I understand the reluctance to speak ill of the dead. I enjoy and respect Michael Barone's writing. However, Mr. Barone's column on David Halberstam is very odd indeed.
I have previously noted that, in his book Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar characterizes Halberstam as having done "more harm to the interests of the United States than any other journalist in American history." Barone mentions the book and, by way of a sort of praeteritio, Moyar's negative view of Halberstam ("([Halberstam's] coverage [of Vietnam] has been attacked recently by historian Mark Moyar in Triumph Forsaken, a subject I'll leave for another day.)").
But how can you come to grips with Halberstam -- and Vietnam -- and the media's hyperventilating coverage of Iraq today -- without confronting the devastating case Mark Moyars makes?
I have previously noted that, in his book Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar characterizes Halberstam as having done "more harm to the interests of the United States than any other journalist in American history." Barone mentions the book and, by way of a sort of praeteritio, Moyar's negative view of Halberstam ("([Halberstam's] coverage [of Vietnam] has been attacked recently by historian Mark Moyar in Triumph Forsaken, a subject I'll leave for another day.)").
But how can you come to grips with Halberstam -- and Vietnam -- and the media's hyperventilating coverage of Iraq today -- without confronting the devastating case Mark Moyars makes?
No comments:
Post a Comment