CJR’s Errant Dart
There is inescapable irony in the criticism leveled at Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Tom Ricks in the current issue of Columbia Journalism Review. (“Too Close for Comfort?”)
At a time when serious fact-based reporting is being supplanted by superficial tabloid sensationalism, the venerable CJR has focused its critical eye on some of the most acclaimed reporting and analysis of the Iraq war, and found it wanting.
And the primary charge against Tom Ricks seems to be that he’s done too much research, talked to too many people, knows too much history, and is unafraid to say what he really thinks.
Now I “competed” against Tom Ricks for the past 16 years, and I didn’t always agree with his conclusions.
But that said, I find the criticism that Ricks may be “too close” to his sources to provide an independent dispassionate analysis, to be the kind of facile charge that is easy to make, and hard to shake.
If you don’t like what a reporter is saying, or if the story does not affirm your previously held belief, it’s all too easy to dismiss it with the assertion that the reporter has lost his independence. In short, it’s a cheap shot.
Challenge me on my facts, question my conclusions, hold me accountable for reporting that falls short, but don’t suggest just because I have spent time talking to people who know more about something than I do, I’ve been snowed; that somehow, despite my years of experience, I have lost my critical faculties, the very skepticism that is the bedrock of any good reporter.
Believe me, Ricks has lost none of his skepticism or independence over the years. Just the opposite. The CJR’s problem seems to be that after some very thorough research and firsthand reporting, Ricks has simply come to some conclusions the article’s author doesn’t agree with.
The magazine’s cover story was written by Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at The American Prospect and the author of Monstering: Inside America’s Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War.
Among the things that bother McKelvey is that Ricks appears to have softened his harsh judgments of some U.S. commanders in his recent book The Gamble compared to his first Iraq war book Fiasco. In particular, Gen. Ray Odierno. What she doesn’t seem to recognize is that Gen. Odierno changed from the first book to the second. He learned from his mistakes, and Ricks’ reporting captures that.
Tom Ricks has two Pulitzer prizes, a pair of acclaimed books that are required reading for military officers, and his own blog. He certainly doesn’t need me to defend him. And I fully realize many people will see this as “circling the wagons” in defense of a Washington celebrity journalist.
So let me be clear that I am not objecting to a critical review of Ricks’ reporting. I firmly believe there needs to be more accountability in journalism, and no reporter, no matter how celebrated, gets a free ride.
But let’s stick to challenging the accuracy of his facts or the rigor of his arguments, and put to the rest the canard that Ricks is suffering from some infatuation with the generals he’s covering. It’s hardly the case.
Tags: Tom Ricks Iraq CJR
