> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>> In essence, the obituary summarizes Mr. Said's work and political
>> positions, including the fact that he was considered controversial by
>> Israeli nationalists. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see
>> what is so vile about that piece.
>
> Three paragraphs on the stone-throwing, another three on the "concocted"
> autobiography. the idiotic "even-handedness" of these two grafs:
>
>> Among the criticisms leveled against Dr. Said by Jews and others was his
>> failure to condemn specific terrorist acts by Palestinian groups,
>> including some groups that served alongside him on the Palestine
>> National Council. One such person, for example, was Abu Abbas, a member
>> of the P.L.O. executive committee who is believed responsible for the
>> hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of an
>> American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, who was in a wheelchair. In his
>> interview with New York, Dr. Said called Mr. Abbas "a degenerate," but
>> he then argued that important Israeli leaders, like former prime
>> ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, had been terrorists
>> responsible for killing women and children.
Revolting. First they said Said didn't condemn "individual terrorist acts." Not that the _Times_ asks that of anyone else, of course. The underlying assumption here, of course, is that if Said din't condemn each and every such event, this failure is indicative of arbitrary morals or sinister motives. Then, the Times lamely admits that Said _had_ denounced terrorists.
But the ugliness isn't solely with the _Times_. Look at it this way. Let's say you were asked to write an obituary about a controversial academic, and you had to make it comprehensive, factually accurate, and somewhat objective. This means you're bound to mention the controversies that the academic was involved with. And unless one is ready to wade into each and every debate, and resolve it entirely, one winds up _having_ to say "Prof. X was criticized for this, that, or the other." Maybe you'll add something like "Prof. X denied this," or "Prof. X did something that rebutted his critics," or somesuch.
For example, with Chomsky, it's a fair bet that a comprehensive obituary would mention the Faurisson affair, or those accusations of sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. The writer may mention these, and then conclude that Chomsky had been smeared by people over these events. But they're going to get _mentioned_, because they got people's attention for a while.
We know the Times tends to weigh more in favor of Israel than otherwise, so that's probably a factor here. But I suspect that much of its obituary for Edward Said would be the same regardless of this. The fault lies with the people who kept attacking Said, even with the most ephemeral and baseless of complaints. The sad fact is this; Sling enough mud, and the mudslinging itself'll go into the history books as well.