NY Times Public Editor Hoyt Blasts Paper’s MoveOn Petraeus Ad As Betraying Interests
The New York Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt has looked extensively at the issue of the infamous “General Betray Us” ad MoveOn.org ran and today the “gray lady’s” corporate hair should be getting a bit grayer, its corporate face bit redder — amid a controversy that has clearly damaged the Times‘ once lofty “brand name.’
Unless you’ve been visiting Venus for a few weeks, the MoveOn.org ad unleashed a firestorm of criticism from conservatives, Republicans, President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney — but also from many in the center and even on the left.
On this website, we ran THIS POST and THIS POST noting that the ad’s language had no place in American discourse and also would boomerang and bite Democrats supporting, endorsing or enabling it on the political butt.
But now Clark Hoyt, the paper’s public editor (DISCLAIMER: He was my managing editor when I worked at Knight-Ridder’s Wichita Eagle-Beacon in the early 80s) has blasted his newspaper in a column called “Betraying Its Own Interests”. The explanation of what happened indicates MoveOn WAS indeed given a DISCOUNT that violated the paper’s own rules — but newspaper officials told Hoyt (who has long had an EXCELLENT reputation as a straight-shooter no matter where he worked) that it was an error.
Here’s the crux of his conclusions, at the end of his piece, which needs to be read in full:
[Steph] Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.
The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran.
Sulzberger, who said he wasn’t aware of MoveOn.org’s latest ad until it appeared in the paper, said: “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. … Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.â€
THAT QUOTE will get the Times in more hot water. Yes, it is vital to give a greater voice to people. But the words “Betray Us” didn’t add anything to the debate or help MoveOn or war opponents. In fact, it probably hurt (see below). MORE:
For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in [Steph] Jespersen [the executive who approved the ad's] shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,†a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.
And, indeed, it was the context, not simply the words that created the furor. But did it help? In the end, Republicans and the White House got a lot of mileage out of the ad which provoked rightful and deserved condemnation from many parts of the political spectrum.
And GOPers in Congress managed to press a successful vote to condemn the ad. So, in 2008, Democrats who voted “yes” could face the ire of progressive Democratic voters and those who voted “no” could lost some of the votes from outraged Americans. Both parties need voters who aren’t only from their own parties to win. Writes Hoyt:
By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.â€
And what are the details about the (in)famous discount?
Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.†Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,†he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days.
Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.†She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.â€
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken.
It is indeed HIGHLY possible and PROBABLE that it happened this way.
The fact is, in 21st century America partisans on both sides give absolutely no benefit of the doubt to the other and jump on something immediately to advance their agendas (to discredit and demonize the other side). If you’ve worked in a big corporation (as I did under Hoyt and later for the San Diego Union which is owned by Copley Press) you know mistakes DO happen.
Most newspapers don’t have evil ideologues sitting in a room upstairs pressing buttons trying to find out a way to use their newspapers to screw those they don’t like in coverage and ad placement.
The word Hoyt has not used, though, needs to be used.
If Hoyt’s account is true — and given his track record for accuracy and integrity I am certain it is — some folks at the Times are guilty of virtual negligence.
And for that the gray lady will be grayer — because once you seriously damage a “brand name” it’s hard to get perceptions back to where they are.
What’s mind-boggling is that in this highly politicized, polarized, people-looking-for-a-rant atmosphere someone at the Times could approve such language without anticipating that it would trigger howls of protest — not just from Republicans, conservatives and the White House but from all Americans who also decry and condemn any kind of political hate speech — such as administration’s and some Republicans’ attempt to brand war critics as enablers of terrorism and/or haters of American troops. That’s as equally inaccurate as “General Betray Us.”
The Times just didn’t run an ad at a discount; it helped perpetuate the seemingly inexorable trend towards lowering the bar for mass-media carried political hate speech.
The Times has suffered a series of bungles and image-shattering scandals the past few years. This won’t help it — and as Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal begins to beef up its news coverage, the Times might do well to look over its shoulder and exercise the kind of care Hoyt recommends.
Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch must be smiling.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE IS A CROSS-SECTION OF WEBLOG OPINION:
–Glenn Reynolds aka InstaPundit:
This also leaves some of those who defended the Times’ discounted rate by claiming that the critics didn’t understand the ad business in an awkward position.
But let me see if I get this right: because the ad appeared on the right day, and it was on “standby,†the rate for the timing should have been double? But if it had appeared on standby because no one tried to buy the timing, it was the right price? Gee. I guess I fail to see a huge scandalous difference. (But we shall all be shortly disabused, no doubt.)
The whole MoveOn smear has obviously taken place — if not at White House insistence — then certainly with its blessing and tacit approval. Bush’s extreme anger at the MoveOn ad is well documented in the past week, and undoubtedly the additional attack on the New York Times is in keeping with his private version of the “Alien and Sedition Act†of the John Adams Administration.
Jesperson insisted that he “erred on the side of public discourse”, and that the question mark at the end of “Betray Us?” made all the difference in the world. Hoyt didn’t buy that argument, calling an accusation of betrayal a “particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.” I’d argue it this way: if I ran an ad in the Paper of Record that read, “Jesperson — Brain-Damaged Traitor?”, would Jesperson still feel that the question mark made the accusation fair?
The Times got caught with its pants down and its biases exposed. Hoyt not only acknowledges the obvious, he undermines the ridiculous meme that got floated about the standby rate, which the ad itself obviously refutes in its use of “today” when referring to Petraeus’ testimony. Even the Gray Lady can’t dance around that.
—Liberal Values has a detailed post that must be read in full. Part of it:
If the advertising was up to me, I would have also avoided language such as “Betray Us†but it is less clear as to whether others who wish to use such language in an ad should be prevented from doing so. Exact rules could never be written to handle all such potential ads and it is understandable that there could be disagreement even within The New York Times as to whether this particular ad should have been run. Regardless, the Times deserves credit for openly discussing this issue.….Most Americans, assuming they are even aware of the controversy, will soon forget the ad but the war will not go away. They will realize that, as Bill Richardson wrote, Ad’s don’t kill people, wars do. The conservatives won a Pyhrric victory in the Senate with the resolution condemning the ad. Their supporters may have cheered, but most Americans will look back and question why the Senate was wasting time on such nonsense as opposed to working to get our soldiers home. This example will also be of value the next time conservatives unfairly attack veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland and they are forced to explain why they fail to respect their own standards.
Note how Hoyt tries to shift the blame on “a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times.†I guess Hillary must have trademarked “vast right-wing conspiracy.†Hoyt’s one more lefty who refuses to accept personal responsibility.
….Face it, the only reason the Times is explaining this is that the ad backfired on MoveOn. Had it worked, the Times would have heralded the free press aspect of it. The Times can run any ad it wants, or not run. It can charge what it wants, although the FEC could cause trouble. But what the Times cannot do is blame its problems on “a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times.†No, the problem is with the Times itself. Just as Paula Jones’s complaint was true, so is this one.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
36 Responses to “NY Times Public Editor Hoyt Blasts Paper’s MoveOn Petraeus Ad As Betraying Interests”
A badly written piece that doesn’t make it much clearer for the reader. As far as I can tell, the ad rep told MoveOn it would run Monday instead of saying it would almost certainly run Monday. I don’t see much there in there.
I still think the Republican response to this is much more execrable than the ad itself. Since when were top military commanders exempt from public criticism? Do you think General George McClelland was exempted from press criticism in the Civil War? Of course not. Top generals are not “the troops.” They are major policy makers and are subject to criticism like any other policy maker.
What the Republicans did was hide behind Petraeus’ uniform and use him to shield the ultimate decision-maker – President Bush – from criticism. The Betray Us line was hoky and mostly juvenile. In fact, Petraeus’ own subordinate officers and soldiers have called him Betray Us for many years. Surely the officers in his command didn’t literally think he was a traitor. And neither did MoveOn. The use of “betray” is often used to describe those who are dishonest, and that was the point of the MoveOn ad: that Petraeus is a liar, not a traitor. Now conservatives could have responded to the real charge of mendacity the way the Washington Post did last week and go through the charges point by point. But no, Republicans are not interested in talking about the reality of the war and Petraeus’ claims. They just want to fight over symbolism.
I have to disagree with Elrod’s comment, which cites the defensive argument of many liberals (such as Michael Kinsley) that the word “betray” isn’t that bad, and simply meant lying…not treason.
Elrod said: “The use of “betray†is often used to describe those who are dishonest, and that was the point of the MoveOn ad: that Petraeus is a liar, not a traitor.”
I have spent a lifetime working with words, and I have to say this is pure liberal spin. “Betray” is, contra Kinsley, Elrod et al, an extraordinarily strong and powerful word. That was why MoveOn used it. It DOES NOT simply mean being “dishonest”.
From the “Oxford English Dictionary”:
betray
• verb 1 act treacherously towards (a person, country, etc.) by revealing information to or otherwise aiding an enemy. 2 be disloyal to. 3 unintentionally reveal; be evidence of.
— DERIVATIVES betrayal noun betrayer noun.
— ORIGIN from Old French trair, from Latin tradere ‘hand over’.
Note there is no indication of mere “dishonesty” here. Betrayal, in its origins and general usage, is entirely about “treachery”…not dishonesty.
The liberal claim that the MoveOn ad was simply saying Petraeus was dishonest…and that it is only wingnut conservatives who think it implied treason…simply does not hold water.
It is a defensive stance by liberals — who are playing fast and loose with the English language — now that the MoveOn ad has blown up in their faces.
“Betrayal” is a VERY powerful word – someone who betrays you is obviously much worse than someone who simply lies to you.
That said, I must agree with Elrod’s concluding statement that Republican’s are more interested in this ad than the war. They welcomed it as a diversion from the war — and it allowed them to put Democrats on the defensive. As such, it is amazing to me that liberals continue to defend the ad.
Ok, so how is Colin Powell viewed now? Mostly as a sad, pathetic figure who obey duty over conscience and knowingly betrayed his country’s best interests by leading us into a meaningless war on a false rationale. We’re always allowed to smear U.S. Generals in hindsight, but not in the present. The right has smeared numerous retired generals for opposing the Bush Administration. But now MoveOn and the NY Times have made a “huge error” and have been “caught with their pants down” and somewhere “Rupret Murdoch is smiling.” Thus the double standard in politics; when the Left tries to play by Karl Rove rules, the entire political spectrum turns against them, regardless of the “librul” media. The Right is always brilliant in its political tactics; the Left, sadly, is disagreeable and uncouth in its critique of Generals who play a political role. The Right has a brilliant comeback strategy by the hacks and smear artists; the Left is unhinged and stinks of marijuana smoke. Fox News is an asset; MoveOn is a liability to unchain. Such is the discourse in Washington these days.
Yeah, re: these posts…a bias has definitely been revealed, but not in the NYT.
So, a (mostly) left-leaning newspaper has been caught giving cheap rates to a left-wing website. Color me surprised. Yet Fox News pulls similar if not worse crap all the time (like deliberatly misinforming viewers, how’s that for journalistic integrity) to score political points for the right, and barely a whimper of outrage is heard. No Senate condemnations there. What made this ad so unusual, especially in this day and age of horrible political cheap shots? I guess Bob Corker can get away with insinuating Harold Ford has sex with white women, but for MoveOn to use such language is simply HORRIBLE. Congrats, “moderates,” the Right has just played you like a (edited by polite and civil discourse) harp.
The closer anything gets to the truth, the louder the neocons squeal.
What appalls me are the Dems who signed up to condemn an ad that is clearly an example of free speech.
I am afraid for this country of “sheeple” who are too afraid to stand up for what they believe in.
Unfortunately, in this political climate, the Dems need to resort to the same sleazy tactics as their opponents in order to score points.
Disgusting. But necessary.
Show some cajones, Dems!
Sorry, Marlowe, but I think common usage of “betray” extends to dishonesty as well – as in, “XYZ is betraying the truth” or “XYZ is betraying the best interests of the country.” Have you actually read the rest of the ad? When you read the entire ad it’s obvious that the intention was to attack Petraeus’ honesty. The ad listed several points supporting this claim and this claim only: that Petraeus is misleading the nation as he has done before. If the intention were to be that Petraeus is literally betraying the United States to some foreign enemy, then surely the ad would have listed the ways in which Petraeus has done so. Maybe Betray was a poor choice of words; it’s obvious rhyme with the general’s name seems to be the only reason MoveOn decided to use it. Surely, if the general’s name were Jones, MoveOn would not have used Betray in the ad. It was a corny and childish attempt to insult the man through his last name.
I find it striking how quickly Petraeus’ defenders have resorted to post-structuralism to attack the ad. It’s no better than hyped-up political correctness on the left, where you attack a writer because of his careless speech etiquette and not for his underlying intentions.
Read the whole ad and tell me honestly that the intention of it was to proclaim Petreaus’ disloyalty to the United States or his treacherous support for America’s enemies. Until you find that, I’ll stick with my argument that “Betray” was nothing more than a sloppy phrase.
Elrod said: “Surely, if the general’s name were Jones, MoveOn would not have used Betray in the ad. It was a corny and childish attempt to insult the man through his last name.”
Elrod, while neither of us can state the intentions of the author(s) of the ad, I believe that the use of the word “betray” wasn’t just sloppy…but intentionally inflammatory. Regardless of the content, it is the headline that catches attention…as this one did in spades!
The 2 groups who have benefitted from this ad are MoveOn and the Republicans…and it certainly made Democrats in DC squirm.
I would argue this contemporary resorting to inflammatory language in political advertising is akin to the “nipple slips” and “upskirt flashes” we see by celebrities such as Britney and Paris — not just accidental sloppiness, but deliberate attempts to be provocative and stir public interest.
People are outraged for all sorts of reasons…and it creates attention for those behind the PR…like MoveOn.
As Colonel Tom Parker observed to Elvis, such PR is often successful even when in bad taste: “Boy, as long as they spell your name right.”
What a lot of hot air over a political ad!
Have you seen political ads lately?
The narrator for the ad criticizing MoveOn is in tears, his heart is breaking, sob, sob !
This is all political theater!
I thought the ad was in ppor taste, and a tactical mistake.
However, the earth did not stop spiining, the moon rose and life goes on.
The ad, the outrage, the endless discussions -
it’s all just part of the LOOOOOOOOOOOOng election season.
The next acts in the theater will start soon on your viewing screen.
While the ad was in poor taste, it mimics ads that were used by the Republicans against John Kerry and Max Clelland, both war heroes. IMO, they are in no position to act so outraged.
Elrod is correct in saying that it is not uncommon to criticize generals in this country- it was done during the civil war by Union states, and Gen Schwarzkopf was highly criticized by Republicans during the first gulf war for not going into Baghdad, and for allowing Saddam to keep the use of the helicopters that were later used to mow down Shiite resistance, causing thousands of deaths.
The real scandal is that Bush palmed his war policy off on someone with a reputation for integrity, instead of defending it himself. Because military leaders are considered sacred cows in wartime, Bush knew he could then attack anyone who questioned Petraeus too harshly, and distract the public from the larger issue— whether or not the war was proceeding as planned- and what to do if it was not. Of course, now the GOP is trying to spread the blame for the ad to anyone who doesn’t directly denounce it- mainly almost all of the Democratic candidates for president.
The WH may not know how to govern the country, but they definitely still understand how to manipulate the PR on the war.
Krit said: “Elrod is correct in saying that it is not uncommon to criticize generals in this country- it was done during the civil war by Union states, and Gen Schwarzkopf was highly criticized by Republicans during the first gulf war for not going into Baghdad…”
I would disagree, Krit. It is uncommon to publically criticize military officers “while serving” in the uniform of the United States.
Your bringing Kerry and Clelland is mixing apples and oranges, as they were hammered in the midst of political campaigns AS POLITICIANS. A serving officer in the United States military must follow the lawful orders of the President of the United States (that, or resign). That is why the attack on Petraeus is despicable. A politician can respond in kind to attacks – a serving military officer cannot do so.
And certainly no GOP ever criticized Gen Schwarzkopf for not going to Baghdad using such language (Bush Sr. got the criticism for that). Actually, most everyone at the time ignored Saddam’s decimation of the Shia uprising. Contrary to what you suggest, “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf was a media darling after Desert Storm. Neither was Wes Clark ever accused of betraying the United States by organizing the intervention in the Balkans.
Your Civil War reference is to McClelland – commander of the Union armies – and perhaps the greatest idiot ever to wear the uniform of the United States.
Yet McClelland was NOT widely criticized at the time. In fact, he was the darling of the anti-war crowd and DC pundits of his era, and championed their cause when he ran for president against Lincoln. He would have won too, had not Gen. Sherman delivered one of the most fortuitous victories in history by taking Atlanta.
The clearest historical analogy to this event is that of General Westmoreland (commonly referred to as General WASTE-MORE-LAND by the antiwar left of the Vietnam era.)
This similarity in name-calling tactics by the anti-war brigades from Vietnam to today is one
reason I believe MoveOn’s use of “Betray-us” was quite deliberate!
It is the Left – which has historically despised the military – that has been the source of the most vicious attacks on serving officers of the United States in the past.
That said, I believe Domajot is correct – this is the first salvo in a LOOOONNNGGGG and vicious election season. As this one was so successful for MoveOn…I expect more incendiaries from that direction.
I expect you will have your work cut out for you, Krit, in defending them.
Marlowe, if this ad is so typical of the military-hating Left, why are you bleating like a stuck pig about it? Why are your squeals of pain and shock and outrage so loud? Why do you pretend to be surprised? Seems like you and many others are making as much political hay as you can about it while the media spotlight shines.
And let us take note that this General has served in a political role before for this administration, in 2004.
But whatever, the Washington establishment now has their “dirty hippie spitting on soldier” imagery in full voice. Our generals, while fearless when facing insurgents, have souls as pure as fresh snow and cannot bear to suffer the sting of criticism or any slur on their reputation. The Left is so vicious and powerful, it’s heartbreaking to contemplate what horrible rhetoric they might come up with in the future. If only the Left would tone down their almighty ads in the NYT, then we could freely and logically discuss the issues of the day.
The only people running with this story are the ones bemoaning the heartless Left, while inwardly gloating over such a careless political mistake. The ad was stupid and tasteless, but the reaction it has provoked was far more idiotic (and revealing).
Lit3Bolt said: “Marlowe, if this ad is so typical of the military-hating Left, why are you bleating like a stuck pig about it? Why are your squeals of pain and shock and outrage so loud? Why do you pretend to be surprised?”
I never pretended to be surprised. In fact, as my comments indicate, I am not surprised at all. I am, in fact, very pleased that much of the Left and its fellow travellers in the media seem to have abandoned the “of course, we support the troops” position that they assumed only as defensive cover when the War on Terror was well-supported in the polls.
When the debate raged a few months back over the Washington Post’s self-declared “anti-military military correspondent” declaring the US military to be “mercenaries” and Bush’s praetorian guard, I predicted there would be more attacks from the Left on the military as they feel politically safer to let their true feelings known.
“The only people running with this story are the ones bemoaning the heartless Left, while inwardly gloating over such a careless political mistake. The ad was stupid and tasteless, but the reaction it has provoked was far more idiotic (and revealing).”
I believe it was Democratic strategist Carville who declared that: “If your opponent is drowning, you give him an anvil.” Of course conservatives are gloating about this.
But the ad was not a “careless political mistake” as you suggest. It was deliberately crafted, and by all accounts VERY successful for MoveOn. It has significantly increased their fundraising and political profile.
Lit, I understand why you liberals want the whole story to go away. I would in your shoes, too. It reveals what you aptly term the “dirty hippie spitting on soldier†image that is one of the most politically frightening skeletons in the Democrat’s liberal closet.
Marlowe- I believe you are splitting hairs. If you attack someone’s patriotism and their military service it can’t be called fair game in one instance (a political campaign) and despicable in the second (a PR campaign). If you condemn the first, you should condemn the second. (I personally believe that both are wrong)
Petraeus has stepped out of his traditional role as a military leader and donned one as a political hack for the White House. I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t believe in his mission, or that he is unpatriotic in doing so, only that he is obeying his commander-in-chief, and that Bush is hiding behind him. If we create the meme that Bush listens to the commanders on the ground, and that generals should be respected without question in wartime, that prevents the inconvenience of close scrutiny- doesn’t it? But the commander-in-chief is supposed to be in charge of the policy- the general just carries it out.
But, as I’ve already said, Move-on erred in personally attacking Petraeus instead of the policy itself, and then didn’t factually dispute the report’s findings.
I think its a huge stretch to go from this one ad to your assertion that this is part of a historical trend. Yes, many on the left are anti-war, but in the case of this war, many in the center and on the right are as well. You don’t have to be antimilitary to view it as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history and to regret the enormous loss of human life that it has caused.
Marlowe,
I agree that the ad was deliberately provocative and that the winners in the long run are the polarizing elements within the GOP and the anti-war left. Those in the vast middle, from the center-left to the center-right, lost an opportunity for frank discussion on the actual war strategy going forward.
You are incorrect about the Civil War, however. Not only did McClelland come in for vicious criticism, but so did Grant (accused of suicidal behavior in the 1864 Overland campaign), Henry Halleck (top commander of Union forces in the West accused by Radicals of going too soft on Confederate guerrillas), Ambrose Burnside (mocked in the Union press for his failures at Antietam and Fredericksburg), and John C. Fremont (attacked in the more conservative Union press for pushing emancipation too soon in Fall 1861). On the Confederate side, nobody came in for more press criticism than Braxton Bragg for his failure to secure Kentucky in 1862.
The reason these generals came in for such public criticism from the press and politicians is that the US military (and CSA military) were not considered a professional military force apart from civilian policy making. The military developed policy every bit as much as the Lincoln cabinet (and Davis cabinet) did. Grant’s Overland Campaign in 1864 was not Sec. of War Stanton’s personal idea. It was Grant’s. For that reason, Grant was criticized for it – and not just by Copperhead Democrats.
The tradition in America is to defend the valor of ordinary soldiers and low-to-mid level officers who loyally follow orders from their superiors. But high-level officers are not immune to criticism because they actual set policy. In fact, Bill Kristol’s latest column attacks “other generals” in the military for “undermining” Petraeus’ strategy. Some of those other generals are Petraeus’ superiors (like Fallon). Does this mean Kristol is anti-military too because he’s attacked men in uniform during a war? No it doesn’t.
Petraeus has stepped out of his traditional role as a military leader and donned one as a political hack for the White House.
By delivering the testimony to Congress that he was required by Congress to give? By following the orders of his commander? Heh. Empty rationalizations used to justify treating a military man as a politician.
Krit said: “Marlowe- I believe you are splitting hairs. If you attack someone’s patriotism and their military service it can’t be called fair game in one instance (a political campaign) and despicable in the second (a PR campaign). If you condemn the first, you should condemn the second. (I personally believe that both are wrong)”
I disagree, Krit. The GOP treatment of Clelland was, I believe, ugly and repulsive. However, not so much that of Kerry given how he himself used his military service as a key element of his campaign (“Reporting for duty” at the Dem. convention.).
In both cases, however, as politicians they were free to respond just as viciously to the attacks (Bush being vulnerable on this score, I would argue). Petraeus is legally unable to do so. As a serving officer, he can’t do much of anything about the criticism but swallow it, however vicious it is. That – together with the “betrayal” meme – makes this worse, in my opinion.
Elrod, I think it is not so much criticism of generals – Kristol’s is no different than many criticisms of Pentagon generals in recent years left and right – but the vehemence and personal nature of MoveOn’s attack that reflects an anti-military bias.
When you use a word like “betrayal” in association with a soldier wearing the uniform of the United States, it is a very serious business.
Your point regarding the Civil War is well taken and well researched. I agree, generals are not above criticism, for they make strategy that invariably costs lives. Hence, generals are often sacked by presidents. But to my recollection none of the Civil War generals — nor later controversial generals who incurred fierce public criticism, such as Patton — were ever accused of “betrayal”.
Given how Sherman despised his journalist critics, were he in Petraeus’ place and accused of “betraying” his oath and his country (or perhaps the “us” in “Betray-us” applies only to the Left) I would fear for the lives of the MoveOn administrators. Fortunately, we live in more civilized times.
Or have political passions in the United States reached the toxicity of Civil War levels?
Tully- Petraeus himself has blurred the lines by giving interviews to administration allies like Hugh Hewitt and Brit Hume at Fox News. He also wrote an editorial in 2004 before the election supporting Bush’s policy, even though it was failing at that point.
His statistics have been called into question by the non-partisan GAO report, and are not supported by other data out there.
Almost everyone who has come into contact with Bush has been politicized by that contact- look at what the last surgeon general had to say about his tenure in the administration.
Marlowe- I disagree that Petraeus cannot defend himself- maybe he can’t attack Move-on, but he has given interviews (more like presentations) to Hewitt and Hume and can access public opinion through that means. There are also numerous administration allies who are frothing at the bit to take down anyone who attacks him in a proxy war, which we are now seeing. In the end, his reputation has come out even cleaner because he hasn’t had to stoop to their level, and now he is perceived as above reproach.
All the insightful jawboning aside, one would assume the factual value measurement of an “ad” would how well it convinces the audience of the value of your product/service, or in this case, opinion.
Based on what Moveon accomplished (i.e., converted “never heard of” to “favorable”, it is a good thing they didn’t pay the undiscounted rate……
Gallup Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. .
“Next, we’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people — or if you have never heard of them. How about Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus?” .
Favorable UnfavorableNeverHeard ofUnsure
% % % %
61 22 7 11
52 17 14 17
47 21 16 16
Kim: Tully is also 100% correct though that the Dems played a game of gotcha with regard to Petraeus’ testimony. They wrote it into law that he was to give the report to Congress, then complain that Bush was hiding behind his credentials. They also wrote into law that Bush would submit the written report, then ‘leaks’ started coming out saying that Petraeus wasn’t writing the report (though he was never supposed to submit the written report). Yes, Bush played up the report by Petraeus, and I’m sure that was intentional since he knew that his own credibility had taken a severe beating. However, the way the Dems played this whole thing was classic “Heads I win, tails you lose”. Whenever there was any question about whether the reporting was coming straight from Petraeus or whether it was being filtered through Bush, they could claim that there was a whitewash of the pure reporting by the good general. But whenever info was coming straight from Petraeus’ mouth, then it was time to discredit Petraeus’ reputation.
And Kim and Elrod, I can’t be sure if my memory serves me correctly, but I think both of you have spoken out against the negative ads that were run against Cleland and decried that as foul play (I agreed with you, BTW- the ads could have legitimately shown his voting record on the Patriot Act and simply showed voters that he did vote against it because of concerns for labor interests- but implying that he didn’t care about America’s security was ainaccurate and a very low blow). I’m not sure why you think it’s wrong in one case but OK when the party affiliations are reversed. The GOP shouldn’t slander reputations or impune motives, and neither should the Dems feel justified in doing so.
And sorry, betray in the common vernacular is clearly derogative and it does imply ill intent. Elrod, in an earlier thread on this topic I complimented you because you pointed out that it’s natural for General Petraeus to give a positive spin to reporting because that’s part of his role as a commanding general. I completely agree with that- and then it was Congress’ responsibility to play devil’s advocate and ask the tough questions in order to find out more of the negative side. I don’t see that there’s any justification in claiming that the general didn’t answer any questions honestly.
I think it’s too bad that you now are moving away from that position in defending the slanderous ad which instead of acknowledging that the general was doing what he was supposed to be doing, that he’d instead ‘betray us’.
Ok, here’s my 2c:
First, Calling General Petraeus, “Betrayus” is not “criticism” – it is a baseless attack, pure and simple. Had the Moveon ad stuck to the facts and disputed what Petraeus said, that would have been fine. Equating “Betrayus” with criticism is a tactic that is frankly too often used to justify such attacks.
Secondly, another excuse to justify the ad is that the word “betray” isn’t really that bad. Well, to anyone in uniform, or who has worn the uniform, it’s much more closely associated with the dictionary definition than the alternative some have floated here. It is most definitely an accusation that he is betraying his principles and oaths – something any serving military member takes very seriously because it is at the heart of military service.
Third, another excuse used to justify this ad is that supposedly some of General Petraeus’ troops have used the term. Those who make that argument can’t seem to understand the difference between a national political attack and soldiers doing what soldiers do – bitching. Now, I’ve called, in private of course, one of my Commanding Officers an a$$hole and a d!ckhead. Does that now give Moveon license to take out a full-page ad in the world’s best known newspaper repeating those words against my former CO? Of course not. What a ludicrous argument.
Fourth, some claim the ad is justified because the Republicans “did worse” or the same. Well, the “he did it first” argument does not work with my kids, and it does not work here either. This argument is further proven bogus because it’s compared with Republican attacks against against former military members who became politicians – like Kerry and others. There is a huge difference between attacking someone while they still wear the uniform and one who has taken it off and entered the political domain. If anyone needs an education on why this distinction is important, I will be happy to provide it.
In short, the series of rather lame excuses for not condemning this ad for what it is would be rather amusing to watch were it not for damage to civil-military relations it represents. Suggesting that General Petraeus is betraying his oaths, principles and duty not only smears one man, but many of those serving under him in Iraq. Why? Because for him to be a liar or a water-carrier for Bush means that most of his staff are as well. Petraeus didn’t compile those disputed facts and figures all on his own, after all. The basic accusation is the he is dishonest – well, if a senior officer is being dishonest then those under him have a duty to report it. That nothing has “leaked” contravening Petraeus’ figures suggests that those on his staff are equally dishonest or perhaps just spineless.
Sh!t, as they say, rolls downhill. Hopefully the furor over this ad will provide some caution to the anti-war left to pick their words carefully. Hopefully, this attack on Petraeus is not a harbinger of attacks against the military itself as an “enabler” of the war, among other “crimes.” We are already seeing this to some extent. All I can say is, do not attack the military. Do not mistake a tool of policy for the policy itself. Do not mistake the hammer for the hand that wields it. We’ve been down that road before and it is not pretty.
Nice selective list. One might point out that Petraeus has given interviews to dozens of news outlets including frothing right-wingers like Charlie Rose. Fox liked to advertise theirs as “exclusive” but that was naught but marketing hype. Google will give you many more interviews, both recent and from earlier this year.
But that’s my point- he has wide access to the public through the press and is capable of defending himself from attack. He also has plenty of administration allies who are more than willing to defend him and attack anyone who questions his assertions. The best defense is a good offense.
Now the right is no longer burdened with defending the real questions and inconsistencies raised by his report, but can do what they are much more comfortable doing- attacking Move-On, the anti-war left and the NYT’s.
CS- If you reread my comments- you see that I did condemn this type of ad, and that I think Move-on erred in choosing personal attack over challenging his report. I do, however, believe the story doesn’t merit a three week news cycle, and that it is being used to distract the public from a more in -depth analysis of the problems with Petraeus’ report and the policy in general.
We should be asking if this strategy will lead to the long-term stabilization of Iraq, or if we are just arming the Sunnis to later take on Maliki’s government. We should be looking to see why Baghdad residents still get 1 hour of electricity, and why oil production still lags pre-war levels. That type of thing.
Petraeus himself has blurred the lines by giving interviews to administration allies like Hugh Hewitt and Brit Hume at Fox News.
And as I pointed out repeatedly elsewhere on this blog, he also gave DOZENS of interviews to just about every media outlet in existence. Somehow only the Fox and Hewitt interviews are noticed by those determined to spin and smear. Conveniently selective tunnel vision there.
Krit said: “But that’s my point- he has wide access to the public through the press and is capable of defending himself from attack.”
Krit, Petraeus is expressly barred by US military regulations from making political statements. Recall that little dustup a few weeks back at YearlyKos when a serving sergeant making a pro-war point was shutdown. Wesley Clark was pretty civil about it, I thought – in contrast to the moderator – but explained why serving soldiers are not allowed to do that.
If Petraeus had so much as uttered one word of direct response to political criticism from MoveOn or Sen Clinton…rest assured CREW would be filing an immediate complaint with DoD, and the Democrats would be howling for his dismissal.
That said, Krit, I believe you are entirely right when you say that the Republicans are more than happy to take this bait, and avoid talking about the war.
This firestorm took away from the real business of this war and government.
However, the entire episode has been fascinating for its revelation of the divided – yet mutual – interests of the radical Left and Democratic establishment.
Tully- Which interviews were given concerning this particular policy?
Marlowe- You may be right, but how then was he able to get away with writing that 2004 editorial? Imo, he is being used as Colin Powell was- as a pawn of the administration in their chess match with Democrats in Congress.
Move-on was wrong to attack him personally. But Bush was wrong to hide behind his spotless reputation in an attempt to put lipstick on this pig. Yes, its a tactical win for him- but we never seem to move beyond politics to actually fix the policy- and that is a bigger wrong- our troops are in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad and here at home we’re bickering with more idiotic partisan rhetoric.
Let me clarify my position on this. I don’t think Petraeus was “betraying us” in any sense; obviously not in the dictionary sense but also not in the “betraying the truth” sense. Betrayal was a juvenile rhyming word to go along with Petraeus’ name. Accusations of betrayal are serious, whether given to a commanding general, a civilian official or an entire political party (as Coulter does).
But Petraeus, like any policy-setting commanding general, spins the facts to serve his argument. The GAO and others have disputed Petraeus’ charts on violence, and Senators from both political parties questioned the validity of his findings. I don’t think there’s really anything else to this. I see Weimarists desperate for evidence of “anti-military bias” so they can blame the Democrats for losing the war. And I see circling of wagons among MoveOn supporters – they haven’t exactly suffered financially over this.
Here’s my modest proposal: let’s stop accusing whole sections of America of being “anti-military”, “treasonous,” “fascist,” or any other inflammatory charge. It’s beneath America as a country to engage in this sort of rhetoric, and that’s why I reject the MoveOn ad in the end. Make a case for why we should look at Petraeus’ numbers with skepticism. But don’t throw around bombs like “betray,” even if the purpose was clearly not to accuse Petraeus of treason in the classic sense. Iraq is a major strategic challenge and it will outlast the Bush Administration. We should be more interested in what happens to Iraq after the inevitable drawdown of surge troops in Spring 2008 than silly foodfights over an idiotic newspaper ads.
Elrod,
I agree with your final statement but it seems contradicted by your initial comment here where you stated that the Republican response was worse than the ad itself and that you were particularly irked by the GOP’s tendency to use outrage over this attack ad to deflect from the actual topic of the war policy. Well, I can’t help but remind folks that this is exactly how some of us felt about the Democrats who have continually focused attention on how the Bush administration was attacking their loyalty in discussions about Iraq, instead of the Dems offering any policy alternatives. I’m just sayin’- you’re right to some extent to be annoyed at the topic of the attack ad deflecting from actual policy discussions, but that’s what a lot of us have been saying all along. Both sides should stop the attacking, but also both sides should stop hiding behind the excuse that they can’t actually discuss the policy because they’re being attacked.
Tully- Which interviews were given concerning this particular policy?
Last I counted, krit, Petraeus gave something over four dozen interviews between March of this year and September 18 (when I last counted). Whether you care to acknowledge their existence or not. I may have missed some, of course.
Since no “particular policy” has been specified by you, one can only speculate as to what you meant by that phrase. What do you think those several dozen media outlets asked the C-in-C of the MNFI about? Pansy growth techniques in hydroponic gardening? Concrete versus abstract imaging in the Chaucerian tradition? Heh. Seems to me that you simply wish to discount anything that doesn’t fit your preferred narrative.
For those who wish to keep mischaracterizing Petraeus’ 2004 article, it can be read here.
Tully- No need to get snippy. I was referring to interviews granted since he gave his Sept report, which, as far as I know, were confined to the uncritical sources I mentioned.
BTW- I agree with Elrod’s take- Petraeus is bound to put the most positive spin on the situation that he can- as he wants to generate success. In that sense, he seems more biased than the GAO. That of course is not the same as saying he’s betrayed us, which crossed the line.
Well, in addition to the 45 minute Charlie Rose interview above, he gave one to the AP, Reuters, ABC Radio, and the WAPO among others.
What’s really surprising to me is that Crockers testimony, which is arguably much more important, receives almost no discussion. Why?
Because there wasn’t a good rhyme for his name, given that “Meet the Focker” might have run up against trademark infringement?
Seriously though, my guess is that there just wasn’t as much controversy over Crocker’s testimony. Both sides pretty much agree that there’s been almost no political progress, and since the WH wasn’t trying to pretend otherwise there was then no need for pushback from the left.
[...] by Ron Coleman on September 25th, 2007 Joe Gandelman on the Times’s ham-fisted MoveOn / Petraeus play: What’s mind-boggling is that in this [...]
[...] robwdav28 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFor me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than … [...]