Strange Journalism:
Iraq the Model in the News Again
A couple of months ago, I passed along some information about some bloggers who were having doubts about the credibility of a couple of brothers (actually, there are three) by the name of Omar and Muhammad, and Ali. Blogger Jeff Jarvis has championed the brothers' blog, known as Iraq, the Model.
Jay Rosen is talking about the blogging brothers at Press Think. A NY Times article by Sarah Boxer, titled "Pro-American Iraqi Blog Provokes Intrigue and Vitriol, has reported about unsupported allegations that the brothers from Iraq are actually C.I.A. agents. It produces no proof whatsoever for such claims.
Whether they are CIA or propagandists, I am disturbed when I read that these brothers are being financed by ideologues. I don't make a single dime as a blogger. I speak my heart and I am politically obligated to no man or woman besides myself and my own conscience. One of these brothers, Ali, has quit. Poof. Cold turkey. He claims he just can't do this anymore. The other two brothers claim to have met with President Bush. I'm sorry, this is just too bizarre, people! Sarah Boxer writes:
As for financing, Ali said that Iraq the Model had received private donations from Americans, Australians, French, British and Iraqi citizens. In addition, the brothers were promised money from Spirit of America. But, he added, "We haven't got it yet."
What Sarah Boxer was trying to tell us in her report, as a mainstream journalist, seems just a litte fuzzy to many people. A theme that runs through many of the comments I see about the article is that the report seemed more like a blog entry than a professional journalist's NY Times report.
Jay says:
The finished report is supposed to reduce the "befuddling complexity" of the online world, not produce a more exquisite sense of it.
Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer (who is teaching a course at NYU this term on religion and journalism) has said that "good reporting is ordinarily the opposite of opaque, and that the situation should be more intelligible when the journalist's labors are completed."
Jay Rosen has concluded that:
Sarah Boxer's article about Iraq the Model was really about the Net and how you can't trust anyone or anything that originated on it. Leaving the situation opaque, at the level of a brouhaha, was part of the point. (And in that context, suggesting a CIA connection served quite well.) It remains, however, a strange assignment.I have to wonder if Sarah Boxer wasn't trying to mock the blog world with her opaque article. Was she branding us, with crafty poison pen, a band of hooligans with our hands out for bribes; not to be trusted as you'd trust a NY Times journalist? I hope this was not the case. We honest, hard-working bloggers can be sensitive souls.
Here's what I really want to know. I'd love to know the facts, with which Sarah never bothered to satisfy us. The facts. Sarah ends her article by referring to a statement by one of the brothers, the last line reading "Now that seems genuine..", yet she never offers true investigative insight or a promise of investigative follow-up.
I could have written this piece, and I'm a blogger..not a NY Times journalist. If the NY Times would like a blogger who's a real deal, however, I am always willing and ready. ;)
I mean, are Muhammad, Omar, and Ali CIA agents or paid operatives of any kind? Are they simply propagandists? Have they been paid by DoD or any other governmental agency? Are they the Armstrong Williams of Iraq? Has anyone bothered to dig into this and give us a real investigative story? Are they too afraid they'll wind up suffering the fate of Dan Rather if they REALLY try to "dig in"? For Sarah, whose article I found entertaining, it seems as if it was easier just to muddy up the waters and make political bloggers look like most of them on the take.
I have to say that I deeply resent that soft accusation.