With over 30 years of first-hand experience covering conflicts in the region, Robert Fisk is one of the most experienced foreign correspondent in the Middle East. He avoids using the word terrorism, because he thinks it “is the key to justifying US foreign policy.”
Advertisement
7 Comments
With respect, I think you need to take into consideration not only that Fisk writes about Middle Eastern issues in a manner popular with Arabs, but also that he represents the far-left of European intelligentia.
Are you aware of the new verb, “to Fisk?” It means to take apart an article, line by line, to demonstrate how not-quite-true it is.
It’s a real shame that he gets so much ink in the Arab media, just for telling readers what they want to hear.
He doesn’t tell Arab readers what they want to hear. He’s written enough articles criticising Arabs to prove that he’s not just pro-Arab but rather writes what he believes is true.
I’m not saying he’s “pro-Arab”. I am saying he’s “anti-US”.
He’s anti-US why? Because he’s one of the few Western journalists who don’t praise Bush and his goons?
jo: I suggest you take a look at what Fisk has been writing over the past 20 years. There’s simply not a US policy that he’s like, no matter who was president.
Fisk would condemn Al-Qaeda only if the US praised it.
I’m an avid reader of Fisk and I don’t see what you’re on about. Are you seriously saying that when Fisk sits down to write an article his main objective is to criticise the US, period? If he was so anti-US then why on earth would he be married to an American?
No, I’m suggesting that Fisk doesn’t have to think about it, any more than he has to think about breathing. It’s so imbued in his mental picture of the world that it just comes out, naturally.
I draw no particular meaning from the fact that his wife’s American. As they say, “politics makes for strange bedfellow”.