Gossip As History
Victor Davis Hanson unloads on three "histories" of the war in Iraq. He rightfully points out that the books use a patina of historical scholarship in order to confuse the reader into thinking their gossip is fact. What these books are is not what they are purported to be.
Three recent books about the "fiasco" in Iraq - "Cobra II" by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward and just plain "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks - have attracted a lot of attention, and sales. All three well-written exposes repeat the now well-known argument that our government's incompetence and arrogance have nearly ensured America's failure in birthing democracy in Iraq.
It's worth noting, though, that many of the authors' critical portraits rely on private conversations and anonymous sources. The most damning informants in these books are never identified and so can't be questioned.
The authors, as journalists, are well aware that after The New York Times' problems with Jayson Blair and other high-profile media scandals, the public no longer necessarily accepts what reporters write as gospel. That perhaps explains their and others' apparent adaptation of scholarly methods. Often these days journalists mimic the footnoting of historians - giving the impression that their reporting is history documented by verifiable primary and secondary sources also available to the reader.
Indeed, the verifiability of source material is what distinguishes history from hearsay -and what distinguishes the genre from journalism or first-person recollections. Since the time of the historian Thucydides - who not only recorded what speakers said, but, more controversially, made them voice what he thought they might or ought to have said - historians have developed protocols to ensure credibility. Whether or not historians use footnotes or citations, they at least now agree to draw on information that can be checked by others, who will determine how skillfully, honestly or completely such sources were employed.
Hanson points out that a number of people criticized in these books have come forward in public and have stated that the books get it wrong. None of the unnamed sources have come forward to defend their characterizations of the facts. Contrary views are not included in the books. One can read the comment sections of any blog and understand there is no consensus on world events. Why are the books uniformly negative? This is gossip dressed up as history. But it feeds into a group think that already has made up its collective mind. Go read the whole thing, it's worth it.
