Newsweek pundit's lame defense of her comment that only foreigners can be terrorists

[angelicwoman]

Kathy Jones of Newsweek recently said, in an email addressed to her co-workers:

Here is my handy guide:
Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist

Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists

All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

When called out on it by progressive bloggers, Kathy replied on Thursday (yesterday) with "An Open Letter to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald" in which she now claimed that she was only talking about how the term "terrorist" is described in the media.

Jones: "I offered in the post "my handy guide" for how these groups and individuals are described in the media and in online reference materials. The guide is not my "rule of thumb," as you (mis)quoted me as saying in your post on Salon. I did not invent these labels, and they are not my "rules."

If it were up to me, after all I have seen, we all would be a lot more cautious about attaching these emotion-laden, prejudicial, and in a way, legitimizing terms to these activities. First, however, we have to acknowledge that the terms exist, and that they are problematic—again, the point of the piece and my e-mail contribution to it."

I see obvious problems with Jones' spin. Namely,

1) The title of the column where her email was posted is, "Should Joseph Stack Be Called a Terrorist?" Jones had no business telling us how the media has been handling the case, because the main point was to find out whether journalists should do it.

2) She said that "My handy guide," was that Americans terrorists are not terrorists. She did not say "their" handy guide, which would have made sense if she had been talking about the media in general as she now claims.

Feel free to put in your two cents in the comments section of her "open letter."

[Enrique]

1. I believe her

looks like she forgot the /sarcasm tag.

[Truth2Tell]

3. Agree. I got the sarcasm when I read it.

Greenwald got this one wrong.

This happens on DU constantly.

[lame54]

6. isn't sarcasm supposed to be funny?...

because there was no humor there

[Truth2Tell]

9. Not always.

I could tell this person was stating not what she herself believed, but simply parroting the way the media currently defines things. She wasn't advocating for these definitions, simply observing that this is what they use. It was tongue-in-cheek. Like much of the commentary on our political/media system it can be both amusing and very sad.


The occupation of Afghanistan is meant to spread freedom to the savages there.

That was sarcasm, but not really funny.

[OHdem10]

2. Historically we have called Americans Terrorist example

Militants in Weather Underground in 60s were called terrorists
when they were "bombing".

Some called McVeigh's bombing in Okla Cty terrorism

[11cents]

4. "Lame defense?"

Only if your default position is to always agree with Glenn Greenwald. Her "lame defense" is perfectly plausible. Greenwald was wrong.

[angelicwoman]

7. Or...you only think she has a point if you hate Greenwald with passion

Greenwald was not the only one to criticize her opinion that Americans can't be terrorists.

The Atlantic's Te-nehisi Coates reached Greenwald's conclusion on his own. Most in the comments of Jones' lame excuse do not believe Jones..
http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/02/the-meaning-of-newsweeks-terrorism-debate/36518/

Your blanket statement that I agree with "everything" Greenwald says is a sign that you intensely hate him.

[gratuitous]

8. Did the anti-Greenwald gang run out of gas

Or is Kathy Jones just not worth defending?

[Truth2Tell]

10. I love Greenwald. I agree with him more than almost

any other pundit I can think of. And if someone suggested that Americans couldn't be terrorists, I'd take strong issue with that.

Fortunately the person you quote in the OP didn't suggest that. Instead, what she did was mock the media for constantly suggesting it.

The fact that both you and Greenwald misunderstood her speaks more to your inability to grasp irony and sarcasm than it does to any substantive issue.

[angelicwoman]

11. I believe you see irony where there isn't any

And most of the people commenting on Kathy Jones' lame excuse saw no irony either.

It's possible to have an impaired sense of irony by seeing it where it isn't present. I believe your sense of humor is flawed.

By the way, you also ignored (on purpose?) that Ta-Nehisi Coates did not see irony either. So that's me, Greenwald, most in Jones' comments section and Coates who saw no irony in the email. You understimated the weirdness of Kathy's pseudo-sarcastic double standard.

[Truth2Tell]

12. I went back and re-read the emails.

I notice Jones asks the question of weather the term terrorist "successfully stuck" to the Unibomber or McVeigh. So she was in fact thinking just as you describe...

I admit I got this wrong.

I think my mind must have a hard time believing that people actually think this way, so I immediately jump to the unconscious assumption they must be joking. Her email lampoons itself. It could easily be sarcasm. But I guess it's not. I will face the fact that the idiocy is real.

[gratuitous]

5. Usin' words is HARD!

You can't expect a professional journalist working for Newsweek to understand how to use words or phrase her prose so that the meaning is clear. Anyone can get "my" and "their" all confuzzled. Leave poor Kathy Jones alone! When she says "my" she means it belongs to someone else; i.e., "my" responsibility for "my" words. Exception: "my" paycheck.