Joe The Reporter?

real examples of bias that I saw. I agree that the media probably contributed to making him bigger than he would've been otherwise, and I certainly thought the privacy invasion was over the line. Look, I've nothing personal again the man, I just fail to see what makes him such an icon in righty circles, just because he tweaked Obama on one question. McCain stuck his neck out for the guy (admittedly to further his own failing campaign), and JTP basically throws him under his own bus, after the election. His comment about Obama and Israel is absurd.

The media made fools of themselves this past year in many ways, but the karma doesn't square.

Oh, and to Charlie Martin, whom I cannot reply to directly (register!!), I'm basing my views on what Joe has said, and what he has done.

Israel has toilets too. ;-)

Exactly right. His perspective on domestic issues has some relevance in terms of the 'man on the street' opinion. His perspective on the most complex geopolitical struggle of our time? Not so much.

Well, "anonymous," here's the thing. What questions exactly is he going to ask, what "real questions" that are going to help us understand what's going on any better than we already do? There's already plenty of thoughtful analysis and reporting done by a lot of people with a lot of knowledge about the present and the past over there. Some plumber asking somebody "so what was it like when the rockets were coming over from Gaza" isn't going to add to our understanding of the situation, or help us figure out what we need to do to begin to resolve the strife over there.

An actual bold move would be for PJM to hire or highlight blogs by real people who are ALREADY THERE, because they live over there. There are some fine blogs by folks who are right in the middle of it. Why does an organization of bloggers need to hire a "correspondent" to "assign" to cover the war?

My biggest problem with PJM has always been that they wanted to turn bloggers into a more MSM-like organization. This little publicity stunt merely continues to reveal their true nature.

I know my first comment was a bit snarky. It goes to my frustration with the blatant anti-intellectualism that I think has been contributing to loses by the GOP. This move is like the left pulling out some Hollywood type to speak on an issue. I tend to dismiss them too.

Just because there is no licenses or regulation on being a reporter, it does not mean that every Tom, Dick and Joe can be one. A good reporter knows the subject well enough to be able to ask the important and insightful questions. They also have to be able to describe the situation. It is not an easy thing to do well. After all, look at Geraldo Rivera. He is a bad reporter. I see nothing to indicate that Joe the Plumber can be a good reporter in the Middle East. This is simply amateur hour. Access Hollywood meets blogging. If Joe was dealing with people in the midwest on the economy, he could probably do fine. He is being sent into an environment that he has no reference to except ideology. That is Geraldo Rivera reporting.

Well, see what Pat says above. I am all for more objective reporting from the Middle East. Stories make their way to the internet like this one, but never get much traction with mainstream media. You need reporters and researchers flushing out the dots and a network of reputable bloggers and journalists pushing the deeper stories into public consciousness. I am not sure Joe can do this. It seems more a stunt. Maybe he can hop a ride with the IDF

Now if he wishes to go into Gaza with a video recorder and get those locals to testify that militants use children as shields or fire from UN schools, God Bless him. If he wants to go into the woods of Southern Lebanon to flush out those who fired missiles at Israel, bravo. I am not sure what he brings to the table, but no one here would ever suggest that media doesn't needs a far more objective and hard hitting approach to reporting the truth. If Joe ends up making a fool of himself, then he serves the interests of the other side.

I'm willing to hear your arguments. What exactly would a "real" person from America with no experience or network in the Middle East have to offer that isn't already being provided by the MSM? If I wanted to hear shallow questions asked by uninformed reporters with no follow up, all I have to do is turn on the news. So what would a plumber from America have to offer that's different, new or fresh?

I agree with Pat. If PJM wanted to offer a "real" "man on the street" perspective, they should have hired any number of Israelis who are already doing an awesome job of just that sort of blogging. Likewise, there are 200,000+ American ex-pats living in Israel. Any one of them would be the perfect go between for Americans interested in the average Israeli perspective.

--Fern

Paperback Traveler

Hi Theo,
Having the last chocolate truffle from Godiva.....not bad. Happy New Year....

I agree somewhat. The problem is that many think Joe some counterweight to Liberal media. What is really troubling about today’s journalists is media's softball questioning and vetting of stories. Joe made a name for asking Obama a tough question. Bravo. But that was a simple question. I am not sure you can base a career on it.

Here is an example of a pathetic interview: CNN interviews Carter

1. Carter begins by saying that Hamas just wanted more water, power and supplies. A good response by Joe would be;

a. Wasn't it true that while you were in a meeting with Hamas in Syria that Obama distanced himself from, Hamas blew up their own power lines in an effort to agitate local unrest while telling you they would not renounce their desire to destroy Israel?
b. The sanctions were a result of Hamas attacks, charter and public desire to both defeat Fatah and Israel? The world joined that sanction response. Are you against sanctions? So why lift sanctions when Hamas is a terrorist group the Palestinians elected? Or are you suggesting elections make terrorism legit?

2. Carter says that Israel just needed to target the tunnels to stop missiles. He repeated the false claim that Israel hit mosques and schools as though weapons and mortars weren't there. Israel engaged in overkill.

a. There are many ways to get missiles in and Hamas was manufacturering missiles in Gaza. What about the thousands of missiles Hamas already has? And did they even fire them at Israel from Lebanon, or are you suggesting Hizb’Allah fired them despite the UN monitors just miles away? Would you support Israeli action if Hamas merely went back to using women and children as bombers?
b. Secondary explosions confirm weapons in mosques and schools. Two terrorist leaders were killed firing mortar at UN school. Should such sites be exempt from strikes? Did the UN even act as safe haven for militants?

3. So Carter calls for the very UN solution that was imposed on Hizb'Allah. UN monitors can't triangulate a missile being fired from 4 miles away. They did not disarm Hizb'Allah nor stop the importation of thousands of more advanced missiles. Are you really suggesting Israel make this mistake again? Aren’t you just asking for Israel to be very stupid to satisfy false promises of peace, until the next round of violence comes?

I would certainly ask Carter why he hasn't cried out against children being used by Hamas as human shields. He should cry out against the Hamas Charter. He should reveal that Hamas is even using the chaos to kill Fatah members and leave them on garbage piles for their terrorized families. How the Grand Mufti would be mad. The Grand Mufti who advised Hitler and that beget Arafat. His movement now staggers under the blows from a new fascism. How ironic. He should point out the relationship between Hamas and Iran and acknowledge that even ARABS want to see Hamas bloodied. Would Joe ask such questions? Does he have the stature (not elitism) to confront people like Carter?

In any case, I am not sure Joe can land top leaders for interviews. He would have to display smart questioning and a mastering of the facts. I am hardly convinced he has shown that. Certainly that is not the case for foreign affairs.

Memritv is doing their best to compile "facts"/ Perhaps Joe could simply air their information. If CNN did that, Americans would have a much better understanding of Hamas, Iran, Hizb'Allah and much of the Muslim media output....

I liked Joe during the election. He had something to add, and the area in which he became well-known was an area in which he had some expertise... because of his knowledge. He knows about the economy and some of the ramifications of tax policy and redistribution of wealth because he's an American worker. If some guy from Israel came over here and tried to point out the error of President-elect Obama's wealth redistribution ideas, it would be meaningless, because that outsider wouldn't actually know about life as an American worker.

Joe the Plumber was important in the regular election because there, he DID know what he was talking about and he DID have some expertise. Transplant him to Israel, where he knows nothing at all, and he adds nothing to the equation.

Moreover, Joe's comments during the election were relevant because he would be personally affected by those policy proposals he was criticizing. He's got skin in that game. Sending him to Israel converts him from an interested party with insight because he'll be directly affected by the policies at issue to just another reporter, but with fewer writing skills, less training, and much less knowledge of the relevant issues over there.

I'm not against Joe. I'm against Pajamas Media using Joe for a stupid publicity stunt, pretending like he's got something to say about an area he knows nothing about.