MSM A-Historicism, Part II, Michael Ware

Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Time magazine’s chief Iraq correspondent, Michael Ware, is brilliant.

Hewitt has invited blogger comments.

I wrote last week about “MSM A-Western, A-Historicism.” I featured seasoned journalist Sol Sanders, who “has forgotten more than most ever knew.” I pointed out:

Young reporters, particularly those whose education and training is virtually bereft of historical knowledge and experience, are – at best – dupes of propagandists and current reporting fads. At worst, they are without basic grounding in Western civilization.

Generalizations never fit well to particular people, and this one does not well fit Michael Ware. His critical reporting from Iraq has served an “intelligence” function, as well, by frequently going into the enemy camp for nuances.

However, as Hewitt points out:

There is no doubting the man's courage and his relentless commitment to the stories he pursues, but the interview raises questions at the heart of journalism's crisis.

Hewitt continues:

Parts of this interview trouble me a great deal. Ware is quite obviously a courageous, battle-hardened and determined reporter, but his answers to a variety of questions leave me concerned that the pressure of his circumstances will impact his reporting, and may have already impacted the candor of his assessment of the jihadists and the "insurgents." His refusal to answer other questions of historical judgment and relevance --were the Soviets better off under Stalin or Khrushchev, for example-- tell me he is aware of the deep problems with his analysis of Iraq under Saddam and post-Saddam, and that he refuses to engage in any conversation that will inevitably expose that analysis as indefensible.

A central excerpt from the interview:

Hewitt: Do you think Iraq is better off today?

Ware: All I can tell you that life here right now is extraordinarily difficult….[T]o be able to compare that to something I never saw is a bit difficult for me….All I can tell you about is what I see, and what I experience. And what I know is the reality on the grounds here. Now was a vicious dictatorship removed? Absolutely. On a human rights basis, it has to have been a good thing. However, as the result of which, we’ve let a horrific genie out of the bottle…I have no stake in your political process [Ware’s Australian] whatsoever. I just call it as I see it….[Many] are just being worn down by the horror and drudgery of the place, to the point where that perhaps their views have changed….

The innate “drudgery” and horrors of war is especially so when the enemy’s strategy is centered on committing horrors to terrorize opposition and to capture news coverage in the West. As Ware admits:

[T]he insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we’re within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic.

For our mainstream reportage to be so dominated by inadequate a-historicism just increases the potency of erosion of their perspective in such a war.