Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

RE: Gaga Over U.S. Attack on Taliban

Opinion, Politics, That Washington   February 15, 2010 at 10:14 am Josh Feit

Did I say “naively glorified” on Saturday when I criticized the NYT for its breathless coverage of the U.S. attack on the Taliban—which reported that “the troops had achieved every first-day objective.”

Yes, I did.

Gen. McChrystal has said that a major goal of the operation and his new counterinsurgency model is to protect Afghan civilians.

Well, here’s what the NYT follow-up article had to report on Sunday.

An errant American rocket strike on Sunday hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians in the last Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, killing at least 10 people, including 5 children, military officials said.

I understand that war is horrible business and going after the  Taliban is a thorny proposition. So, I’m not trying to be a righteous curmudgeon about the the operation in Marja (I support the war in Afghanistan, although I’d opt for a different strategy.)

I just think, if we’re going to get it right, the press has to as well.


  • hmmmm

    Why do you support the war on Afghanistan, JF? The death rates due to “terrorism” don't justify your fear. So it must be something else.

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175206/tomgram%…

  • Josh Feit

    I'm not only considering U.S. deaths from terrorist attacks. I'm considering reemergence of Taliban rule which would destroy the lives of women in Afghan, protect al Qaeda, and threaten the stability of the region w an extremist government.

    What I really support is, dirty word, nation building in Afghan to marginalize the Taliban. Follow my link.

  • Some Dude

    The U.S. has a responsibility to stay in Afghanistan as long as is necessary. Abandoning Afghanistan after the failed Soviet occupation left that country ripe for fundamentalist extremists, an oversight that we are paying for ten-fold today. To leave again would merely allow for the same primordial mix of a failed state, narco-trafficking, and dedicated terrorists who will rebuild their network and attack us again like they did on 9/11. Securing Afghanistan is not only the right thing to do from a national defense point of view, but we have a moral imperative to provide security in that nation until a self-sustaining government can be established.

  • hmmmm

    @ 2: So the US Gov't fighting militarily for women's rights and democracy? Sounds pretty Wilsonian, save the women's rights part. How does your collegue Barnett feel about this position?

    Have we any demonstration the the Tabiban is a bigger threat to anyone then say, any number of regimes globally? Why the Taliban? And why now? If you have a relative in the military, I can see why you would have some sympathy; but barring that, there is still very little justification for a full scale military intervention. When one considers that you cannot rehabilitate your economy and fight a war at the same time, isn't this simply robbing Jane to pay Mary?

    I bet a lot of people will make money from the dope traffic, however.

  • hmmmm

    Addendum: Josh, would you support an invasion of Iran for the same reasons? Things are bad there too.

  • Josh Feit

    I wouldn't support an invasion of Iran. For starters, there's a reform movement in play there. Nor do I think their version of sharia is as fascistic re: woman. Yes, there have been outrageous examples of discrimination and violence against women, but unlike the Taliban's vision, women in Iran are educated and can participate in professional and civic society.

    And while Ahmadinejad's last election was obviously questionable, he is not part of a military movement like the Taliban that is going around blackmailing and extorting and ruling villages with guns and an illegal drug trade.

    As recently as the early 2000s, a much more liberal government was in power in Iran, so there's precedent. I think it'd be best to work with them diplomatically to push for change.

  • ratcityreprobate

    For several days the press was reporting that all avenues of escape had been sealed off before the attack, yet in this morning's NYT they say that many Taliban escaped into Pakistan after the attack started. That leads one to conclude that either the Military was feeding the press bull or that that incompetents were in charge of the mission. Very well could be both.