“Tweets of Terror:” Check Out Andrew Sullivan’s Ongoing Iran Coverage

Iran violence

Have any of you checked out the incredible coverage of the events in Iran on Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish?

Andrew has reminded his readers again and again that much of the video and twitter-traffic cannot be fully verified and sourced.  But even taken with that major grain of salt,  the images and words spilling out of Iran in digital form are simply mesmerizing (and terrifying).

I can’t recommend Daily Dish strongly enough for a taste of journalism in the era  of “links.”  Is it fully authoritative? No. But Andrew himself has been absolutely clear about these  limitations. No one can be absolutely certain of the origin of much of the horrifying video, he continually reminds us, but it is a major source of raw material that will eventually be part of a larger, more coherent story.

Please check out the Daily Dish and look at some of the video.  Even if one discounts half of these images as fraudulent (unlikely), the remaining half tell a story of fearless resistance to authoritarian power.  And, sadly,  of an astoundingly brutal response by that power.

The flood of video and text from Iran —  as well as the brilliant way that Sullivan is collating and editing and commenting on it — is an extraordinary example  of  digital age journalism  reaching maturity.

After looking at much of the video, I had a surprizing reaction: I really hope a few specific videos are   fraudulent. If they are genuine,  the brutality is almost unbearable.

Andrew Sullivan, Mensch

A blog post today by Andrew Sullivan on his “Daily Dish”  is a perfect example of why, while I don’t share his conservative politics,  I have so much respect for the rigor and honesty with which he grapples with ideas.  Andrew doesn’t issue pronouncements. He shares   an ongoing, flexible,  and painfully honest internal debate about what he thinks is right. 

Most of all, he does this with profound humility and attention to the moral and ethical implications of his thinking.  He actually asks whether public policies are civil, are ethical,  are compassionate.

Quaint, huh?

It feels strange to express my admiration for someone with whom I so frequently disagree. I suppose I am more and more frustrated with the incivility of those bloviators who seem so willfully apathetic about the human and emotional dimensions of public policy. Andrew rarely loses track of those things.

There, I said it.