"My jacket's in the President's office." "We'll mail it to you."
August 18, 2013 2:09 PM   Subscribe

Chris Hedges on Journalism, truth, and why he was fired from the New York Times: "Great reporters care about truth more than they do about news".
posted by four panels (30 comments total) 27 users marked this as a favorite
 
I will never forget: a few days after September 11, 2001, one of my college classes was discussing the attacks and their impact, and I said that I thought we'd use it as an excuse to be in Iraq and Afghanistan in short order. Within a month, we were in Afghanistan; within two years, we were in Iraq; and yet I have never felt more hated than I did at that moment.

Seeing the unbridled jingoism and offended patriotism on the faces as they told me I should "just leave" and said various other nasty things about my cowardice, lack of manhood, and so on made me quite bitter for quite a while. It took years before I realized that they were just normal, uncritical people at whom the fire-hose of propaganda had been pointed for years. It made me a lot less outspoken about my political beliefs.

Chris Hedges is a brilliant and honest man.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:19 PM on August 18, 2013 [39 favorites]


Is there a non-video link for this?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:19 PM on August 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen, there is a transcript below the video.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:20 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


The transcript says that he left after one reprimand - I think the framing of it as being "Fired" is inaccurate.

It's also important to realize that the "My jacket is in the President's Office" is talking about a small conservative college that he did the commencement speech at and started talking against the Iraq War. Which, I mean, I understand wanting to give speeches against the Iraq War. I've done it myself. But that is not what they have hired you to do and I think they're justified in ushering you out at the point the entire student body is angry.
posted by corb at 2:37 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


I read the transcript too. He was, in essence, fired; it was very clear to him he could not stay at the New York Times. And that college hired Hedges to give a speech; he says he told them what he was going to talk about. Whatever the forum, to deny a person his piece is hardly what you'd expect from an institution of higher learning.
posted by tommyD at 2:49 PM on August 18, 2013 [4 favorites]


Yep, gotta play to the audience, and his views were as unwelcome at the New York Times as they were at 'a small conservative college'. They still are.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:50 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


...I was in the Middle East right after 9/11, and the Muslim world was appalled at what had been done in their name, these crimes against humanity that had been committed on American soil.

And the way you fight terrorism is to isolate terrorists within their own society. And this goes all the way back to Sallust writing about the Jugurthine wars. It's not a new understanding. And we had gone a long way to doing that because of the attacks of 9/11. And if we had had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy that was being poured out towards us, we'd be far more secure and safe than we are today.

Instead, we responded just the way al-Qaeda and these groups wanted, which was to invade and begin dropping iron fragmentation bombs all over the Middle East, which resurrected the jihadist movement.
"We" being the assholes running the government and the media. I hope there's a next world, and they get their just reward there, because it hasn't happened in this one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:00 PM on August 18, 2013 [10 favorites]


And so the way The Times responded was to call me in and give me a formal written reprimand for impugning the impartiality of The New York Times ... the process is you give the employee the reprimand in written form, and then the next time they violate, under guild rules you can fire them.
So if you work for the Times and you think they're being impartial, and you say so, you're basically just fired, and that's just the deal? How could any organization with such a rule (if you point out that we're not measuring up to our ideals, you're out) have a hope of achieving its ideals?

I tend to assume that a news organization would be more academically-minded than that, that a diversity of opinions would be valued and that frank criticism from within is par for the course. I guess I don't know so much.
posted by Western Infidels at 3:34 PM on August 18, 2013


Let's not bicker and argue over 'oo fired 'oo. Let's just agree that all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the Gray Lady's bloodstained hands.
posted by uosuaq at 3:36 PM on August 18, 2013 [13 favorites]


There are effective ways to stand and be persuasive in front of a group that is radically at odds with your perspective - a classic example is the Ted Kennedy speech at Liberty Baptist College in October of 1983. Of course, that was before the Internet made everyone incapable of communicating with each other.
posted by relish at 4:42 PM on August 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


There is no way to be persuasive to people who don't wish to be persuaded. If he couldn't convince fellow journalists at the New York Times, he wasn't going to convince anybody; I remember those times well, and I remember that facts consistently broke against unwilling ears and most people I knew either wanted to support the war or not talk about it.

Sometimes conscience dictates that you speak against something even if your words will be unwelcome. And commencement addresses have a long history of allowing great flexibility for their speaker. Jack Kennedy announced a Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty at American University. Barbara Kingsolver spoke out against global warming at Duke in 2008. George Marshall essentially laid out the entire process for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe at Harvard in 1947. Hedges told them what he was going to speak about, and it certainly wasn't outside the sort of speech that people give at commencements. The trouble is that too many people at that time preferred to be lied to that have the truth spoken by an expert in the subject, which doesn't speak poorly of Hedges, but of Rockford College.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 5:07 PM on August 18, 2013 [12 favorites]


Western Infidels: Many, many employers have a process in place to document discipline. People are in general very hard to fire without documented instances of indiscipline, even in right-to-work states because without a documentation process, lawyers have a field day.

Whether a single documented instance becomes 'and next up, the FIRINGS' depends on whether there's a horrible employer/manager making these calls, or if an employee has transgressed wildly. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, although not always, but pretty much everyone who feels ill-used by an employer will describe it as the most unfair thing they've ever seen. It's not necessarily unfair, though, and at least it does require documentation, rather than 'Abel, you're fired. Get out.'
posted by taterpie at 5:10 PM on August 18, 2013




Video of speech, part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:39 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks for this. Chris Hedges is a great writer and a great and honest thinker.
posted by aka burlap at 7:08 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


corb is exactly right on this one. Bit of a dick move to do anything other than a life advice speech at a commencement unless you're a president, statesmen or other important figure. Regardless of whether the administration knew his intentions, it's still not cool.

It probably shouldn't, but that alone colors my credulity for everything else he says about his experience working within the media (if not its own abject failure post-9/11).
posted by graphnerd at 7:11 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Speaking your convictions is important, but knowing your audience is critical. I doubt Hedges went into the speech thinking the audience did not wish to be persuaded, but maybe he did, maybe he was pandering to a larger audience. In any case, I hope he understands Islamic fundamentalism better than Christian fundamentalism; he certainly misread the people at the event and the nature of the occasion.

It's great to wrap yourself in conviction and righteousness, it feels great, but it's not very persuasive when you are dealing with other human beings who have their own convictions and ideas about the world. And, basically, you take a big leap toward the banality of evil if you assume the people are unthinking and that there is nothing you can say that will plays off their core values.

I'd not seeing how the speeches Bunny Ultramod references are like this at all. George Marshall speaking at Harvard about a foreign aid package is very different rhetorical territory than Ted Kennedy speaking at the locus of power for the Moral Majority in 1983 or Hedges at Rockford College. The audience is either totally supportive or mildly ambivalent to the speaker in all the examples given. Maybe if the Marshall speech had started off with "I really had hoped to give this speech at Yale" I could see some connection. "Ah, yes, the speaker is indifferent to the basic requirements of the situation and the feelings of his audience"
posted by relish at 9:22 PM on August 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's great to wrap yourself in conviction and righteousness,

He wasn't righteous. He was right. And of you read the transcript, the president of the college explicitly steps in and says the following:

My friends, one of the wonders of a liberal arts college is its ability and its deeply held commitment to academic freedom and the decision to listen to each other's opinions. (Crowd Cheers) If you wish to protest the speaker's remarks, I ask that you do it in silence, as some of you are doing in the back. That is perfectly appropriate but he has the right to offer his opinion here and we would like him to continue his remarks.

But there is seemingly no fact and no speaker of fact that will not be treated as somehow impolitic or impolite if the things they say, that they are invited to say, that they had said they were going to say, and that the president of the institution explicitly states that we should respect, if it is received badly.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:40 PM on August 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


…if we had had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy that was being poured out towards us, we'd be far more secure and safe than we are today.

S'truth. The world was united against terrorism for a while. There was solid willingness to go after the real 9/11 bad guys. And then it became a political and corporate quagmire in the wrong country fighting the wrong people without much international support.

What a waste of an opportunity.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:54 AM on August 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


Looks like what the young grads didn't like is him criticizing people evangelizing Iraqis behind Our Troops.
posted by thelonius at 1:10 AM on August 19, 2013


This explains why Chris Hedges is famous but no one has ever heard of Rockford College.
posted by spitbull at 2:42 AM on August 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


How could any organization with such a rule (if you point out that we're not measuring up to our ideals, you're out) have a hope of achieving its ideals?

I'm afraid you've assumed the wrong ideals are in place. NYT Company is a large corporation. Its ideals are pretty much the same as other large corporations, augmented with a large dose of political interference.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:08 AM on August 19, 2013


There is no way to be persuasive to people who don't wish to be persuaded. If he couldn't convince fellow journalists at the New York Times, he wasn't going to convince anybody; I remember those times well, and I remember that facts consistently broke against unwilling ears and most people I knew either wanted to support the war or not talk about it.

I really like what you have to say on much of the site, so please believe me that it is with all the respect in the world that I say, "Bullshit."

As I said - like Chris Hedges, I have spoken against the war in Iraq on some very hostile territory including military bases during the war. It is not impossible to persuade even people who do not wish to be persuaded. It is, however, necessary to be a bit more politic as to who you are speaking to, and where they are coming from, so you can meet them halfway. One of the problems with Chris Hedges is that he thinks he's a martyr and that he doesn't have to do it. Which is great, if that's what Chris Hedges wants to be. But you should never mistake it for a failing in his audience.

He may have mentioned he was going to talk about the war in Iraq, but he probably didn't mention that he was going to talk about the war in Iraq and nothing else. The students themselves, the ones ostensibly being addressed, are not even mentioned. It's as though Chris Hedges is simply delighted to have a bully pulpit. He is not speaking to them, he is speaking through them. He is not exhorting them to go forth as the ambassadors of peace or to use their youth and enthusiasm to make a better world. He's just talking about a subject he believes in that has little relation to them - or at least, he doesn't do the basic work to link it. There's a time and a place for that - at home, with your friends - or even on the internet where you don't particularly care if people are persuaded or not. That college was not that time or place.

He was, in essence, fired; it was very clear to him he could not stay at the New York Times.

No. Chris Hedges decided to martyr himself, which is no surprise to anyone familiar with Chris Hedges. Because a thing was clear to him does not mean it was the New York Times' desire at all. He quit ahead of a gun that may or may not be imaginary. We'll never know, because he didn't wait to find out.

However, what's real is that he decided he didn't want to stay at the New York Times. He decided that he didn't want to hold to their public neutrality principles - that making big speeches about the war and continuing to do so was more important than his job. This is, however, very, very different than being fired for one speech - a thing the NYT emphatically did not do.

Journalists are required to at least maintain a pretense of neutrality if they want to be taken seriously. That's why so many people have problems with Fox News, isn't it? The utter lack of neutrality? If the NYT wanted to do all they could to make sure they didn't turn into a Fox News colleague, all I can say is "Mazel Tov".
posted by corb at 4:20 AM on August 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


He is not speaking to them, he is speaking through them.

Is there a link to the content of his speech? I couldn't find it in the OP.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:03 AM on August 19, 2013


Is there a link to the content of his speech?
See - "Transcript of the Rockford College speech." posted by A dead Quaker at 5:17 PM on August 18
posted by relish at 6:37 AM on August 19, 2013


Journalists are required to at least maintain a pretense of neutrality if they want to be taken seriously.

That's complete nonsense; journalists commonly have clear ideological points of view that they evaluate positions and policies from. This is why George Will and Molly Ivins exist(ed). The most you can say here is that journalists should maintain a pretense of neutrality in their reporting, as opposed to their commentary. Speeches at a college are commentary.

That's why so many people have problems with Fox News, isn't it? The utter lack of neutrality?

There's also the lies.

The idea that this was about neutrality, at a time when they were still letting Judith Miller run around telling lies about chemical weapons in Iraq, is laughable on its face.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 AM on August 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


As I said - like Chris Hedges, I have spoken against the war in Iraq on some very hostile territory including military bases during the war. It is not impossible to persuade even people who do not wish to be persuaded.

In 2003? In 2003 I don't recall being in many places where dissent was tolerated. The vast majority of people I knew considered disagreement with the mission to be equivalent to some perverse satisfaction at observing American soldiers shot and wounded and maimed and killed. I consciously kept my mouth shut at least until 2005.
posted by bukvich at 8:47 AM on August 19, 2013


A (shortened) version of the speech he could have given with much of the same words.

"When looking out on you all today, I am struck by your youth, your vitality, and your hope. I am struck by your faith in the future and your confidence that the world you are entering upon your graduation is a good and just place.

It makes it all the more painful, seeing you, with all you have to offer our country, knowing the country we have left you to inherit.

(Like, ride your hobbyhorse on, dude, but at least connect it to the students you are supposed to address!)

We have left you a country where diplomacy has failed. While Killing, or at least the worst of it, is over in Iraq, we have left you a country at war - where blood will continue to spill -- theirs and ours -- so be prepared for this. For we are embarking on an occupation that, if history is any guide, will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige, power, and security. (continuing on with pretty much EVERYTHING HE SAID)- it can kill us just as surely as the disease.

We, the generation before you, the nation you will walk in as men, have lost touch with the essence of war. Following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation. ... And this is why friendship or, let me say love, is the most potent enemy of war. This friendship, these bonds, this love I see before me now, these are all the enemies of war. You have the capability of war, but also the promise for peace.. (blah blah more of you brighter tomorrow blah)

Essentially, just connect your speech to what you are supposed to be doing. It's totally possible to throw the Iraq War into everything you're talking about - God knows I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone else - but just do it with a bit more tact, rather than thinking that the kids are peons who don't deserve to be cheered or empowered.
posted by corb at 9:06 AM on August 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bunny Ultramod: There is no way to be persuasive to people who don't wish to be persuaded.
Counterpoint: Al Franken
posted by IAmBroom at 10:25 AM on August 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


I have to say I am slightly appalled about this comment section. Nothing against Mr. Hedges but the reactions tend to push the idea the the NYT editorial line is controlled by an agenda with the masthead waltzing in behind journalists telling them how to write their stories.

This is simply ridiculous for anyone who worked at a major quality newspaper, an idea pushed by the far-right and the new "citizen" journalism on the left, implying that we cannot believe the media. It is dangerous. There is simply no possibility at the NYT, the WP or the WSJ, and that holds for also for Le Monde, The Economist, Spiegel or the NZZ, that an editor is going to format the story you chose to cover. Obviously their role is to question your report and to add sources and confirmations, but they don't "spin it" their way. In the rarest occasion when a topic may cause major discussions in the newsroom and the masthead decides not to go forward with certain aspects, it usually makes the news a short time after precisely because it is not supposed to happen. This is not the case here: not questionning wether Mr. Hedges speech was right or wrong, it clearly went too far: there is a clear line between journalism and advocacy, and every professional journalist understands that. He knew the risks and decided to do what was right for him, but don't go blame the NYT for handling it the way they did.

There is no George Soros mega-conspiracy, nor is there declining quality among the big media. They actually spend a lot of did discussing the new frontiers between online private sphere and journalism activity (not the case here). The video is a classic case of "emerging" media trying to prove its value by artificially blaming a legacy newspaper - I don't think they do, there is clearly a new space they can fill although attacking the classic media is probably not the best way to do it. They go on mentionning Snowden now and putting the NYT in the category of media covering the truth and preventing you to get to the truth. As anyone actually reading the paper knows, not only did they report in length about it, they also have people disagreeing on how to proceed with journalists-activits, as some call them.

Disagreement is supposed to happen in a newsroom. In that regard, the NYT stands among the newspapers still having a healthy discussion.

You can get mad at the NYT for not taking a stance and providing both sides of a story even when it makes no sense. But please don't support the fringe trying to frame them and the other quality media as a tool.
posted by Vanifriss at 7:50 AM on September 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older The tophat is quite dashing   |   Take five, and rest your dogs here. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments