is now politically motivated in it's awards, so too is the Pulitzer, tarnished by it's own myopia...
What say you?