[Peace-discuss] RE: WDWS clips and beyond

[Ricky Baldwin]

Brant-

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I appreciate the
time you took to answer (I know you must be very
busy)and the candid tone you took in your answer.  I
want to apologize for taking so long to get back to
you.  And I apologize if I unfairly characterized the
editing of the Prospect interviews.  It is true that
there were a few comments describing Saddam Hussein as
a "brutal dictator" left in.  I do not, however, feel
that the exerpts that aired were representative of our
responses to Chris's questions.

I'm sure that you will agree with this, as you
yourself commented several times on the program that
some of the answers demonstrated some thought, or
words to that effect, but for some reason you chose to
air the comments you felt put our efforts in the worst
light - judging by your ridicule of those comments. 
I'm not sure if you mean to say that, because Newsweek
wrote something pretty lame, you thought you'd follow
suit?

I admit that I am not a regular listener to your show,
and perhaps I should be.  I don't mean to generalize
at all about its content or your character, because
I'm not familiar with the show and have never met you.
 I only mean to address this particular incident.  I
appreciate that you want to ask tough and interesting
questions, too.  Good luck finding any pro-war
demonstrators to ask tough questions of, by the way,
but I take you at your word that you would ask them.

Actually, I think, for us, "What about Saddam's
victims?" or, "What should be done about Iraq, since
12 years of bombing and sanctions have only
strengthened Saddam Hussein's hold on power?"  would
have been more interesting than questions that portray
international issues as personal contests between the
rulers of the countries involved.

And, frankly, if you want my opinion, I don't find
your proposed questions for the pro-war folks
(demonstrators or not) that tough or interesting -
with the possible exception of the one about
al-Qaeda's ties to Saudi Arabia.  

I'd suggest asking something like, "Pre-emptive
attacks are illegal under international law, so why do
you think it's okay for the US to violate the law in
order to punish another country for violating it?"  Or
you might make one of your questions more specific,
like, "US allies Turkey and Israel have both violated
more UN resolutions than Iraq - should we bomb them
first?"  Or, when asking whether the US should be
subject to the UN (hypotheticallY?), you might mention
some instances of US violaing international law - for
example, when the World Court found the US guilty of
war crimes against Nicaragua and ordered the US to pay
reparations (a decision the US dismissed with
contempt). 

Or, "What about the CIA's report to Congress that a US
attack on Iraq would likely increase the threat of
terrorist attacks against the US, is that what we
want?  More terrorism?"   Or, "Are you concerned about
Saddam's victims in Iraq, and are you concerned that a
US-led attack will likely kill thousands of those same
people - when bombs hit them, or when bombs hit water
and sewage treatment facilities and spread disease
among mostly children, as in the First Gulf War?"  

Or, "What about the Kurds in Northern Iraq?  The US
had no problem when Saddam gassed them in the 1980's. 
Then the US encouraged them to rebel in 1990, and let
Saddam slaughter them after the war.  Now they want
independence, and our Turkish allies want to occupy
their land to prevent that.  What should we do?"

Anyway, you're probably sick to death of my
suggestions by now.  Thanks for taking the time to
respond to me and to read what I wrote back.  I
appreciate the openness of your show, even if I
disagree with much of what you say.

Ricky

P.S. By the way, "liberals and conservatives" aren't
all that's out there.

 


  
--- Brant Hansen <bhansen at wdws.com> wrote:
> 
> Ricky,
> 
> Thanks for cc-ing me on this.  I appreciate being
> able to get your opinion.
> 
> For what it's worth:  We didn't set out to trap
> anybody with questions that are impossible to
> answer;  we did want to ask thought-provocative
> questions.  Further, I noted on-air -- repeatedly --
> that while we didn't play all the responses we got,
> that the answers by and large were very thoughtful,
> especially given the circumstances of standing on
> Prospect in the cold.
> 
> On practically any issue, I try to draft questions
> that will force the interviewee to go beyond the
> typical responses.  I don't always hit the mark, but
> that's the goal.  I didn't, and don't, see much
> point in asking "So...do you think we should attack
> Iraq?"  
> 
> (By the way, if I'm asking pro-war protestors -- and
> I'd love to -- I'm going to ask questions like the
> following: Is this primarily about self-defense, or
> Iraqi human rights, or economic interests?  If self
> defense, why do you believe Iraq has been planning
> to attack the U.S.?  If human rights, why not act in
> many other countries?  Would you call off an
> invasion if the UN inspectors say that Saddam IS,
> actually, disarming? Why not allow the process to
> continue?  Do you think Saddam has demonstrated
> intent to use WMD's against the U.S.?  Are you
> convinced there's a link between Saddam and
> al-quaeda?  Given their more obvious ties to al
> qaeda and support for terrorism, do you think we
> should attack Saudi Arabia as well?  We're using the
> UN to try to achieve our foreign policy goals.  Do
> you think the U.S. should ever be subject to UN
> decisions?  How long should we occupy Iraq?)
> 
> The reason we chose the responses of the question we
> did for airing:  Newsweek's article regarding the
> president, and specifically, the issues of moral
> equivalence and the terms "good and evil".  That was
> a topic I'd planned to get into.  Newsweek seems to
> take the president to task for using the terms, in
> favor of a more "nuanced" view that avoids those
> labels.  It was my choice, given that I wanted to
> hit on that topic, to use the Bush/Hussein question
> responses, which I believe demonstrate a very large
> gulf in fundamental understanding between many pro
> and anti-war folks.
> 
> Your comment that AWARE members' assertion that
> Hussein, is, in fact, a brutal dictator, "made the
> cutting room floor" isn't accurate.  Included in the
> answers we aired were comments to that very effect
> from interviewees. 
> 
> I played about five minutes, trying to make sure
> that no one was taken out of context.  And no one
> was.  The question was fair, the answers were not
> cut-up to create a false impression.  If someone
> gives a lame answer -- and I'm doing my best not to
> take them out of context -- I've been fair. I say
> lame stuff on-air occasionally that I wish I could
> re-phrase.  It's the peril of ad-libbing.  
> 
> We had callers -- and e-mailers -- ask "So where
> were these protestors when it came to Bill Clinton's
> military forays?  Were they consistent with regard
> to a Democrat president?"  I mentioned that yes, in
> fact, many had responded that they did not think
> Clinton's use of the military was justified either
> in particular conflicts.  
> 
> I actually made the point repeatedly: "Hey, look --
> you can be anti-war and still be able to make moral
> distinctions between Bush and Hussein.  To me, this
> is the 'nuance' we should be capable of."  
> 
> I have zero desire to make people look stupid, pro
> or anti.  If I did, I wouldn't have had multiple
> well-thought-out anti-war guests on-air to discuss
> the war (Msgr. Swetland, the UI's John Lynn, David
> Cortright of the Fourth Freedom Foundation, Philip
> Gold, etc.)  In fact, I'm a conservative who has his
> own concerns that the action wouldn't conform to
> just war doctrine.  I have many friends who are
> opposed to this war on varying grounds.  We get
> along.
> 
> Further, I openly encourage -- heck, almost BEG --
> people who disagree with me on issues to call up on
> the show.  I try to be polite and respectful, and --
> given that I do have my own opinions, I'm not trying
> to be un-biased, which can be boring -- I'm pretty
> fair to those with whom I disagree, even as I may
> remain doggedly unenlightened.
> 
> The phone number for both liberals and conservatives
> is 356-9397.  If you've got an opinion that you want
> aired, that's a great option.  I may challenge
> views, play devil's advocate, or just plain
> disagree, but if a caller's civil, so am I.
> 
> Again, Ricky, thanks for cc-ing me your note and
> reading all this...trying to not to ramble, here...
> 
> Best,
> Brant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ricky Baldwin [mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: peace discuss
> Cc: Brant Hansen
> Subject: WDWS clips and beyond
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'm happy to say that once again we have a healthy
> disagreement within AWARE - this time over the WDWS
> interview clips.  The News-Gazette is also planning
> to
> visit us for some interviews and photos on March 15,
> so I think this discussion is timely.
> 
> I like Kim's point that we are a diverse group, but
> that we might want to be a little mor savvy about
> dealing with the media.  Her suggestions are good
> ones
> -- but I do think that everyone could tell what kind
> of bias was behind the very questions (1) who's
> worse,
> Bush or Saddam; (2) who would you rather see removed
> from power, Bush or Saddam; (3) who would you fight
> for, US or Iraq; and (4) if a US city were destroyed
> by an atomic bomb, would retaliation be okay?  This
> sort of question is intended to be near-impossible
> to
> answer, and we should be wary of them.  Kim is
> right:
> we should stay "on message" and say what WE want to
> say, not what a reporter wants us to say.
> 
> I'll be the first to say that I wasn't at my best
> answering these, with the caveat that (as John
> suggested) when my answers were not what WDWS
> wanted,
> they simply didn't use them.  (For example, "I
> wouldn't fight for either the US or Iraq - I think
> war
> will only create more enemies for the US.") But
> overall I think folks did a pretty good job.  I
> wouldn't agree with everything everyone said, but I
> don't need to.  I think one of the most crucial
> services we perform is to make sure that a variety
> of
> opinions enters the public debate, such as it is.
> 
> I also appreciate most of what Doug had to say.  He
> is
> very articulate and knowledgeable on these issues,
> and
> I'd hope that he would join us in future Saturdays
> and
> speak to the press himself.  I think we can all
> appreciate his frustration.  Of course Saddam
> Hussein
> is a brutal dictator - which some of us told the
> WDWS
> guy, but it must have wound up on the cutting room
> floor.  Still, the point that many folks made is
> important: Saddam may be a vicious little tyrant,
> but
> he is still a penny-ante pirate compared to the US
> and
> the scale of destruction we offer - from Hiroshima
> and
> Nagasaki to Vietnam to Haiti to Nicaragua, El
> Salvador
> and Panama to Iraq to Kosovo to Afghanistan
> (twice)...
> 
> Finally, a couple more thoughts (which I did give
> the
> WDWS guy):  The serious question is not personal,
> Bush
> vs Saddam.  The serious question is what to do about
> terrorism and violence in the world.  The first
> thing
> the US can do about these is: stop promoting it
> ourselves - that is, stop training people like Osama
> bin Laden, stop backing dictators like Saddam
> Hussein,
> and close down our own terrorist training camps like
> the School of the Americas.  Then we can approach
> the
> UN resolutions calling for regional disarmament in
> the
> Middle East with some credibility, in addition to
> not
> creating any more enemies for ourselves.  We might
> even want to support the rule of international law,
> including the International Criminal Court, instead
> of
> undermining it by constantly playing lone
> ranger/vigilante.
> 
> But whatever we tell the press, and whatever they
> print, it is my opinion (which a lot of folks will
> probably disagree with) that we still want the
> attention.  In fact, when they mischaracterize us in
> a
> particularly outrageous way, it's better in a sense,
> because it gives us the opportunity to respond and
> speak for ourselves.  (That's a hint: we need more
> letters to the editor!)
> 
> Here's to everybody who did their best without any
> preparation, and here's to learning from our
> mistakes.
> 
> Ricky
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/