(continued)

I am sure he has long forgotten it but Hertzberg deserves a prescience award for offering the earliest published debunking of Judith M. Miller, long before her work at the Times. This was in an unsigned (but see below) New Yorker Talk of the Town item, from 1973, called "News on a Shoestring.".

The writer praised the Pacifica Foundation's New York radio station, WBAI, for its nightly Vietnam program. He conceded one exception: Vapid reports from that same foundation's Washington bureau, echoing what everyone else in the capital was filing. The bureau's lead reporter then? "Judy Miller," en route to NPR and the Times and notorious gullibility during the run-up to the second Iraq war.

"News on a Shoestring" caused me inadvertent injury (unrelated to Miller), so circa 1978 I decided to make a stab at learning who had written it. Michael Arlen tipped me to the existence of a permanent ledger containing the New Yorker's unpublished author credits. "Hendrik Hertzberg," the magazine's library wrote back. Hertzberg and I briefly chatted by telephone, totally without reference to Miller's 1973 shortcomings.

But from the vantage point of 2007, what a marvelous flash-forward Hertzberg offered in that ancient item, carping about an obscure Washington reporter's radio reports about a war.

slave labor is wonderful, isn't it?

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=12885

rotflmao. liberals, huh? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

didn't like that post, huh? how about this?

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=12885

give me an "h", give me a "y", give me a "p", give me an "o" ....

Prescience indeed. He wrote about the Fillmore West in 1966? Stunning - given it wouldn't open until July 1968.

Yes, Cassadee, it was just the Fillmore (without the West) in 1966.
My mistake. Charles Kaiser

Hendrik is kind of a pretentious ass, but a smart guy, nonetheless.

Hendrik is kind of a pretentious ass, but a smart guy, nonetheless.

Seymour, you have been in the game too long, my friend. The moment i looked over at the TV and the new enemy was announced, I immediately knew an Orwellian scenario was begnnng to unwind. Please, your oversight on this score, the hesitation, is a warning. Focus, SH, we are counting on you, and sometimes its really nice to have backup.

What a laughably predictable pile of bunk. Hertzberg is nothing more than another little angry man of the left. An intellectual pygmy, he can be counted on to turn out blustery partisan screeds that are equal parts distortion and standard issue New Left cant, but little else. In short, he's the epitome of a myopic, knee-jerk liberal. Hertzberg's idiotic commentary is the principal reason I let my New Yorker subscription lapse. Running a close second: Remnick's brilliant decision to give crackpot yellow journalist Seymour Hersh a soapbox to spew nonsense. Great work, Davey!

I think Hertzberg is spot-on, and the comment from REMNICK reaffirms that. The excessive use of adjectives in this invective from the neo-con spin world underscores the anxiety now manifesting itself among the fascists. Have you any idea what the world thinks of 21st century US imperialism? I fear not. It is insights such as those offered by Hertzberg that enables us Europeans to cling to the hope that there remains a vestige of sanity in the most powerful and least-loved nation in the world. Perverse, but not at all surprising, that irony escapes REMNICK in a personal attack that describes an individual with a different viewpoint as an "intellectual pygmy", "myopic", "idiotic", "little angry man", etc. Presumably this constitutes intellectual criticism, in REMNICK's view.

Priceless! Wild Fish labels me a fascist, and in the next breath decries my supposed personal attacks on Hertzberg. Dear Fishy, THAT's what we call irony. Honestly, is there anything more amusing than a European leftist besotted with delusions of intellectual superiority?

Life is too short to trade insults to no evident productive outcome - I entered the debate to celebrate HERTZBERG, and I commend him. The rest is noise, and everyone is entitled to an atmospheric contribution. I trust in the ultimate victory of common-sense over hysterical invective, and there is no left-right divide in the conclusion that US foreign policy has an image problem, to say the least. I now have a better understanding as to why that is, so thanks to REMNICK for that insight. If you wish to own the intellectual mantle, do so - I have no such aspiration. I am more concerned about the state of the world.

I have to wonder if you've actually read Hertzberg with any regularity. In point of fact, he's as partisan as one can be, and not above hysterical invective, to borrow your construction, especially when the subjects are political adversaries and differing viewpoints. One could argue that it's his job to be a partisan bomb thrower. Again, however, the fact remains that he's disinclined to give the other side a fair hearing. In this regard, he's no different than Robert Scheer, Alexander Coxburn, and perhaps a score of other liberal commentators. This is the core of my gripe. I can get the same old rapid liberal line on the op-ed page of just about any metro daily in the U.S., and England for that matter. I read the New Yorker for substance and panache, both of which are sorely lacking in Hertzberg's efforts, which are, generally speaking, predictable rants. Coxburn, to name one, is a better writer. The same can easily be said of a dozen others. Obviously, Hertzberg's world view is of a piece with your own, which accounts for your showing here. That, of course, is your affair. But you're only kidding yourself if you believe yours is the common-sense view. In closing I would add that we're all concerned about the state of the world, which is why we're contesting the way it's portrayed in the media.