My Least Favorite Journalist

Though he's won three pulitzer prizes, Thomas Friedman has to be one of my least favorite journalists.

I say this not just because he once said this about the American intervention is Kosovo:

""Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." (New York Times 1999)

Or because he said this regarding the U.S. war in Iraq:

"What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. ..We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth..." (Charlie Rose Show 2007)

Or even because he once said this: ".. sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 across the side of the head to get that message." (NPR's Talk of the Nation, 2003)

Thomas Friedman is my least favorite journalist simply because he's a really bad journalist.

The New York Times doesn't think so at all though; and in fact, has given him his very own op-ed column. Friedman has been reporting for them since the 1990s so this isn't terribly surprising or anything. Except for the fact that they totally seem to be ignoring the fact that he is not only cad, but also a terrible writer.

Recently, to my great consternation (and amusement), Friedman has been covering the protests in Russia. These protests have been wildly fascinating to watch unfold over the last couple of months -- hundreds of thousands of people have been showing up in public squares to protest the corruption of the December legislative elections and to demand a fair election in the upcoming Presidential elections in March. Some have gone so far as to demand Putin's resignation. For Russophiles, political junkies, human rights watchers, and yes, journalists -- there's a lot of information to feast upon and analyze.

Friedman's most recent and brilliant article concerning these events is called "Russia -- Sort of, but Not Really". And let me tell you -- it only goes down hill from there. His rich analysis of Russia's present state unfolds thusly (emphasis my own):

"But what will Putin do next? Will he really fulfill his promise to let new parties emerge or just wait out his opposition, which is divided and still lacks a real national leader? Putin’s Russia is at a crossroads. It has become a “sort-of-but-not-really-country.” Russia today is sort of a democracy, but not really. It’s sort of a free market, but not really. It’s sort of got the rule of law to protect businesses, but not really. It’s sort of a European country, but not really. It has sort of a free press, but not really. Its cold war with America is sort of over, but not really. It’s sort of trying to become something more than a petro-state, but not really."

Bu Friedman has done his due diligence as a journalist, covering these events from within Moscow. What sort of valuable information does he manage to wrangle from the protestors or from inside the Kremlin walls to add to his generous analysis?

"Russia has that potential. It is poised to go somewhere. But will Putin lead? The Times’s Moscow bureau chief, Ellen Barry, and I had a talk Thursday at the Russian White House with Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov. I left uncertain."

Friedman concludes elegantly: "Real reform will require a huge re-set on Putin’s part. Could it happen? Does he get it? On the evidence available now, I’d say: sort of, but not really."

Bravo, Friedman. And shame on you, New York Times.

One may argue that I'm participating in cold-hard bias right now. That I'm only presenting you with one set of facts. I'm not telling you about his prize-winning coverage of the war in Lebanon in 83 or highly regarded commentary on the world-wide threat of terrorism in 2002. What I do know though, is that there are better journalists equipped to cover Russia and the NYTimes should let them do it, like DeLand's own Michael Schwirtz who is their chief Moscow correspondent.

Maybe I'm being a snobby Russian Studies major, but I'd bet some of you would roll your eyes at his most recent op-ed piece, "We Need a Second Party" where Friedman manages to serve up some pretty snooze-worthy analysis of the state of the GOP. If you get a chance to read some of Friedman's work, let me know what you think.