I’ve read about the guy and I respect the fact he lived in the Middle East for 30 years (notably Lebanon) I respect the fact he was one of the first Western journalists in Afghanistan in 2001, and I respect the fact he has an almost encyclopeadic knowledge of the Middle East and the Islamic world in general.
However,
In light of this, I come to the conclusion that even the best people are not immune to the blight of bias. I read his articles in the Independent, and it comes across as a cynical anti-US at every opportunity, now I don’t deny he critizises the various tinpot dictatorships in the Middle East too, but one piece he’s gone as far as to say the Lebanese government was fairly put into place and no, not manipulated at all by Hezbollah.
He goes as far as to assume that the US didn’t like the overthrow of Ben Ali, so was silent, rather than maybe taking the view that if the US did infact say something or intervene, it would upstart maybe the revolution against the dictator, the same kinda thing happened in 1989 with then President Bush remaining silent on the issue in Eastern Europe.
The thing that I’m getting at is should I put him in the same boat as Chomsky (which I made a thread asking the very thing) Or should he be taken in a different angle.
I have met Robert Fisk and think he is one of the best journalists of our time. He writes as he sees things from Beirut in the heart of the region… not some desk in Washington.
I think he’s extremely well connected in the Muslim world, and his journalism deserves to be respected. His opinion-writing tends to be too U.S.-focused and predictable for my taste. For instance, had Sec. Clinton come out with a statement supporting freedom in Tunisia, it would not then surprise me if he criticized the U.S. for trying to steer the Tunisians in the direction that it wants rather than letting Arab democracy take its course.
Yes, and a lot of “Arab intellectuals” (depending on how one defines that term) also buy into ridiculous theories about Jews controlling the world, etc.
So, yes, I’d put him in the same boat as Chomsky: political writers that can blow your mind if you’ve never read anything like them, but that nobody over 23 and capable of thinking for themselves should take seriously.
At least it wasn’t a link to midget porn or something. I was going to point out that the guy seems to be a Truther, but looks like that’s already been taken care of. To me, that’s plenty enough to dismiss the guy right there, but MMV.
Does anybody else ever think the idea of adopting a hands-off policy with regard to other countries so they can “choose their own leaders/form of government” is many times bogus? The people of Iraq didn’t choose Saddam Hussein. Very often, if not always, people become saddled with dictatorial governments and leaders because those dictatorial leaders were more ruthless and deadly and powerful than their opponents. By and large, the will of the people in these countries has nothing to do with who winds up running them.
Fisk is a pretty good reporter, he writes well and knows the Middle East like the back of his hand. But his analyses come down to “The Americans did it” a bit too often, especially when he writes about Afghanistan or Iraq.
Why not read a few of his articles and decide for yourself? They’re pretty entertaining even if you find a lot to disagree with.
I was going to point out that the guy seems to be a Truther, but looks like that’s already been taken care of. To me, that’s plenty enough to dismiss the guy right there, but MMV.