Rafe Colburn writes in defence of Robert Fisk. All I can say is: hear, hear!
I’m always disarmed by what a good writer Robert Fisk is. I’d go so far as to say that the best writer of any journalist I’ve ever read, at least among those who operate under the deadlines that he does. His erudition, ability to weave the fabric of history into his pieces, and descriptive powers amaze. For that reason alone, Fisk is impossible to dismiss.
Equally impressive to me, though, is the fact that Robert Fisk has been working the Middle East beat since before Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq. If Fisk is cynical about the prospects for peace in the Middle East and seems world weary, it’s because he’s earned it. He’s been showing up on the scenes of human tragedy for almost as long as I’ve been alive, and telling the story as he sees it. It shocks me to see people assume that Fisk is a liar when his reporting is limited almost exclusively to first hand accounts. If you read nothing but weblogs, you might be shocked to learn that Fisk is probably the UK’s best regarded foreign correspondent. Nearly all of the arguments against the facts he reports are based on the fact that the arguer is in disbelief.
One of the best things about the coverage of the Gulf War (Cont.) has been the dispatches from embedded journalists. Even though they operate under (reasonable) constraints, most of the important stories to emerge during the conflict have been reported by people on the front lines alongside US troops. That’s been a refreshing change considering that most newspapers tend to report on things that were said at press conferences or provided on a not for attribution basis by people looking to advance their agenda. Fisk is operating on his own in Baghdad during this war (and doesn’t seem to be sucking up to the Saddamites a la Peter Arnett), and that’s hardly a surprise. The guy seems to have no fear in going wherever the story is and telling what he sees.