O’Hanlon’s Griping Pays Off: CNN Calls Him ‘To Tell Us Why Voters Continue To Care About Iraq’
O’Hanlon’s Griping Pays Off: CNN Calls Him ‘To Tell Us Why Voters Continue To Care About Iraq’
According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), the number of news reports on Iraq have fallen dramatically since last year. In July 2007, there were an average of 15 percent of news stories devoted to the war in Iraq; that number dropped to just three percent in February 2008.
Last week, Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon complained to the New York Times that he is a perfect example of the media’s declining interest in Iraq, as he hardly receives Iraq interview requests anymore:
“I was getting on average three to five calls a day for interviews about the war” in the first years, said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow on national security at the Brookings Institution. “Now it’s less than one a day.“
On its “This Week in Politics” segment on Saturday, CNN took pity on poor O’Hanlon. Host Tom Foreman said they decided to call O’Hanlon not because he was the most qualified, but because they heard his cries for attention:
In Monday’s “New York Times,” Brookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon was quoted as saying that the number of journalists calling him for stories on Iraq has fallen off to zero. So, we gave Michael a call and invited him to tell us why voters continue to care about Iraq. And we called in CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to keep him honest.
Watch it:
While O’Hanlon blames the press for his decreasing number of interviews, there is another possibility: his authority on Iraq has declined, as he has repeatedly and inextricably linked himself to Bush’s Iraq policies.
The media refuse to abandon these discredited pundits completely though. As the National Security Network’s Ilan Goldenberg observes, O’Hanlon has had “13 pieces in four of the most influential op-ed pages in the country over the past 7 months. … Unless you are a cabinet level position or higher, nobody deserves this type of representation.”
The Center for American Progress’s Eric Alterman and George Zornick also add, “Most of the pundits asked to look back on the first six years of the war in mainstream organs like The New York Times op-ed page and the online magazine, Slate, were people who got the decision wrong in the first place.”
(HT: Heather)
FOREMAN: For all of the talk about how the candidates are battling for the White House, real battles with real bullets are raging across Iraq this week, and when General David Petraeus makes his report to Congress next month, that situation in Iraq could turn this campaign upside down again. Iraq has been out of the news spotlight lately.
In Monday’s “New York Times,” Brookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon was quoted as saying that the number of journalists calling him for stories on Iraq has fallen off to zero. So, we gave Michael a call and invited him to tell us why voters continue to care about Iraq. And we called in CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to keep him honest.
Michael, let me ask you this first off, when General Petraeus shows up next month, all the campaigns say they want to listen to the general, is he going to say what they want to hear?
MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSITUTION: Hi, Tom. Well, I think they we don’t know what he’s going to say because of the developments that you just alluded to that are ongoing in Iraq right now. This is a fundamentally different kind of situation than we’ve had in a long time and the outcome could be net very good or net very bad. There are some people trying to prejudge. President Bush for example said this shows that the Iraqi government can be decisive, because they’re the ones who chose when to do to this operation and they are leading it.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
48 Responses to “O’Hanlon’s Griping Pays Off: CNN Calls Him ‘To Tell Us Why Voters Continue To Care About Iraq’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
The reasons TP gives for O’Hanlon being discredited are pretty weak. He acknowledges two things, that the surge has improved security and that DeBaathification is political progress. Neither claim lessens his credibility. A lot of serious people do agree with both points, even if they might still conclude we should withdraw, partition, etc. De-Baathification will come down to implementation, of course, but it is much better to have that law than to not.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pmThe straw man that third party props up to discredit TP is pretty weak. The arms are falling off, the head is crooked and a lot of straw is leaking out of the front of the flannel shirt.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pmWWWHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH……..moron…
March 31st, 2008 at 1:36 pmI’m sorry, but this guy has no creditability left after becoming a turn coat apoligist for Bush’s failed policies. I’d put more stock into Karl Rove explaining why he didn’t lie to a Federal Grand Jury than O’Handlin saying anything. I know that’s a stretch, but I don’t listen to a word this guy utters anymore.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pmthis is exactly what me and my callers talked about on my radio program last night. check it out
http://oldhacks.blogspot.com
im really proud of how productive the talk was this episode.
(its the blue player on my blog)
March 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pmSure O’Hanlon it’s all about you. You think that because you’ve become irrelevant notbody cares about the war anymore. Got mush of an ego tool?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pmRalph, what’s the straw man here?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pmI think people still care about Iraq, but they’re more concerned about the economy. The bulk of letters going out to congress at my site are about the economy and taxation, not Iraq -> http://www.freedomspeaks.com/. People tend to get selfish when their hard earned dollars are getting taken from their pocketbooks.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pmthirdparty Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ralph, what’s the straw man here?
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll chime in just the same. You used the word “serious”. That is a code word for the villiagers and pundits who have been wrong about almost every aspect of the invasion and occupation. Only “serious” people think the surge is working (remember, the surge was supposed to create breathing room for some political reconciliation - not headlines) and only “serious” people think putting 200,000 angry, armed, and newly poor ‘bathists’ out of jobs was a good thing. All it did was to create an instant insurgency.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:52 pmThe straw man is the implication that TP’s criticism is based on the two things you mention (rather an easy target to knock down as framed by you, especially if one ignores the surge in violence of the past week) rather than the multitude of criticisms of O’Hanlon that TP has made in the past, including falsely presenting himself (and being portrayed as) a war critic and even his myopic whining about his lack of attention from the MSM.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pmOnce again one single man`s ego is more important than this illegal WAR and all of the corruption and cronyism that goes with this.I hope Ohanlon rots in hell with bushco and his cronies.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pmSomebody please tell EggbeaterHead O’Hanlon that when you’re WRONG all the TIME, no one listens to you anymore.
Kind of like the boy who cried DUFUS!!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pmThat punk, if based on his merits, should be picking up pop bottles to try and scrape up enough to buy a meal.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pmRUCerious Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Somebody please tell EggbeaterHead O’Hanlon that when you’re WRONG all the TIME, no one listens to you anymore.
Well, given the behavior of the MSM of the past five years, one can forgive O’Hanlon his failure to grasp that concept.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pmThe decrease from 15% to 3% of news stories in just over 6 months is a disgrace. The disappearence of blowholes like O’Hanlon is a welcome side-effect, though.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:02 pmIf the people act less interested in the war it’s because the media stopped covering it. The media decided to follow the Bushco line, “The surge is working, nothing to see here.”
March 31st, 2008 at 2:03 pmAnd Amanda (of the infamous and humiliating “McCain Plagiarized” scoop) does it again…
She inaccurately characterizes Hanlon’s comment as “complaining” that he currently receives fewer interview request regarding Iraq that he previously did when there is nothing in the article to support such a characterization.
The article is about the Project for Excellence in Journalism project that supposedly shows a huge dropoff in Iraq War coverage by the US media. There is nothing in that article that indicates Hanlon was “complaining.” Indeed, given the topic of the article, it is clear that Hanlon is responding to questions from the reporter.
Amanda, you’re a roll!
March 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pmIn Monday’s “New York Times,” Brookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon was quoted as saying that the number of journalists calling him for stories on Iraq has fallen off to zero. So, we gave Michael a call and invited him to tell us why voters continue to care about Iraq. And we called in CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to keep him honest.
Hey Ex! Good to see you back! Anyway, reading the passage above does indicate that someone thought O’hanlon was kinda whining that he is not the hot ‘go to’ war guy at the present time. Maybe he wasn’t complaining, per se, but certainly wondering why the requests for interviews and Op Ed’s have dropped off lately.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pmExley Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Amanda, you’re a roll!
Talk about inaccuracy. You’re an idiot.
Amanda publicly apologized for her mistake — and left the post up for all to see.
Apologize.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:12 pmAnd we called in CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to keep him honest.
can u say oxyMORON….
March 31st, 2008 at 2:15 pmfreedomspeaks Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I think people still care about Iraq, but they’re more concerned about the economy. The bulk of letters going out to congress at my site are about the economy and taxation, not Iraq -> http://www.freedomspeaks.com/. People tend to get selfish when their hard earned dollars are getting taken from their pocketbooks.
republican values = failed usa
March 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pmIn the article
He argued that Americans who support the war might not have wanted to follow the news when it was bad, and that Americans against the war are less interested now that the news is better. And the presidential candidates, he said, have shown “surprisingly little interest in discussing it in detail.”
New is lots better, especially about Basra, and the upcoming October bloodbath, er elections…
March 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pmAnd
Obama on Iraq
March 19, 2008
OBAMA ON IRAQ….Two big speeches in two days for Barack Obama. Today, in a big speech on Iraq, he takes some strong shots at both Hillary Clinton and John McCain (”What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3 AM phone calls”) and argues that we’re fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time:
Barbara Starr was going to “keep him honest?”
Too funny…
March 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pmHey Exley, I believe YOU’VE established your CREDIBILITY on the topic of Bush getting booed at the game. Nothing you have to say matters to anybody any more. And you think Amanda got it wrong? You can’t fix stupid can you?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pmStratRat,
Thanks. Good to see you too…My point is there is absolutely nothing in the article that support’s Amanda’s characterization that Hanlon is whining or “griping” or “complaining.” Zilch. He is making an observation to a reporter than most likely contacted him regarding the findings of the Project for Excellence in Journalism study.
The reporter does not characterize Hanlon’s statement as a complaint and there is nothing in the remainder of the article that indicates the reporter viewed Hanlon’s statement as “griping.”
As mentioned, the context of article and its subject make it quite clear that Hanlon is making an observation that comports with the study’s findings.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pmExley sure is like O’Handjob, wrong all the time.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pmOops, sorry Fan of Man. You got there first…
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pmExley’s like a fifth grader with a crush on Amanda. If she was near him he’d be pulling her hair.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pmcheck out this great lecture that was just posted on youtube by a civil rights activist/teacher
linke
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pmZooey Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Oops, sorry Fan of Man. You got there first…
lol, im just glad someone else picked up on it.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pmOne would have thought that Exley would shy away from more arguments based on subtleties of language such as She inaccurately characterizes Hanlon’s comment as “complaining” given that there is no empirical way to prove the validity of one’s argument, and any discussion is soon reduced to asserting that one’s own opinion is “the truth” or “fact”, and any other opinions are misguided or dishonest.
It’s an easily-predicted trap that renders any discussion pointless, and a waste of time…
oh, wait… okay. I see why it appeals to Exley now. Carry on.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pmWhere’s Exley with that apology…?
I’ve seen pictures of Amanda, she is NOT a roll.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:25 pmOops…Zooey gets one right. I accidentally dropped an article.
That should read:
“Amanda, you’re on a roll!”
I apologize.
Now, ThinkProgress’ turn to apologize for its inaccurate recounting of Hanlon’s comments in The New York Times article.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:30 pmExley Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oops…Zooey gets one right.
There you go again, Exley. I’ve forced you to admit you were wrong on at least one other occasion — likely even more, if I bothered to remember.
You do have a problem with honesty, don’t you?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pmExley’s apology is clearly inaccurate. Amanda is not “on a roll”. Nothing in the articles cited indicates that Amanda is “on a roll”, nor that she considers herself as such.
It’s time for Exley to apologize for this latest inaccurate characterization of Amanda’s situation.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pmExley also inaccurately characterizes an earlier post by Amanda that was mistaken, acknowledged and publicly corrected, as “humiliating”. There is nothing in any of Amanda’s reporting that indicates that she was humiliated by the incident, nor should she be, as most reasonable posters forgave the mistake and appreciated the correction.
Exley owes all of the TP community an apology for this inaccurate comment.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:43 pmRalph, you should know I was basing my response on the two links that TP provided.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:56 pmThere is nothing in any of Amanda’s reporting that indicates that she was humiliated by the incident, nor should she be, as most reasonable posters forgave the mistake and appreciated the correction.
Most reasonable posters also admire TP’s willingness to admit that they got it wrong. Now if it had been a right wing blog or Faux Noise, the article would have been scrubbed from their sites and no apology would have been rendered. It’s the Republican way - Always right, but if you make a mistake, get rid of the evidence.
Exley owes all of the TP community an apology for it’s existence.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:56 pmJebus, ExLax - if you and the rest of the Republiscums were to start apologizing now for all the lies you and yours have told over the last EIGHT friggin’ years, we’d still be here next CHRISTMAS.
Give it up, asshat.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pmthirdparty Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Ralph, you should know I was basing my response on the two links that TP provided.
Understood. But you implied that those were the only issues on which TP’s criticism of O’Hanlon was based. And you didn’t discredit them, you merely pointed out that others could see things differently, which is hardly a surprise, given the Bush administration’s opposition to the Reality-based communuity.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pmAmanda is on a roll? Is it a kaiser roll? Sounds yummy to me.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pm(HT: Heather)
curious - who is “Heather”?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pmO’ Hanlon deserves to be interviewed every day, because he really is Serious. As he observes in this interview, speaking about the potential outcome in Iraq: “it could be net very good or net very bad.” Granted, the technical geopolitical jargon left me feeling a bit out of my depth, but even I knew that only a serious expert, with years of clear-eyed pundification under his belt, could have arrived at such an insight!
March 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pmI love kaiser rolls.
They’re good for sandwiches, or just with butter.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I love kaiser rolls.
They’re good for sandwiches, or just with butter.
I bet that’s true about Amanda as well. :)
March 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pmBrookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon ?
That’s akin to receiving a gold medal in the Special Olympics ; just not as prestigious ……..
March 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pmThey should have called in Glenn Greenwald to keep him honest….
Cheers,
March 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pmWhy does the post have “Your comment is awaiting moderation” ?
March 31st, 2008 at 6:09 pm