Lousy Journalism
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Elections — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
That's what Robin Wright is guilty of in this article, where she loads up paragraphs in the front claiming that the victory of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's coalition of Shi'ites means that Iraqis "went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door." It isn't until later in the story that you find this:
U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian surrogate. Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and rocky history. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite troops did not defect to Iran.
Additionally, Wright made no mention whatsoever of the key doctrinal differences between Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranian Shi'ites--doctrinal differences that will likely prevent Iraq from becoming a surrogate Iranian state.
But of course, Wright went ahead and quoted Juan Cole for fair and balanced coverage. What a shock. For really fair and balanced coverage, be sure to check out Drezner, Armed Liberal, Cori Dauber, this story which indicates the efforts the Shi'ites in Iraq are making to reach out to other groups, Cliff May and Chrenkoff.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. — Comments (43) »
Lousy Journalism 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that's lousy journalism, the Globe and Mail headline was "Shiites win slim majority" not once did they mention that the group they were talking about only got 48.6%, THAT IS NOT A MAJORITY.
She did that kind of thing with the LA Times. It's just reaching a conclusion and trying to array the facts to prove their point.
It's more likely that in the future, Iran will become an Iraqi surrogate, in a postive way.
They will have a majority of about 51% of the seats in parliament, since scores of minor parties that got about 5% of the vote will get no representation.
I find the more interesting question to be:
"What is her point?"
Or rather, what's the motivation? In lamenting the election results, is the author hoping the reader will draw the conclusion that elections are bad? Or maybe just middle eastern elections. Is it a random scare tactic, generally "stuff could be worse soon"
I think, actually, it's just one more item on the liberal's anti-conservative post-Iraq-election buffet of negativity.
Pick up an "elections didn't count" here or, if you prefer, some "well they count but they're scary" there, etc. Like we don't all see the sign at the restaurant: "Bush + Event = Bad Result"
Here is the Boston Globe "estimated breakdown:"
United Iraqi Alliance 139
Kurdistan Alliance 74
The Iraqi List (Allawi) 40
Other 20
Still Unknown 2
Total 275
A majority is 138 seats which means the UIA have a slim majority. However the next major step takes a 2/3rds vote which the UIA and the KA can accomplish together. All of this assumes these lists act like parliamentary parties. Since this setup is only continuing until the new Constitution is writen, there is less incentive to follow parties loyally. We'll see what happens.
I can't remember where I heard it, but an Iraqi noted that many American Journalists miss the fact that there is a pretty strong sense of nationalism in Iraq. This nationalism is one reason why the Shi'ites haven't used their new majority status against the sunni
what we're seeing are a large number of people throwing their arms out trying to move the goalposts.