I love Rachel Maddow, watch her show every day, best thing going in broadcast journalism, bar none. But this trip to Afghanistan is an embarrassment.
Now I’m thrilled by some of the eye-popping admissions she elicited from the official spokespeople the Pentagon so graciously cued up for her but do we really need her to go to Afghanistan to get the Washington line. And, yes she delivered at the almost very, very end of the second show. But that’s like your typical New York Times story, the front page filled with the official lies, but if you hang in there for 60 column inches on the jump page at the bottom of A23 you’ll learn some important stuff.
Frankly, Rachel appeared seduced by the attention lavished on her, so grateful she said, for the large amount of time she was getting from a “high ranking officer”. That was the first interview of day two. Day one the commanding General for Khandahar gave her a guided tour in an armored humvee. I’m sure they saw a lot of “progress” together. After her “embed with the troops she was offering to buy the boys a beer, “wouldn’t you?” The transition to checkpoints inside Khandahar another ride in an armored humvee, cool! The most painful moment was on day one when she actually called Pentagon supplied footage “amazing. This for a report on the new prison in Bagram assuring us everything is so much better now even though the BBC has already reported the prison includes a secret facility where torture takes place. And she played with guns? Please!
Rachel referred several times to the legitimate government, a rather odd description of a leader selected by the Bush administration presiding over an openly acknowledged corrupt administration that recently retained power through fraudulent elections.
But we did get 3 U.S. soldiers who told us that Afghans love having them there though they might not like the hassle of passing through checkpoints – maybe having these checkpoints manned by heavily armed foreign infidels might be offensive but who knows as the one Afghan interviewed agreed he loved having the American presence just before claiming there are no Taliban present
Rachel did acknowledge that her one interview with an Afghan was not credible with a truly awesome Grateful Dead reference but how about a goddamn interview with some credible Afghans. It’s their country. Of course its pretty hard to get truthful interviews when your being accompanied by the armed occupiers. More importantly, you just can’t do drive by interviews in a place where trust must be earned over time as talking to reporters can get you killed by any number of factions.
The interview with Saad Mohseni, the media mogul was informative. He seemed like a good guy and of course we are comfortable with him being so western and all, and would like to see people like him in charge. But it's hard to know how ordinary Afghans feel about him?
Mohseni has been denounced as “un-Islamic” by fundamentalists for allowing women to appear alongside men on his radio and TV networks, for showing Indian soap operas featuring unveiled women, and for allowing women to compete with men on one of Tolo TV’s hit shows, “Afghan Star.” He’s been threatened with arrest, because his journalists aggressively report on government incompetence, vote fraud, and rampant corruption. He has been called a Zionist in Iran and an Iranian sympathizer in Afghanistan. He has been accused by authorities in Tehran of subverting moral values. He is implacably opposed to the Taliban and staunchly pro-American, provoking accusations that he’s an American agent.
Mohseni was born in London and moved to Australia when he was 16. He’s been working as an investment banker in Australia and Europe most of his life. After returning to Afghanistan post Taliban he has become a successful media mogul. Things are working pretty well for him so why wouldn’t he want the US to keep things going?
In the next to last segment on the second day, Rachel took us to see the palatial homes of the Afghan government officials. This was real reporting and the pictures where each worth more than a thousand words. More forays like this, instead of embed journalism, and more than one interview with non-governmental voices domestic and foreign would have made the expense of this production worthwhile. Rachel did manage to raise serious questions about the war but really wasted the opportunities presented by going to Afghanistan. Bottom line Rachel, we needed more reporting and less cavorting.