Charles J. Hanley Hunts for New Atrocities
I couldn’t help but feel dismay when I say the byline on this story. Remember this guy? I would not have even looked for the byline, asking myself who wrote this crap, had I not seen this passage:
In eastern Baghdad, a U.S. helicopter fired flares on a crowd on a square, hours after clashes between American troops and Shiite militia that left at least five people dead. The military said the flares were part of an automatic self-defense system.
If I have a greater criticism of the media in Iraq than their tendency to hire local stringers of questionable allegiance, it’s their idea that one can report on military matters despite one’s complete ignorance of them. So for Mr. Hanley’s benefit, I’ll write slowly.
Flares are not weapons. The military does not fire them at people. They are not projectiles, have almost no muzzle velocity, are attached to parachutes, and do not explode or break up on impact. Automatic flare dispensers are attached to aircraft to divert surface to air missiles. Their purpose is defensive. Unfortunately, almost any bright light or reflection can set them off, and when that happens, they can scare people or set fires. The flares only burn for a few seconds, however, so the risk is mitigated unless the aircraft is flying at a very low altitude.
Hanley might have bothered to explain these things, rather than suggest to his readers that the military “fired” some vaguely napalm-like projectiles at crowds of civilians, a suggestion that is nothing less than mendacious. It is the metaphorical equivalent of what he himself charges. But then again, Hanley downplayed and minimized North Korea’s use of refugees as human shields in 1950. Why? Because Hanely is a professional atrocity mongerer who thrives in the shadows of vagueness and ignorance and knows what the Pulitzer Committee likes. Just about every 13 months, Hanley retreads the same old No Gun Ri story as a shocking “new” revelation all over again.
Journalism requires more than the ability to write a clear sentence. It requires the persistence to find the relevant facts and the integrity to report them. Hanley is the sort of hack who puts his entire profession in a bad light because he refuses to do those things.
Your grasp of the nature of journalism as a profession is sadly lacking…….
(for those non-K-blog regularly readers – read with sarcasm turned to the “ultimate” level….)
When I read the first part of your posting I immediately thought of the Michael Yon post and I’m glad you linked to it. The quality in journalism between Hanley and Yon is quite evident with Yon being a far superior journalist but Hanley being a far superior media insider and sensationalist. Despite all of Yon’s good work sadly the insiders and sensationalists like Hanley are the ones that win Pulitzer Prizes.
“professional atrocity mongerer”
Precise and accurate language is a beautiful thing to behold.
I enthusiastically forwarded your latest comments to my brother Charlie in Iraq.
I am certain that he will enjoy a respite from avoiding suicide bombers — his convoy was two minutes behind an overpass crashing on it two days ago — and read your thoughts in the vein that they can best be appreciated.
Y’know, as comic relief.
A hack in Iraq is still a hack.
Maybe your brother can correct his story, then.
For USINKOREA: I am a retired AP reporter who thinks the earlier snap definition of journalism is on target.Finding “the relevant facts” and having “the integrity to report them” are essential to good reporting. Sadly, during the last few decades of my career, I saw these qualities slip away. I have written a book in which the main character, a reporter, claims “truth is the sum of the facts.” Hanley was right to report on No Gun Ri. I think, however, more should have been reported on infiltrators’ use of refugee lines, which was certainly a “relevant fact.”
The book, “Philip’s Code: No News is Good News -to a Killer,” has several similar incidents in which the facts didn’t add up to the truth. It’s now on Amazon.com.
charles j. hanley was one of the few reporters who correctly reported that colin powell’s allegations of saddam hussein’s production and possession of wmd’s rested on questionable evidence, if any at all.
this was during the time when all the other “good” journalists were busy cheerleading for the government and the war.
maybe the article he wrote about the flares has questionable perspective, but i think he has a lot more journalistic integrity than the majority of people out there. either way, for everytime the u.s. army fires harmless flares at iraqis there are 20 incidents of them shooting innocent people, because frankly, they can’t tell the enemy apart from populace.
the iraq war will be another vietnam, and vietnam isn’t the exceptional case in our wars. most of the u.s.’s wars have been undertaken with questionable motives, it’s just that we won most of them.
take a look at this article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12427.htm
by the way, the scenario drawn out in the above article is one that is common in many other countries. wonder why the military budget is so high now?
If we can’t tell the enemy from the populace, it’s because the enemy hides among the populace. Does that seem to be a morally significant fact to you? It must have been to the Iraqi people, who’ve joined sides with us and slaughtered most of the al Qaeda terrorists among them.
If Hanley had anything right about Saddam’s WMD, it was most likely a matter of even a stopped clock being right twice a day. Hanley’s clock only points left, and sometimes it really is 9:45.
“Yeah, sure” he says as he turns to leave the room, the point of continuing the discussion clearly and completely lost.