Monday, June 16, 2008

Remembering Tim Russert

Dennis Perrin: No Moment of Silence
However personally nice or charming Tim Russert was in life is really beside the point. That's for his family and true friends to embrace. For the rest of us, or at least the minority who bothered watching "Meet The Press" with any regularity, Russert was yet another corporate gatekeeper, helping to frame permissible boundaries of debate, keeping true critics of the system far away from his glittering stage. He will be missed, not only by those swayed by his smile and Everyman persona, but especially by those seeking fresh ways to fool news consumers into thinking that a "free" exchange of ideas is taking place. There may not be another Russert waiting in the wings, but he'll be replaced easily enough, and the dominant narrative will continue unbroken, incessant chatter amid the burning bodies.

Barry Crimmins: Overkill
Russert provided a Sunday morning showcase for every official cover story disseminated by the D.C powers that be. He believed those stories just as he did when he bought the saddlesoap George W. Bush was selling about WMD's. Did you? I didn't for a second and I don't have the full resources of NBC News at my beck and call. If we wonder why it's easy for shadowy figures in Washington to steal everything that isn't bolted down and then go to work with the bolt-cutters, we need look no further than Tim Russert. Because he was easily distracted. All you had to do was bring up the Buffalo Bills or ask him who made the best corned beef sandwich on Capitol Hill and Russert would be off and running, showing off his regular guy roots as he pontificated about professional sports, greasy sandwiches or the sacrosanct status of anyone hiding behind the flag.

Marc Cooper: Requiem for Pope Russert
But what was baffling, if not downright maddening about Russert's style, was that he would inevitably pull that knock-out punch and end the encounter with an embrace rather than a roundhouse right. Just when he'd get his guest to start backtracking, dissembling and stumbling, he'd gently let him - or her--go.


Indeed, without unfailingly pulling that last punch Russert knew very well he would risk excommunication from the Inner Sanctum of the Beltway. A harder landing for his guests could dry up that most cherished of press commodities - access and kinship with the powerful.

Sunday, June 01, 2008


Oh, bother:
ON May 12, The Times published an Op-Ed article by Edward N. Luttwak, a military historian, who argued that any hopes that a President Barack Obama might improve relations with the Muslim world were unrealistic because Muslims would be “horrified” once they learned that Obama had abandoned the Islam of his father and embraced Christianity as a young adult.

Under “Muslim law as it is universally understood,” Luttwak wrote, Obama was born a Muslim, and his “conversion” to Christianity was an act of apostasy, a capital offense and “the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit.” While no Muslim country would be likely to prosecute him, Luttwak said, a state visit to such a nation would present serious security challenges “because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.”


Op-Ed writers are entitled to emphasize facts that support their arguments and minimize others that don’t. But they are not entitled to get the facts wrong or to so mangle them that they present a false picture.

Did Luttwak cross the line from fair argument to falsehood? Did Times editors fail to adequately check his facts before publishing his article? Did The Times owe readers a contrasting point of view?

I interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them said that Luttwak’s interpretation of Islamic law was wrong.


Interestingly, in defense of his own article, Luttwak sent me an analysis of it by a scholar of Muslim law whom he did not identify. That scholar also did not agree with Luttwak that Obama was an apostate or that Muslim law would prohibit punishment for any Muslim who killed an apostate. He wrote, “You seem to be describing some anarcho-utopian version of Islamic legalism, which has never existed, and after the birth of the modern nation state will never exist.”

Luttwak made several sweeping statements that the scholars I interviewed said were incorrect or highly debatable, including assertions that in Islam a father’s religion always determines a child’s, regardless of the facts of his upbringing; that Obama’s “conversion” to Christianity was apostasy; that apostasy is, with few exceptions, a capital crime; and that a Muslim could not be punished for killing an apostate.


Luttwak said the scholars with whom I spoke were guilty of “gross misrepresentation” of Islam, which he said they portrayed as “a tolerant religion of peace;” he called it “intolerant.” He said he was not out to attack Obama and regretted that, in the editing, a paragraph saying that an Obama presidency could be “beneficial” was cut for space.

In other words: "Except for the falsehood that is the premise of the piece, we stand by it wholeheartedly."