On the other hand…

On the other hand…

: Having taken The Times to task for Sarah Boxer’s story, below, let me also say that Edward Wong’s front-page story today about voters killed in Iraq on election day being mourned as martyrs is wonderful. Good story, well-reported, well-written, different perspective, right play.

Salim Yacoubi bent over to kiss the purple ink stain on his twin brother’s right index finger, gone cold with death.

“You can see the finger with which he voted,” Shukur Jasim, a friend of the dead man, said as he cast a tearful gaze on the body, sprawled across a washer’s concrete slab. “He’s a martyr now.”

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    I think everyone hopes that their newfound pride is a buoying force that keeps the Iraqi people together and striving for their own power.

  • http://www.moderatelyangry.blogspot.com Cincinnatus

    Would that you condemned those who speculated dangerously about who Salam Pax was, and what background he came from. . . .
    Oh yeah, you did that.
    Kettle meet pot.

  • http://runscared.blogspot.com/ Jazz

    The only argument I’ve seen made against the Sara Boxer piece which seems to hold any water is that perhaps the Times needs to write to the least common denominator among their readers. Only a person who didn’t know what the word vitriol meant could have taken that as a serious endorsement of the charges.
    I originally read the article before I saw any of the blogstorm arising from it among the war supporters. I was completely shocked at how it was being interpreted by otherwise intelligent seeming writers, and I remain puzzled to this day.
    It was an article on the sniping that goes on between sides over questions such as this, and the partisan extremes that lead to such wars of words. That was clear from the first moment I read the article and is just as clear now. Jarvis admits that the “bullseye on their heads” was a red herring, which was the only other argument against the piece which even came close.
    This looks, at least to an outside perspective, as if the entire ado was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to anyone who even suggested that the IRM brothers were in some way connected to Bush administration interests. (A question which still carries a lot of weight and has not been answered.)

  • Trapeze

    a knee jerk reaction to anyone who even suggested that the IRM brothers were in some way connected to Bush administration interests. (A question which still carries a lot of weight and has not been answered.)
    You gotta be kidding me.

  • jeremy in NYC

    Aargh. Cincinattus, he’s answered this in other threads. If your tactic is gong to be to just keep repeating that over and over again, you’re going to get boring very quickly (plus look like you’re avoiding dealing with the answer).

  • http://www.thinkpeoplethink.com AndrewBB

    So Jeff likes a piece that reinforces his views, but dislikes those that don’t. That’s the message I’m getting out of this. Nothing enlightening there either. Oh and that he looks at his own actions differently, what because he’s “only blogging.” Hmm. Standards are supposed to stand.
    My take? The NYT was trying too hard to be “with it.” The Boxer piece was trying to take on the personality of the average blogger. It’s quality of conclusion is equal. The writing is better.