Or is it just because Bush is currently the President? (You are neurotic about Bush as well as the western effort in Iraq.)

Yes, Komrad…I awoke humming the “Internationale”. I gather Bush is celebrating “Law Day”…or some such foolishness, of which I never heard before seeing it here at TMV.

Why doesn’t someone mock that absurdity?! God, how lame! Give the Workers their day.

Actually, I think that reports that he was killed by the Iraqi insurgents make this a very interesting story, if true. I agree he was a minor figure, and he will be replaced. But this may mean that the Iraq war will turn into a “Civil War” as opposed to another Taliban-esque base for international terrorism.

Swaraaj said:

1) Can you bet the guy is dead?

2) What are the benefits arising out of his death?

Swaraaj, he may not be dead. As you say, the Iraqi accuracy record in this regard leaves much to be desired.

Also, I suspect we are in agreement that not many benefits will come out of his death (at least for the US). I don’t think he was a major player.

My point was really about how news is interpreted. If it is confirmed he is dead, tomorrow al-Queda will likely respond with multiple suicide bombings on a Shi’a market in Bagdad.

But if it is true, it will be a bit of good news.

There is an historic photo that illustrates my point. It was taken in Korea during the Korean War…on the day that Stalin’s death was announced.

Some GI’s had posted a sign by the roadside, reading: “Joe’s dead. One less Red.”

The GI’s were under no illusions that Stalin’s death would mean the end of the war. In fact, they minimized its importance. After all, they were still knee deep in the shite in a horrible war.

But an enemy of the US and the West had died. That made it a good day.

News standards have greatly changed from the times when I was overseas (where I met Swaraaj in New Delhi, when he started his career working on India’s finest and most reputable newspapers) writing for the old Chicago Daily News and the Christian Science Monitor. Even when I came back from overseas, editors were sticklers on confirmation. The two stories I wrote on newspapers that proved to be totally wrong were ones editors insisted we get into the paper immediately to beat the competition when ironclad confirmation had not been done.

This is what is happening in here. It is legitimate to say that officials in Iraq say this and that.

But on the blogosphere you would THINK that people on the left and right have been burned ENOUGH by hyping unconfirmed reports (remember Karl Rove’s indictment? or all the exclusive reports on The You Know Who Report that would surface, blogs would pick them up, then they’d turn out not to be correct and you would not see a correction on that site but the story would simplly vanish…after blogs picked it up?) to take a deep breath.

We have a very intriguing UNCONFIRMED report as of this hour which can become confirmed later or might not be. That is valid. But UNCONFIRMED is just that. This isn’t matter of ideology in saying “wait a minute and take a deep breath.” It’’s a matter of journalistic standards that have been taught by journalism professors for many many years to thousands of students and enforced by editors of many publications. It’s just that the number of publications that now are relaxing the standards have grown, blogs will seize on something as “see? we told you this supports what we believe” (or don’t believe), and the blogosphere in general demands it be considered like he mainstream media but its standards continue to be op-ed, talk radio standards and not really journalistic standards. (We don’t confirm every opinion assertion here, either by the way.)

I’m with Swaraaj. I won’t be at my computer all day and this COULD be confirmed…but watch what happens if it is NOT. You won’t see a lot of these sites hyping it even running a correction or it will be a tiny or perfunctory post. NOTE: It is LIKELY. They are looking for this guy. But we do not have confirmation at this hour.

Marlowecan Says: As I said in comment to Shaun’s earlier post: Why cannot liberals ever simply say: “This was a good one”?

All right…all right… my dear chap…I can shout from the rooftop that “This was a good one”. Yeah!!!

However, I want to be clear on two points:

1) Can you bet the guy is dead?

2) What are the benefits arising out of his death?

Swaraaj – By “real news” I take it you mean “negative” news. Every single post you have made on Iraq has been about disaster and suffering.

This is entirely fair, as there has been a great amount of suffering and misery.

But why can’t you allow 1 (one…solitary) piece of potential good news out of Iraq to be good?

This bloke is a minor figure…I don’t think it will end anything.

That it seems to have been Iraqi insurgents…not the Yanks…who have killed him IS an important story.

Your post is, I believe, reflective of much of the Left blogosphere. So I am not critiquing you individually on this score.

But why can’t you allow a single piece of good news out of Iraq? Just one.

As I said in comment to Shaun’s earlier post:

Why cannot liberals ever simply say: “This was a good one”?

“Yesterday was shite. Tomorrow will probably be shite. But this was a good one.”