Blogcritics: Comments on Blogs: Yeay, Sneer Quotes: Boo

Comment by Brian Flemming

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:52:41 EDT

Eric, The West eased into democracy over hundreds of years and saw itself as the inheritor of the Greek tradition.
Have you just given the U.S. permission to occupy Iraq for "hundreds of years"? Jacobs' point is that there has been a disproportionate usage of sneer quotes INSTEAD OF CONCRETE SOLUTIONS offered by many anti-war writers...
A bit of a stretch, Eric. That may be YOUR point, but I just re-read Jacobs' work, and while I don't doubt he'd agree with you, and maybe an imaginative person could "read" it into the "subtext," that is not the point of his writing. Excerpt:

Fisk, for those who have not made his acquaintance, is the famously anti-American correspondent for the Independent of London. The substance of his writing is easy enough to indicate: imagine someone taking simultaneous dictation from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf and Noam Chomsky. The tone--and tone is what makes Fisk Fisk--is perhaps a trifle more elusive of description, but viewers of "The Simpsons" will perhaps understand when I say that Fisk is the Krusty the Clown of journalism. Jacobs is obviously a fan of Fallacy #1 (abusive ad hominem), which is very popular when the preacher turns around and preaches to the choir (i.e., Daily Standard). More to the point, Jacobs is obviously setting up an attack on Fisk himself (and that he would have to pre-ridicule Fisk without any evidence is, oh, I would say a hint of how aware he is that directly presenting Fisk's work isn't going to do it). Is his critique based on Fisk's lack of CONCRETE SOLUTIONS? Kind of. SOLUTIONS isn't the right word, though. INTERPRETATIONS, however, is. Jacobs criticizes this kind of writing--"sneering"--for being lazy, for not using the word that should be used instead of the sneered-upon word. For example, "occupation." Which is hilarious--Jacobs actually suggests that the anti-war left would not like to see a discussion of the word "occupation" with regard to the, er, liberation of Iraq.

"Is it occupation? But if so, we would need to have a conversation about the purposes of occupation, some of which can be better than others. This is all too complicated; it's so much simpler to wheel out the trusty old inverted commas." Actually, it's simpler to robotically use the word "liberation" over and over and over and steadfastly AVOID any discussion of the word "occupation." A word, which, by the way, Fisk has used. More Jacobs:

But it is surely a curious understanding of reporting that allows the journalist merely, and just typographically, to cast doubt on the claims of others, without offering any reasons for that doubt or any alternatives to those claims. Huh? Has Jacobs read Fisk? He almost talks about nothing BUT alternative explanations/reasons for this war. His entire body of work stands in defiance of this ridiculous statement. "Without offering reasons for that doubt"? Do you take this seriously? Jacobs' premise that the use of "sneer" quotes indicates a lack of substance in the anti-war arguments can't stand up even to minimal scrutiny. In fact, all the premise does is give him an excuse to quote tiny bits of Fisk and others so as to avoid dealing with the substance that IS there, which he seems to fear. His argument against Fisk--"this guy's stuff is so ridiculous I don't even need to engage it, I'll just have some fun pointing out how stupid his style is"--is empty when anyone uses it, pro-war or anti-war. And, yes, anti-war people do it, too, often to avoid the hard questions the other side's arguments pose. It's still a dodge, no matter who does it. And worthless abusive ad hominems tend to accompany it. Presenting "sneer" quotes as an example of the emptiness of the other side's arguments barely qualifies to be called "hilariously unsound reasoning."

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:15:11 EDT

Jacobs' point is that there has been a disproportionate usage of sneer quotes INSTEAD OF CONCRETE SOLUTIONS offered by many anti-war writers, who seem to want to deny ANY positive ramification of the war via this manner of writing. He didn't say no one else uses sneer quotes. I think he is correct in this regard. Re self-rule: when people have had an unbroken record of autocratic rule, you can't just toss them in the water and expect them to swim. The West eased into democracy over hundreds of years and saw itself as the inheritor of the Greek tradition. Any people are capable of democratic self-rule if they are eased into it with a program that keeps a keen eye out for the almost universal potholes along the way: that is our responsibility now and I call it liberation sans punctuation.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:00:36 EDT

Eric, Defending Fisk by allowing that 2003 is somehow not a "liberation" in any remotely meaningful use of the word is preposterous.
I agree. Who said this? Use of ironic quotes (a technique, I would point out, that is used by writers everywhere on the political spectrum--an obvious fact that renders Jacobs' criticism worthy of ridicule; what serious person would make the implicit claim he does?) doesn't necessarily mean the writer claims that the word in quotes is totally inappropriate. For example, "collateral damage." Putting that word in quotes doesn't mean the writer disagrees that the damage in question is both "collateral" and "damage." The use of ironic quotes is a critique of euphemism. Or in the case of "liberation," it is a critique of the incomplete nature of that phrase. To offer just one critique: If these Iraqis weren't sitting on top of our oil, no serious person disputes that we wouldn't be "liberating" them, which means "liberation" is a tad incomplete as a description of what we're doing. If, instead of "liberation," we said we are "securing access to oil," that would similarly not be "untrue." But I imagine you would consider it incomplete. And conveniently so. And re 1917, ultimately the British were "liberators" - it isn't their fault the Arabs couldn't handle self-government for camel shit.
Do you think they are capable of it now? If so, what has changed? If not, why do you support the war?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:22:38 EDT

Brian, your research and examples of pro-war sneer quotes is perfectly appropriate balance and criticism of the critique. Defending Fisk by allowing that 2003 is somehow not a "liberation" in any remotely meaningful use of the word is preposterous. Is a single Iraqi who is not a Baathist or dead NOT going to be better off in the new Iraq? And re 1917, ultimately the British were "liberators" - it isn't their fault the Arabs couldn't handle self-government for camel shit.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:41:30 EDT

Hmm...it seems Jacobs did extensive "research" into the use of "sneer" quotes by Fisk, and then does some research on the writing of "opponents of the war" and finds that the use of sneer quotes is "epidemic." But wouldn't it be "fair" to look at the writing of pro-warriors, too? Wouldn't that be "balanced." In fact, doesn't it seem "obvious" that a writer would need to do this before drawing a "conclusion" about the anti-war camp? I "wonder" why Jacobs didn't do that. Or maybe he did. In that case, why does he "neglect" to tell us the results of that research? It took me twenty seconds to find Andrew Sullivan using a sneer quote on the front page of his site:

"news analysis"

Another minute for the latest Bill O'Reilly column:

"teachers"

One more minute: today's first listed commentary in Washington Times by Peter Collins:

"Minders"

"innocent Iraqi farmers."

But I'm "sure" the use of "sneer" quotes is "strictly" a habit of the anti-war left. It's a "reasonable" conclusion to draw, and not at all a "red herring" being used by writers who are "desperate" to point the finger at anyone who might "point out" that the conquest of Baghdad has been called a "liberation" before:

"People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." Far better to "notice" that the technique of "sneer" quotes renders Fisk's argument not worth "considering." After all, how could the "liberation" of Baghdad in 2003 be anything like the "liberation" of Baghdad in 1917? That's just "silly."