Today in Racism

Katherine Jean-Lopez explains that National Review Online publishes Thomas Smith's bogus reporting because Arabs are liars:

That’s why I wrote, in my first editor’s note on the subject, that we “should have provided readers with more context and caveats” – the context that Smith was operating in an uncertain environment where he couldn’t always be sure of what he was witnessing, and the caveats that he filled in the gaps by talking to sources within the Cedar Revolution movement and the Lebanese national-security apparatus, whose claims obviously should have been been treated with the same degree of skepticism as those of anyone with an agenda to advance.

As one of our sources put it: “The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well among pro-American Lebanese Christians as much as it is with the likes of Hamas.” While Smith vouches for his sources, we cannot independently verify what they told him. That’s why we’re revisiting the posts in question and warning readers to take them with a grain of salt.

Well, what can you say about that?

Consider the "caveats" that she's saying the piece should have contained. Something like "this is all unverified information coming from a source I regard as unreliable" would be a mighty odd caveat to add to a story. If the information is unverifiable and the source is afflicted by the "Arab tendency to lie" (European-descended people are well-known for never lying) then why are you printing it? And how is it that all these other Lebanon-based reporters are capable of operating in an environment filled with lying Arabs without falling for stories about made-up Hezbollah invasions?

Photo courtesy of PING News

Comments

Actually, I think the fairest caveat would be to close with the comment "However, this was written by someone who works for NRO, and everyone knows that NRO is filled with pathological liars."

Given the convenience of HTML, this could be automatically be added to everything appearing in NRO.

Posted by RKU | December 3, 2007 10:27 AM

Still, the fact that questions remained about arms in the areas inspected by Smith represented the very last chance.

Clearly it is time for National Review to lead a unilateral invasion and occupation of these Hizbullah-penetrated areas, before the hundreds of weapons (which were reported by sources Smith found eminently qualified) are shipped to Syria or buried under the desert sands.

Posted by El Cid | December 3, 2007 10:30 AM

It is true that Arabs tell outrageous lies to advance their own self-interest to stupid Western reporters who will faithfully reprint them. This proves that Arabs aren't stupid and can manipulate morons.

Why would NRO have someone writing a blog about Lebanon who doesn't speak Arabic and has zero background in the Arab world? Could there really be nobody with any knowledge of the Arab world willing to put aside their intelligence and write for them?

Posted by skyler | December 3, 2007 10:30 AM

"Clearly it is time for National Review to lead a unilateral invasion and occupation of these Hizbullah-penetrated areas..."

Could be start a donation drive? I would personally buy Lopez one of those defective body armor jackets provided for our troops by the "no-bid contract" Bushies.

Posted by Stoic | December 3, 2007 10:37 AM

I think Lopez is subtly making the excellent point that Beauchamp must be an Arab. For those who couldn't tell from the name.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 10:43 AM

Woah, wait a second here, did KLO just call Rove an Arab?

Posted by Rob | December 3, 2007 10:45 AM

What I don't get is why its such a big deal for them to be wrong about events in Lebanon and yet the "economics" they put out is OK. The events in Lebanon don't affect us here in the US in the least, yet when they peddle economic facts that are wrong, misleading, or both, it helps sell policies that are very harmful.

Posted by cactus | December 3, 2007 10:45 AM

I enjoyed the part about how Smith had trouble counting the heavily-armed Hezbollah gunmen because he observed them from a moving car on the highway.

Shoeleather journalism!

Posted by southpaw | December 3, 2007 10:47 AM

Whoops... looks like you just had a post stating that further down the page. Apologies for repeating your point. (I made the same point myself at Angry Bear.)

Posted by cactus | December 3, 2007 10:48 AM

Great pickup Matt. This is the latest in a broad effort to brand Muslims and Arabs as a race, and treat them according the standards of racial policing.

Though Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians do not constitute a race in any classical sense, they have been reified as one in the political discourse. The war on terror has succeeded in assigning attributes and threats to individuals by virtue not simply of their religion, but also by a vague constellation of identities including culture, ethnicity, and geography. This vague and irrational categorization is the mark of racist thought.

That the neoconservatives and the Bush administration treated the Muslims as a racial enemy, and relied on racial psychology in their politics, is clear from the war in Iraq. It did not matter that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. The Iraqis were Muslim/Arab, so, in the logic of racial attribution, they were obviously sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the administration's shocking blindness to the most important social-political fact of the occupation—the Sunni and Shiite division in Iraq—is more comprehensible in light of Bush and the neocon’s racially informed belief that there were no meaningful distinctions between Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, and Persians, except for whether they were “with us or against us.” As a consequence, we find ourselves in a middle eastern imbroglio, committed now to an imperial government over a terrority in which Muslims and Arabs will indeed be united by at least one characteristic--a justifiable disdain for American belligerence and arrogance. Racism has in this made the war on terror not only misguided, but wildly unsuccesful and counterproductive...

Read on at: http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2007/11/viscious-circle-of-racism-and-war-on.html

Posted by Blake Emerson | December 3, 2007 10:49 AM

"And how is it that all these other Lebanon-based reporters are capable of operating in an environment filled with lying Arabs without falling for stories about made-up Hezbollah invasions?"

They haven't gone native?

Posted by aleks | December 3, 2007 11:01 AM

Aleks makes an excellent point: the evidence suggests that Thomas Smith might be a seekrit Arab. No examination by NRO should be treated as sufficient until the matter of Smith's seekrit Arabness is addressed. Moreover, we should all be a little more suspicious of NRO's Middle East reporting until such time as it can confirm that it can distinguish between seekrit Arabs and everyone else.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 11:10 AM

I do not know Lopez's ethnic background, but with a name like Lopez, she sounds like a "minority." And we all know that it is impossible for conservative minorities to be racist. Just like Malkin. She is one of the brown people that she hates -- that's not racism. She just knows her own kind...or something.

Posted by jim | December 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Hmmmm... Have any of you actually ever been to an Arab country? I think there is more cultural misunderstanding at work here than actual racism. When Westeners speak among themselves, an observer without knowledge of Western culture and manners might be inclined to believe we are lying all the time, in the sense that we "lie" to be polite, or say things sarcastically or ironically. We are, of course, not actually lying in most of these instances unless our intent is to mislead. My impression with Arab culture (admittedly not very deep, but certainly not nonexistent) is that they have different rules for when to "lie" (without the intent of actually misleading). Often it might be considered polite to tell your guest or friend or whatever what they want to hear - but not expecting them to actually believe it.

Similarly, the South Africans (black and white) often say they will do something "now" or even "now-now" - yet they sure like to take their sweet time. Still, when they say that they don't intend to deceive you, so you can't really say they are liars. When this understanding is lacking though, misunderstandings occur.

Is it racism to point out such cultural differences? I would hope not. How boring the world would be if we were all exactly the same.

Posted by Norway | December 3, 2007 11:11 AM

clearly, K-Lo has been taking lessons from Marty Peretz, which begs the question of which journal is edited by the beefier racist, TNR or NRO ?

a tough decision, but the quantity and quality of the racism clearly gives the "Worst Racist" to the belching bard of Cambridge.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | December 3, 2007 11:17 AM

Is it racism to point out such cultural differences?

Dunno. That's not at issue. At issue is "The Arab tendency to lie," which is not the same charge as a misunderstanding of cultural norms.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 11:17 AM

Katherine Jean-Lopez is the reason women should be barefoot, pregnant, and silent.

or at least silent.

Posted by Kris Math-Yous | December 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Since none of the people at NRO happen to speak Arabic or Persian, how in the heck can they do any decent reporting at all on Arab countries?

This reminds me of the would-be reporters who didn't speak a word of Japanese, would come over to Tokyo, talk to a few people at the ACCJ, and then write these grandiose articles about "the future of the Japanese economy". We gaijin who actually spoke Japanese fluently and worked in places like the Japanese government or Japanese corporations would laugh ourselves silly at what would get churned out.

Posted by grumpy realist | December 3, 2007 11:34 AM

The Latino tendency to avoid responsibility appears to be alive and well, at least among Latinos named Kathryn Jean. {irony}

Posted by Kyle | December 3, 2007 12:05 PM

Have you just discovered that the NRO boys are racists?

Perhaps you did not read National Review's cover story on the Negro Problem.

Posted by gregor | December 3, 2007 12:22 PM

I think this only serves to buttress KLo's original point.

Posted by J. Goldberg | December 3, 2007 12:23 PM

Katherine Jean-Lopez is the reason women should be barefoot, pregnant, and silent.

or at least silent.

Posted by Kris Math-Yous | December 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Are we serious that we have to turn this into an attack on women?

Posted by Glynda | December 3, 2007 12:58 PM

Never mind!! I should read more carefully. So sorry!

Posted by Glynda | December 3, 2007 1:00 PM

"Posted by Kris Math-Yous | December 3, 2007 11:28 AM"

Don't know why, but I find it hugely annoying that people post under made-up names and toss around insults. Show some gonads.

I guess it's okay, as long as you're attacking Right, b/c anything goes and kids are croaking in Iraq.

Posted by Peter K. | December 3, 2007 1:23 PM

Welcome to ThinkProgress. Just kidding, MattY doesn't have any co-authors.

Let me suggest attempting to understand what she was probably refering to. For instance: answering-islam.org/Index/L/lying.html

Posted by TLB | December 3, 2007 2:26 PM

As an Arab-American, I would like to weigh in on this issue, but I am too hampered by my racial tendency to lie to have anything worthwhile to contribute.

However, I can't help wondering at the similarity between this and Michael Yon's "al-Q'aeda are cooking and eating babies in Iraq" story. When people called him on it, saying it not only seemed implausible but bore more than a small resemblance to the anti-Semitic blood libel, he equivocated like made, finally blaming it all on his (Arab, and thus racially handicapped by pathological lying) sources. Which again brings up Matt Y's point: if you know your sources are liars, why report what they say without verification?

Posted by Leonard Pierce | December 3, 2007 3:26 PM

“The Arab tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well..."

My God, that explains everything! George Bush and Dick Cheney are Arabs!

And that would explain why they've done more than any two people on earth to advance the radical jihadist agenda.

Posted by Alan in SF | December 3, 2007 4:45 PM

It's always beneficial to substitute Arabs for Jews in this sort of sentence and try to decide whether there would be a hew and cry.

"The Jewish tendency to lie and exaggerate about enemies is alive and well."

I think Abe Foxman would call for an execution if someone said that.

Posted by Freddie | December 3, 2007 5:45 PM

Finally, we have found the one unifying characteristic of Arab Christians and Muslims!

They are all pathological Arab liars!

I think this explains the whole Iraq mess, the Iran NIE, and basically everything else that is wrong with the world.

Posted by bob | December 3, 2007 7:52 PM

Peter K: "I find it hugely annoying that people post under made-up names and toss around insults. Show some gonads."

Which is why you see my full name, not initials, on my posts, oh ball-less wonder.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 3, 2007 9:32 PM