Syria is a totalitarian state. It controls its own population and has extensive ties in Lebanon. Two high officials of the Syrian government, relatives of President Bashar Assad, have been connected to the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In this context the statements of Brig Gen Asef Shawkat, President Assad's brother-in-law are newsworthy.
The Washington Post ran the above explanation for its controversial decision to give op-ed space to Asef Shawkat one of the Syrian official implicated by UN investigator Mehlis in the murder of Rafik Hariri.
Well actually the Post never wrote such a disclaimer. Gen Shawkat never appeared on the Post's op-ed page.
But in explaining the Post's controversial decision last week to feature an op-ed by Mahmoud abu Marzook, this is what the Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt wrote in The Goal of these Pages
Hamas is a terrorist organization. It also is now the elected majority party of a Palestinian parliament. U.S. and other officials are trying to decide what policy to take toward a new government, as experts debate the same question. In that context, the party's platform and intentions are newsworthy
Of course this came after a swipe at the Post's critics
Last week the editorial page received hundreds of letters and e-mails suggesting that The Post's opinion pages had crossed a line, not once but twice. The criticism echoed, in a very faint way, a controversy raging through Europe and the Muslim world.
Yes a faint echo. Angry e-mails and a tough but respectful letter from six generals are a faint echo of embassy burnings. No doubt many people notice the similarities too.
But the problem isn't simply running an article presenting the views of Hamas, it's the person the Post allowed to do the presenting. As objectionable as the message is, the real scandal is the messenger. And Hiatt merely sidesteps that issue.
Would the Post have given Awkat 800 words to defend himself? I doubt it.
The best I can determine the Post never gave op-ed space to Joerg Haider whose sin is sympathizing with murderers of 60 years ago and a threat to keep immigrants out of Austria. Somehow these views are further beyond the pale than abetting murderers now and threatening to remove all Israelis from their homes. There's something about Israel's enemies that makes normally reasonable people bend over back to understand their grievance.
Hiatt goes on to justify the decision to publish abu Marzook's piece by arguing that by presenting his view and those of critics it will help readers come to an informed decision.
There's an additional problem with this justification. Adloyada (previously cited here) argued that giving abu Marzook an op-ed was playing into Hamas's "extremist makeover" strategy. So the Washington Post isn't simply letting something "newsworthy" appear in its opinion section, it is actively aiding a terrorist organization remake its image.
That's what Mr. Hiatt should be explaining. That's what Mr. Hiatt should be apologizing for.
Technorati Tags: Hamas, Washington Post.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Faint echo of embassy burnings
The problem
The Washington Post ran the above explanation for its controversial decision to give op-ed space to Asef Shawkat one of the Syrian official implicated by UN investigator Mehlis in the murder of Rafik Hariri.
Well actually the Post never wrote such a disclaimer. Gen Shawkat never appeared on the Post's op-ed page.
But in explaining the Post's controversial decision last week to feature an op-ed by Mahmoud abu Marzook, this is what the Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt wrote in The Goal of these Pages
Of course this came after a swipe at the Post's critics
Yes a faint echo. Angry e-mails and a tough but respectful letter from six generals are a faint echo of embassy burnings. No doubt many people notice the similarities too.
But the problem isn't simply running an article presenting the views of Hamas, it's the person the Post allowed to do the presenting. As objectionable as the message is, the real scandal is the messenger. And Hiatt merely sidesteps that issue.
Would the Post have given Awkat 800 words to defend himself? I doubt it.
The best I can determine the Post never gave op-ed space to Joerg Haider whose sin is sympathizing with murderers of 60 years ago and a threat to keep immigrants out of Austria. Somehow these views are further beyond the pale than abetting murderers now and threatening to remove all Israelis from their homes. There's something about Israel's enemies that makes normally reasonable people bend over back to understand their grievance.
Hiatt goes on to justify the decision to publish abu Marzook's piece by arguing that by presenting his view and those of critics it will help readers come to an informed decision.
There's an additional problem with this justification. Adloyada (previously cited here) argued that giving abu Marzook an op-ed was playing into Hamas's "extremist makeover" strategy. So the Washington Post isn't simply letting something "newsworthy" appear in its opinion section, it is actively aiding a terrorist organization remake its image.
That's what Mr. Hiatt should be explaining. That's what Mr. Hiatt should be apologizing for.
Technorati Tags: Hamas, Washington Post.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at February 5, 2006 09:49 PM