The Limits of Outrage

Has anyone else noted how carefully the major media outlets are treading the line between expressing their outrage over the presumed murder of Jamal Khashoggi and recognizing that both Democratic and Republican presidents have cozied up to the Saudis? The problem is that the Saudis didn’t suddenly become reprehensible a week ago. They’ve always been reprehensible.

8 comments… add one
  • Gustopher Link

    The media has been failing us here for a long time. This is covered a bit on the most recent episode of “On The Media”, where they mention the ongoing narrative that MBS is a reformer.

    They don’t get into the media’s tendency to get stuck into other narratives — John McCain was a Maverick, Al Gore lied, etc — and structure stories around these narratives. So it’s not great, but it’s a sign of the the mainstream media seeing the problem in at least one instance.

    Another good podcast on this subject is The Ezra Klein Show, where last Thursday he and Jay Rosen discussed the problem in greater depth, where they get into a lot of the incentives in the industry, and how it doesn’t self-correct.

    I fell asleep while listening to each of these, so I don’t have a lot of details (they aren’t boring, I just find people talking helps me drift off to sleep, so I was listening at 1am)

  • the ongoing narrative that MBS is a reformer

    I don’t think that anyone other than a dolt actually believed that. IMO the media pundits have painted themselves into a corner of simplistic thinking. I don’t know why but they don’t seem to understand instrumentalism. That’s remarkable since so many of them are instrumentalists.

  • Guarneri Link

    “I don’t know why but they don’t seem to understand instrumentalism.”

    They understand it perfectly well. They don’t care. If that immigrant caravan gets close a bunch of pretty pedestrian people will suddenly become freedom loving family heroes. Dreamers, and future astronauts really. Dr. Ford wasn’t a corroboration-free willing dupe of leftist handlers. She was a metoo hero exposing a frat boy rapist. And Khashoggi? Why, Cronkite and Murrow immediately come to mind. Right? And listening to the media narrative, I’m pretty sure it will be discovered that it was Trump who wielded the bone saw. If only Obama had been around to save him.

  • steve Link

    And then there is the narrative that you read if you follow the right wing narrative. That caravan? 2000 rapists and murderers on their way. Only Trump can save us! Brett Kavanaugh? Should have been nominated for sainthood. Supreme Court just isn’t good enough. Ford? She is just a slut and had it coming. Kashoggi? Terrorist who has killed dozens of Americans and being tortured to death was too good for him. Trump is right that the Saudis are the good guys here and the mean liberal press should stop picking on them.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    The caravan, as reported this morning, is around 7,000 strong and growing. The participants are described as mostly young men seeking work via asking for refuge status, with women and children being in the minority. Kavanaugh’s “goodness” dealt with his judicial credentials and previous 300 plus decisions rendered, usually (but not always) with positive peer reviews. Ford had no collaborative witnesses to vouch for fuzzy allegations stemming from a 36 year ago event. Recently her lie detector test was extensively reviewed and considered not only seriously flawed but manipulated by the ex FBI agent giving her the test. Ford’s own quietly scrubbed years as a teenager, nevertheless had vestiges remain showing lots of drug, alcohol, and girlish promiscuity that seemed to exceed the antics inscribed in Kavanaugh’s publicly poured-over yearbook. Also, no family members, no quantity of steady lifetime close friends or associates surfaced to support her or her assault claims. In fact, a long term ex boyfriend refuted some of her testimony, under penalty of perjury.

    As for Khashoggi, he was employed at the Washington Post and seeking asylum in the US. As a committed member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khashoggi carried a mixed political bag with him dealing with an assortment of “others,” including the Saudi govt.,Turkey, Bin Laden. This lengthy and erratic history of varying foreign alliances should not be entirely dismissed, nor should our precarious partnership with the Saudis be minimized during the current political waves of moral outrage that are cascading over the news cycle. IMO, what the administration seems to be doing is correct — giving Khashoggi’s death cautious scrutiny by asking for verifiable details of his death, followed by a sensible consideration of what penalties should be leveled at the Saudi government, with the least amount of blow back that could create a whole array of negative unintended circumstances. As information of this death has trickled out, though, I have heard no one call the Saudis “good guys,” or that nothing punitive would be done. If only the press had been as outraged about an American ambassador being unmercifully killed in Libya as they are now over Khashoggi being unmercifully killed in Turkey, their neutrality and motives might be less suspect.

  • steve Link

    ” If only the press had been as outraged about an American ambassador being unmercifully killed in Libya”

    They were. It was the lead story for many days.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    With the Khashoggi death the media is clamoring for instant retribution on the Saudi govt — cancel military contracts, remove MBS from power, harsh sanctions, are a few key calls for Trump to immediately make, otherwise he is said to be showing favoritism towards the Saudi regime.

    Contrast these past few weeks following the Khashoggi killing with the fatal Libyan attacks, in which the SOS and president immediately lied and prevaricated about the real circumstances surrounding the failures at Benghazi. This went on for a month, including a totally falsified UN speech by Obama and Clinton lying to the families of the slain on the tarmac where the caskets were placed. The media, though, obligingly accepted the government’s version, didn’t really press the president further, and eventually NDAs were required from all witnesses on the ground, and the episode went into silent mode, except for tedious, unproductive hearings in which the WH stonewalled documents and emails pertaining to the incident. The only demotion, ironically, came down on the aid directly under Ambassador Stevens, whose main crime was testifying about the WH’s unresponsiveness, after he repeatedly pleaded for help during the many hours that Stevens and others were under attack.

    Even today, the men who rescued 30 people from the Benzhazi compound are furious with the MSM’s complicity in not digging further into the real story behind this attack.

    There will probbably be no such complaints, however, about the Khashoggi death, as the MSM will joyously pursue every detail, true or not, with relish in order to stain the current administration. That is their mission in life!

  • Gustopher Link

    Jan — there was no government that orchestrated the attack on the Benghazi compound. It is an entirely different scenario. And, while the Obama administration did, in fact, lie about the reasons for it, they were asked to do so by the CIA. I would assume that was to protect assets, or give time to get them to safety.

    Let’s just assume that Khashoggi was an active member of the Muslim brotherhood, as you claim. Does it not bother you that this is the only effective organization for people who disagree with the brutal regime of the Saudis? There aren’t a lot of moderate options, and that’s in large part because we have been supporting oppressive regimes in the region which stifle dissent.

    Supporting the Shah of Iran unconditionally as he clamped down on dissent didn’t work out well for us. We are repeating the same mistake in Saudi Arabia. Dictatorships fall, and people aren’t fond of those who propped them up and excused the death squads.

    And, by all reasonable accounts, Khashoggi was a whole lot more moderate than the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Also, the Republicans voted against increased security for diplomatic compounds shortly before the Benghazi incident.

Leave a Comment