In an intriguing bit of original reporting, Confederate Yankee gets to talk directly to the author of a column/hit-piece ["Proof is in the memo: Soldiers died for a lie"] by Middletown, NY Times Herald-Record columnist Beth Quinn. Reading the exchange is like watching two unrelated monologues:

"Your editorial doesn't match what the Downing Street memo said."

"I think Bush lied."

"Your editorial doesn't match what the Downing Street memo said."

"I think Bush lied."

"Your editorial doesn't match what the Downing Street memo said."

"I think Bush lied."

If you read the full text, it's easy to see why this happened. Both sides were more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in discussing the issue. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Frequently the point of a public conversation isn't communication between the principals so much as conversion of undecided bystanders. Much as courtroom advocacy - prosecutor vs. defense - seeks to sway a jury.

Here's how Confederate Yankee opened:

I would like to know how you can write an editorial like " Proof is in the memo: Soldiers died for a lie" and consider yourself a responsible journalist, when you deliberately misrepresent the context of the memo. You make the claim that the original DSM "is a report on a meeting between Rycroft and the White House in July 2002." That is patently false. The DSM was the minutes of a meeting-not a report-among top British officials. The White House is never mentioned, and the only mention of Bush was the comment that "it seemed" he had made up his mind. This is hardly evidence. Furthermore, you ignore the remaining six "Downing Street Memos" that contradict your claim. The David Manning memo to Tony Blair, one of the additional documents leaked, says in a telling line, "Bush wants to hear you [sic] views on Iraq before taking decisions." The Iraqi Options paper (PDF) specifically mentions that the United States is "considering regime change"-specifically indicating that the decision to invade had not been made. You either lied to support your position, or were not well-enough informed to write this article in the first place. Which is it?

Given the accusatory tone of the phrases in bold, it's no wonder Quinn dug in her heels. Choosing between "liar" and "ignoramus" isn't pleasant.

So how COULD Confederate Yankee have done more to encourage Quinn to respond directly to the issue? By including a third possibility - that he, himself, was simply puzzled by an apparent contradiction and was merely seeking clarification. For example:

After reading your "Proof is in the memo" column, I find myself confused. You said the original DSM "is a report on a meeting between Rycroft and the White House in July 2002." However, according to the memo itself, the DSM was actually the minutes of a meeting among top British officials. The White House is never mentioned, and the only mention of Bush was the comment that "it seemed" he had made up his mind. Could your description of the memo have been mistaken?

Also, you wrote that Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Other sources [cite in detail, as above] indicate that the decision to invade hadn't yet been made. How do you reconcile this with your statement?

When phrased this way, the focus is strictly on the memos and not on the question of Quinn's journalistic integrity. Since the statements are purely factual and the question is merely one of reconciling apparent differences, Quinn has no justification for either lashing out or changing the topic. If she doesn't respond factually, she looks like a partisan hack, especially given the relatively straightforward question. Really, her only way out is to admit some "phrasing inaccuracies" to her statements, at which point the reasons for her "inaccuracies" become fair game for inquisition.

In closing, I want to re-emphasize that I take no issue with Confederate Yankee's more hardball tactics. They have their place, and a public forum is certainly one arena where they can be effective.

I'm just saying how *I* would've handled it.

That's just me.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:28 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 4 kb.

1 And that's why I read you, you know...

Posted by: Linus at June 30, 2005 12:35 PM (Bf+TD)

2 You mean I shold have asked her to clarify whether she was a liar or an ignoramus? I'll remember that next time... ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 30, 2005 07:47 PM (CO4eV)

3 I would have added some profanity to spice up the letter as well

Posted by: Graumagus at July 01, 2005 12:53 PM (R/92X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment