Andrew Sullivan slimes New York Times bureau chief Rachel Swarns:
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: ...It seems the brutal tyrant in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, has lost his head p.r. guy. Never mind. With puff-pieces like this one, who needs p.r.? "A Hero To Many!" Whoever Rachel Swarns is, she's clearly a Rainesian.... "Criticized in the West." This is a man who jails his opponents, rigs elections and is fomenting a famine in his country by brutal evictions of the only productive farmers. He's viciously homophobic and reviled by any serious African analyst as a menace to any democratic trends in the region. But the Times sees his good side. Of course they do.
Ted Barlow spends five minutes on the web and comes up with a list of articles on Mugabe Rachel Swarns has written:
August 17, 2002
Zimbabwe Starts Arresting White Farmers Defying Eviction
August 14, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: A Pledge To Withdraw From Congo
August 13, 2002
Mugabe Remains Unyielding On Eviction of White Farmers
August 12, 2002
Thousands of Whites Defying Zimbabwe Over Farm Evictions
August 9, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Eviction Deadline
August 4, 2002
For Zimbabwe White Farmers, Time to Move On
June 18, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Opposition Members Arrested
June 5, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Leading Lawyer Arrested
June 1, 2002
Government and Media Spar in Zimbabwe
June 1, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Mugabe Tells Rival To Accept Defeat
May 17, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Black Squatters Face Eviction
May 9, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Another Journalist Arrested
May 2, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Three Journalists Arrested
April 24, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Police Thwart Protest
March 29, 2002
World Briefing: Africa; ZIMBABWE: JOURNALIST'S ARREST CONDEMNED
March 22, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Workers Ignore Strike Call
March 21, 2002
An Isolated Zimbabwe Tightens Strictures on Opposition Leader
March 20, 2002
Mugabe's Opponent Hints At Possible Reconciliation
March 19, 2002
Presidents Rush to Zimbabwe To Plead for Political Unity
March 17, 2002
The World; An Election, Yes. But Free and Fair?
March 14, 2002
Mugabe's Aides Declare Him Winner of Zimbabwe Vote
March 12, 2002
Official Arrested as Zimbabwe Election Ends
March 7, 2002
New Rules In Zimbabwe Likely to Aid Mugabe's Side
February 28, 2002
World Briefing | Africa: Zimbabwe: Court Doesn't Faze Government
February 26, 2002
Zimbabwe Candidate Charged With Treason
February 24, 2002
Desperation Drives a Zimbabwean Exodus South
And comments:
Posted by DeLong at September 08, 2002 08:20 AM | TrackbackYou know, to read those titles all together like that, you'd almost think that Rachel Swarns has been a tireless critic of Mugabe. You'd almost think that the Times has done a great public service, publishing highly critical stories about his murderous regime several times a week. (And this is just from one journalist, mind you.) You'd almost think that Andrew Sullivan owes somebody a big apology... his media criticism is formulaic (open Times, insult Times, rinse, repeat), it's dishonest, and it's boring.
The Times has also printed essays by several of the leading opposition leaders in Zimbabwe. Times Africa coverage has been extensive and incisive for years. The Africa team is both experienced and keenly sensitive to African social and political nuances.
Posted by: on September 8, 2002 09:17 AMIt is diselegant to point that out, but Andrew Sullivan does not strike me as the smartest bloke on the web. If you bother digging his writings, he is full of logical inconsistencies and contradictions. All too often, he recommends reading of articles whose messages he actually does not seem to understand.
Posted by: Bordon on September 9, 2002 06:42 AMThat is the point - "not not not the smartest bloke on the block...."
Posted by: on September 9, 2002 08:47 AMRead all of the above cites and others on South Africa. Rachel Swarns is a magnificant reporter.
Posted by: on September 9, 2002 09:00 AMI agree that this whole issue is boring. As far as I am concerned ALL reporting is inherently biased, as is the selection of articles which are selected for publication, and which are not, and where and how they will be presented. What is worrying though is that many papers and journalists do not want to admit this, and suggest that only the editorial/opinion pages could provide biased views. All the articles on the situation with respect to Iraq, and how they are presented, surely represent the EDITORIAL line of the Times. That's not a problem, it only means that there is bias. Which as far as I am concerned is nothing new.
Posted by: Michiel Remers on September 9, 2002 11:27 AMYes, the writer is absolutely correct.
It IS hard to argue with success, which is why you see so few comments concerning Mr Sullivan around thesee here shades-of-gray-enriched perfectionist parts.
Whew...Good thing Andrew finally got one wrong, eh?
And the most revealing comment tonite:
Andrew's ''boring''. What does that imply about the readers who feel he is usually right on the money.
Ah yes. They must be dumb. How....liberal.
Eric
PS. Love those productivity and GDP graphs here. But don't they fundamentally contradict the usual anti-business thinking. Or is this a case of Gray Davis style ave your cake and eat it too?
Posted by: Eric on September 10, 2002 08:57 PMEric, I think Andrew Sullivan's writing is far from boring, and am one of those who thinks that he is usually right on the money. Don't disagree on the NY Times issue in general and its bias either. However I do think that the media bias discussion in general is a very old one, and feel that bias will always be there, and hence that this discussion (ie the discussion Is paper xyz biased or not?) can be descibed as boring.
Posted by: Michiel Remers on September 12, 2002 01:57 AM