First, the difference between Twitter and the MSM. It became fairly clear, fairly quickly that Twitter alone, without even the rest of the web, was a better news source than the MSM. NBC's Brian Williams was doing ok, but kept weirdly comparing it to V-J Day. Also, while he did ask what this means for terrorism, he couldn't really suggest that, you know, our actions lead to more retaliation against us. CNN didn't have its act together, with lots of people speculating that John King was actually drunk. Given the suddenness of the announcement, I don't blame John King for having been out having fun - I think the fact that he still had to go on air drunk says more about the MSM's reliance on individual personalities than it says about him. They could have found someone else, if people didn't assume they'd see John King. Had I been done with finals, and thus drunk rather than on Twitter last night, other people would have made similar observations and death certificate jokes (though they got to them after me, and still get more credit, not that I'm bitter). That's the difference between horizontal journalism that connects many people, like Twitter, and our old one-way model. Maybe it's another angle on Jay Rosen's thesis that journalism gets better the more people that do it. Anyway, as a general matter, there were a greater variety of opinions, and more interesting discussion on Twitter than there could have been on the MSM, with 3-4 anchors/correspondents per channel.
Then there was the general reaction. Rachel Maddow was, for a time, tweeting about the crowd outside chanting "USA! USA!" and screaming like we just won the World Cup. The crowds made me (and many others) quite uncomfortable. In the end, I understand the reaction, but I can't bring myself to be elated that someone got two bullets in the head, even if it was Osama bin Laden. I'm not saying that it wasn't justified, but you also won't see my cheering in the street. Maybe it's my Jewish upbringing, as it reminds me of Passover: In the seder, during the second cup of wine we spill a little wine out while reciting the names of each of the ten plagues, because our joy cannot be full when so many, including our enslavers, had to die for our freedom. Also, I think it speaks to America's somewhat warped sense of justice and our bloodlust - this reaction is the same reason we still have the death penalty in this country. We think killing the guy is justice, and that's what matters, but it really doesn't change everything that he's wrought.
That brings me to my last few points, ones I made last night, but Glenn Greenwald has since said better, so I'll quote him, mostly. As a general matter, I cannot see how this changes anything for the better, since this hasn't been about Osama since at least 2003. I suppose I could see it an attempt to harness the joy for support for ending the wars, but that just seems quite unlikely. More likely, if anything, is the reaction due to what NBC was saying all night - this is a "shot in the arm" for our troops. It's probably just going to embolden us and remind us how righteous our military and wars are. Greenwald:
[B]eyond the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice, there are two points worth considering. The first is the question of what, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden's head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we've started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the alter of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?Sadly, on a day we've all been waiting for to some degree or another, I fear no good will come of this.
Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden -- and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders -- can easily rejuvenate that war love. One can already detect the stench of that in how Pakistan is being talked about: did they harbor bin Laden as it seems and, if so, what price should they pay? We're feeling good and strong about ourselves again -- and righteous -- and that's often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.
