I got the following email in response to a complaint I'd made about David Brooks 'innoecntly' linking Americans to Osama bin Laden.
Here is what I received:
From: Alexis Matsui <onlineda2@newshour.org>
Reply-To: <onlineda2@newshour.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:14:14 -0400
To: <Henruy@aol.com>
Subject: Re: NewsHour/David Brooks/Osama Bin Laden Complaints
Dear NewsHour Viewer,
We have received many complaints, much of it organized by The Daily Kos and other blogs, about David Brooks’ comments on the NewsHour last Friday, Sept.7. Many people seem to think David Brooks brought up linguist Noam Chomsky of his own volition, and maligned him and everyone who identifies with “lefty bloggers” by comparing them to Osama Bin Laden.
For the record, here is some of what OBL said on his recently released video tape:
“This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn’t like those who give advice.”
The full transcript can be found here:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/... <http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf>
Prior to the Shields and Brooks segment on the 9/7 NewsHour broadcast, Judy Woodruff moderated a discussion of the OBL tape with Mid-east and security experts Bruce Hoffman and Mohammed Hafez. During that conversation, Mr. Hafez made reference to Noam Chomsky as well. (see complete transcript at http://www.pbs.org/... <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec07/binladen_09-07.html> ).
David Brook’s comment on Chomsky was in response to Osama bin Laden’s statement and followed the comment of Mr. Hafez. For the record, here is a complete transcript of the Brooks and Shields comments regarding the OBL tape:
JIM LEHRER: Mark, first, have a thought about the new bin Laden tape?
MARK SHIELDS: I guess only after listening to Judy’s discussion, two things hit me. One, there were no overt threats in it to the United States. And two, it was quite self-indulgent, I thought, on his part, I mean, in that sense. It obviously was made rather recently, too.
JIM LEHRER: Scary in any way?
DAVID BROOKS: No, ludicrous. I mean, on one hand, he’s a malevolent guy who killed 3,000 Americans. But you read this thing, and it’s like he’s been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he’s one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.
You can’t help read it and not laugh at it, occasionally, because it is just absurd. It’s flying this way, and that way, weird conspiracy theories, and mortgages, global warming. He throws it all in there.
The one thing that leapt out – and Bruce Hoffman and the others mentioned this – was how Western it is. And a friend of mine, Reuel Gerecht, points out that there’s this argument that Western ideas never permeated into the Arab world, but in fact it’s all – I mean, a lot of the worst ideas from the West have permeated in, and he’s picked up Noam Chomsky, and he’s picked up some of the anti-globalization stuff. And that’s what infuses this.
JIM LEHRER: Do you expect it to have any impact at all on the American public or the American debate on Iraq coming with the Petraeus report, et cetera?
MARK SHIELDS: No, I really don’t.
JIM LEHRER: OK. (discussion moves to the next topic)
If anyone owes you an apology, it’s The NewsHour, for failing to make it clear that Bin Laden’s comments included references to Chomsky, high taxes, a recent book about President Bush, the Democratic and Republican positions on the Iraq War, and other names and issues that indicated his familiarity with current events in the West. Given how many people misread David’s comments, we should have re-emphasized that point.
Thanks for your comments regarding The NewsHour.
Robert E. Flynn
Vice President, Communications and Marketing
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and MacNeil Lehrer Productions
2700 South Quincy Street, Suite 250
Arlington, Virginia 22206
p. 703.998.2174
f. 703.998.5707
m. 703.283.6361
Here is my response to Mr. Flynn,
I had read the transcript, and I stand by my criticism of David. Linking things like that is a back-handed way of identifying them with each other. The casual viewer who respects David’s commentaries would find it hard to see it otherwise, and I’m sure there are some who now make that link, which Osama made and David repeated. I find it fairly offensive, and since he’s a smart guy, I expect he had the idea of making that kind of link. You say organized by blogs, but don’t you think the bloggers in particular were offended? Free speech is a right, and American free speech is nothing like some Osama polemic, and they ought not be ‘casually’ linked by anyone who speaks on public television and whose opinions are thus considered worthy of public interest. It’s hard enough in these times with our civil rights under assault to speak, and being ‘mocked’ by David on public television for exercising our right because not everyone is such a great writer or a great thinker is, under the circumstances, offensive. That belongs on Fox not on News Hour, and that’s my opinion. David often says offensive things but in a way that goes under the radar, and I suppose some would see this as another example, he acts innocent, but not always, not this time anyway, this was noticed, although not everyone agreed that David had crossed a line. I had of course read the transcript, but since perhaps you thought that I probably hadn’t, makes sense that you’d send it to me. Here’s an example, suppose some obviously right wing religious nut used said a few things that David had also kind of said, would it be right to compare the two of them on public television? Or would that be a kind of opinion piece that anyone has the right to say but which isn’t worthy of public television? It’s not whether he parsed his ‘comparisons’ carefully enough to appear innocent of any ulterior intention, but how what he said could be heard by his admirers. Think – Iraq/9-11? That was my complaint - that it's pubic television, and not a place for Americans to be even 'innocently' linked to a madman terrorist.
Sincerely,...
If this is old already (I tried a search but that doesn't mean I didn't miss a similar diary) just ignore.