How To Write A Letter To The Editor (part 3)

One of the fun things to do is respond to the outrageously stupid comments, spin control and/or outright lies of the far right. All too often, these disinformation campaigns come directly from Republican National Committee Headquarters and identical letters/commentary appears in papers all over the country, signed by supposedly local writers who may or may not exist. These are designed to stroke the, er, ego of dittoheads while providing rhetorical ammunition in drunken arguments and in general to perpetuate a Big Lie. They're really good at it, and spend a lot of money so the conservative news media doesn't dig too deep. The Daily Howler and Media Whores Online do a pretty good job dissecting some of the larger stories. But even the smaller ones don't stand up to the light of day. Here's one example, and how I might reply in a letter to the editor.

Recap: The "Rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch was called into question by this Guardian article (the conservative US news media just bought whatever Rummy said with no thought of journalistic follow-up questions), and a Canadian story quoting an eyewitness is here.

The articles referenced in the conservative spin document don't exist on-line anymore; the Scheer articles are not on the Star Tribune site (since it's been more than three weeks) but presumably they're responding to Scheer's May 20th article archived on alternet.com Saving Pvt. Lynch: Take 2. Scheer's May 30 article in The Nation reprinted a few days later in the tardy STrib entitled Pentagon Aims Guns At Lynch Reports, which offers facts, investigations and cites eyewitness accounts. Meanwhile, The Green Bay Press Gazette article, at best a second-hand account by a worried mother, isn't online 6/15/03, a day after it was cited in the commentary.

This first appeared in the Mpls Star Tribune on Saturday, June 14. It's signed by a "Minneapolis grant writer" but it wouldn't surprise me to see an identical or near-identical counterpoint in many other newspapers. Usually, these kinds of disinformation campaigns (that is, lies to cover up other lies) are orchestrated at the National Republican level. This article demonstrates one of the rhetorical tricks used a great deal by dittoheads: They take the truth, randomly make assumptions with no proof or logic, and then use the assumptions as hard facts to slam their ideologically driven conclusions home. I will quote the first few and last few paragraphs, with my commentary following.

Paul Schersten: Still trusting in the rescue

 

Published June 14, 2003 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune

 

Following Robert Scheer's two May 23 and June 3 articles questioning the story of Pvt. Jessica Lynch's rescue, it's hard to avoid the sense there was something hollow about the whole thing. Here are some thoughts, based on some facts.

Italics mine. It's nice that he cites two articles, and indeed there is "something hollow about the whole thing", but what he is trying so hard to avoid are the facts and eyewitness accounts of Scheer's articles. Schersten is devoid of facts, and doesn't provide any counter evidence. This is why he has to start off with his emotion-laden conclusion.

In his "Saving Pvt. Jessica Lynch, Take 2" (Commentary, May 23) -- a lurid, gleeful account of a BBC report -- Scheer declares that the rescue was unnecessary, a fraud from start to finish. "Ugly," a "premeditated manufacture" -- that's the idea he works to convey.

This notion has been quickly discredited. In fact the day Scheer's article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the BBC's John Kampfner clarified that he did not see that level of hoax. CNN asked if he thought it was staged. His response: "No."

Italics mine. First, the description of Scheer's article as "lurid, gleeful" reporting of a BBC report (notice that he doesn't actually comment on the report itself) is, at best, a personal opinion. I didn't see anything gleeful in it, and the details were less "lurid" than your average caller to hate radio. His characterization doesn't hold. Further, the CNN article he cites comes to the exact opposite conclusion he does. Entitled BBC reporter defends Lynch documentary, the reporter answer's "no" to whether the rescue was real. "The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya." He goes on further to say,

"Where we took issue with the official version as put out by Central Command, in Doha, [Qatar], to the world's press, was the way the Americans did it. They went in, all guns blazing, helicopters, a great, heroic rescue mission.

"The contention of the Iraqi doctors we spoke to was, well, actually they didn't need to do that, they could have come and got her. And in fact, one of the doctors said the day before the Americans conducted this very elaborate rescue mission, they had actually tried to get Lynch to the Americans, by putting her in an ambulance, taking her to the front line. In the course of that journey, according to the doctors, that ambulance came under fire from American forces, and they had to take her back to the hospital."

There are many reasons the suggestion faded, mostly related to the danger and confusion all over Iraq then, combined with the military's understandable desire to "be overwhelming." Force, and videos thereof, fit the context. And, there is scant evidence behind the supporting stories Scheer describes or (more often) hints at.

Italics mine. This paragraph is a complete lie. The suggestion has not faded, and Scheer doesn't hint at anything. Scheer presents facts, building on eyewitness accounts. Schersten's view cannot be upheld by mere innuendo.

Had the doctors tried to deliver her a day before and been fired upon? Maybe, although it doesn't appear they got very close. Had they effectively communicated that intent? That's the crucial detail and the doctors themselves aren't claiming it, although Scheer implied it as fact.

Italics mine. Here is the crux of the discussion, and the point where a letter to the editor would revolve around. Let's examine the critical fact that Shersten wiggles around: The doctors did try to deliver Pvt Lynch to US forces at least a day before her official rescue. Whether they got particularly "close" (close enough to be killed by rifle fire is close enough for me) or whether the US forces knew that the ambulance they were shooting at held a seriously wounded American doesn't change the need for a full investigation. Further, Schersten is outright lying when he says that the "doctors themselves aren't claiming it" since they are. Quoting from Scheer's first article:

'"The most important thing to know is that the Iraqi soldiers and commanders had left the hospital almost two days earlier," Houssona said. "The night they left, a few of the senior medical staff tried to give Jessica back. We carefully moved her out of intensive care and into an ambulance and began to drive to the Americans, who were just one kilometre away. But when the ambulance got within 300 metres, they began to shoot."'

Did the soldiers fire blanks, as he quoted a doctor? Given that the risks were real, one would guess not. How about the Iraqi lawyer who walked miles to find U.S. troops -- a plant, as Scheer suggests? If you think so, read the interview with the mother of the Wisconsin soldier who first confronted the guy, and took his note: it's at http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local10496800.shtml

Italics mine. One of the points of the articles was that the risks were not real, and "In all, 12 doors were broken, a sterilized operating theatre contaminated, and the specialized traction bed in which Lynch had been placed was trashed." No mention of gunshot damage. Further, the Greed Bay Press Gazette article cited (a second hand report at best) is not valid 6/15/03, the day after the counterpoint appeared. In fairness, searched for the article on the web from some other source, and found nothing. I'm sure the worried mother backed up her son; good for her. But it's bad journalism allow it to be used as supporting evidence.

Skipping down to the end...

I'm an old lefty. But there are two lessons here pertaining to the extreme antiwar, anti-Bush segments of our populace.

Italics mine. It's a standard practice from the cynical right (and usually a total lie) to claim some sort of change. "Old lefty" doesn't mean much, even in the unlikely event it's not just a false claim. "Extreme anti-war" is meaningless, since a) there's nothing "extreme" in wanting to protect our armed forces from being fired on by our own troops and b) holding Bush and Rumsfeld accountable for their handling of the conflict is hardly "anti-war". Indeed, wanting to know the truth about our leaders is "pro-America", and Schersten is equating "pro-American" with "anti-Bush". Ah, a glimmer of truth there.

First, they're always ready to sermonize about how shrewd and shrewdly motivated the far right is, how we simply do not understand the power and duplicity. But in their theories, they have these clever gods of sly maneuver engaged in the stupidest, most counterproductive endeavors imaginable -- including the notion that our real aim is to colonize Iraq as if it were still 1919, and Islamic rage didn't exist.

Italic mine. Here are some fnords. Wholly loaded words that shift the debate from the rational to the emotional. First, Schersten has gone from commenting on one person's articles to making this a whole "us vs. them" debate. Facts don't matter, what's important is that you're one of "us". "They" (that is, you and me), are "shrewd" AND "shrewdly motivated" AND have "these clever gods", neatly elevating Scheer to Godhood. Gosh. Is Schersten replacing the Trinity with the Quadrinity? How sly. Is "shrewd" one of the new fnords, with a negative connotation? Aren't we all "motivated", shrewdly or not, to hold our politicians accountable? I want to be shrewdly motivated to find the truth, don't you? Further, the most overarching claim is that Bush and co. want to control Iraq's oil, but that's hardly "colonizing" the country. In this sense, "colonize" is a fnord, a word with an emotional attachment that far outweighs whatever the word actually means.

Second, they really want to believe the worst. They are aching for it. It's what leads them to adopt a tone appropriate to discovery of total fraud and barely drop it a notch as the issues disappear.

Italics mine. "They" again, wanting to believe the truth rather than managed lies. "Aching" for the truth, no less. And the issues will disappear in his dreams... or if all people are as gullible as dittoheads.

Then, after an essay that doesn't present ANY hard data to counter any of the eyewitness accounts that are so damning to the dittohead flag-waving, he completely reverses the facts to lie:

And it's the reason that so far, in the Lynch affair, the most obvious, undeniable dishonesty has come from Robert Scheer.

Italics mine. He has admitted that he had jumped to conclusions, and the only way his rhetoric is "obvious" or "undeniable" is if you take all his "maybe"s as completely true. Once again, the extreme right has obscured the truth with a personal attack. No wonder good people don't want to run for office. It's like Junior High School with a drunken principal and the bullies running the school newspaper.

My potential reponses

I've had a letter published recently, so writing to the Star Tribune won't do any good. Still, here are some of the ways I might respond (and I was pleased to see some similar letters in the Sunday (6/15/03) letter section (might have to register to read them).

Possible response one, using point 6 Compare and Contrast, from Part 1 of How To Write A Letter To The Editor

Republicans are always soft on crime... when it's theirs.

The counterpoint by Paul Schersten (6/14/03) freely admits that Iraqi doctors tried to deliver Pvt. Lynch to American forces and were fired upon. He wildly speculates as to motive and timing, and then cynically uses those assumptions as fact for his conclusions which run directly counter to the facts presented.

Watergate was uncovered by the failed attempt to cover-up "a third-rate burglary" that led to the unveiling of much more serious scandals. The conservatives are desperate to cover-up the real story behind this manipulation of the media, and only a wide-ranging investigation will hold the Bush Administration accountable... lets hope they hold Bush more accountable than Ford held Nixon.

Possible response two, using point 9, When Appropriate, Use Humor

Why wag the dog when you can just own the dog? Paul Schersten's counterpoint to the deception surrounding the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch is devoid of facts and refutes none of the eyewitness accounts. In other words, it's more suitable for Fox than the Star Tribune. Now that Rupert Murdoch and Clear Channel can own more of the media to turn them to their brand of right-wing jingoism, is real journalism dead?

Possible response three, using point 2, Be Specific.

Let me just repond to one point in Paul Schersten's ludicrously conservative spin job (6/14), "Had the doctors tried to deliver her a day before and been fired upon? Maybe, although it doesn't appear they got very close."

Iraqi Dr. Harith Houssona, quoted in the Scheer article, says that they tried to give Jessica back, "But when the ambulance got within 300 metres, they began to shoot." Yes, Americans shot at an ambulance carrying an American soldier, and I'll leave it up to the reader as to whether our well-trained soldiers would consider 300 yards "close" in terms of deadly force. Schersten is wrong and should apologize to a) Jessica Lynch and her family, b) the Iraqi medical staff who cared for her and tried to return her to the Americans and c) the American soldiers who he accuses of not being able to hit targets they fire on.

If anyone's in the Mpls-StPl area, I encourage you to respond to the right-wing lies that appear in the local papers. While you may use the examples I wrote here, I encourage you to write in your own voice about the issues that concern you.

Avedon's Sideshow

from alvin   (-.-)

'The Tax-Free Nation Poem'

from that Mad Cat, JD

Last Night

Bill Hicks

Moose & Squirrel

Muhammad Ali

World Peace Music Award Show

Pete Best

In 'Free' Iraq

David Nelson

4 Eyes & 2 Mouths?

Top 10 Movies