If somebody says they want a banana, and then suggests it's because they're hungry, and like bananas -- the charitable first assumption we should make is that, well, they're hungry and like bananas.

It would be truly odd to imagine their desire for a banana stems from, for example, a deep desire to exploit banana-harvesters, or a hatred for the United Apple Growers Syndicate, or a murderous desire to tear the skins of fruit apart.

Yet a recent, recurring theme on this blog is how certain people seem to resort to "psychologizing" instead of considering the obvious motivations. This would normally be amusing, if it didn't have real consequences. Today's illustration is provided by Eric Boehlert, writing at George Soros' Media Matters website.

For the purpose of today's post, the question of who is right or wrong, factually, is immaterial: it is Boehert's mode of discourse which is my subject. But a tiny bit of background is necessary to at least understand the context.

AP ran no less than sixty-one AP stories which cited a Baghdad police captain, one Jamil Hussein, as a source. A number of these stories were seemingly denied by the military, who also added that they knew of no "Jamil Hussein" among the Baghdad police, and that the name "Jamil Hussein" was on their list of questionable sources -- names news outlets sometimes treat as existing, but apparently don't exist in the real world.

To a casual observer, I would think that set of circumstances alone would prompt questions. And, to his credit, Boehlert admits as much in his introduction. But then things rapidly head south:

... warbloggers aren't interested in an honest, factual debate about a single instance of journalistic accountability. And they're not really interested in the specifics of the Burned Alive story. They're interested in wide-ranging conspiracy theories and silencing skeptical voices. [bold added]

They're not? It's an interesting charge, because Boehlert hasn't provided any examples of cases where his opponents have been dishonest. To the contrary, he admits their concerns are valid.

The substance underneath his second charge -- that his opponents are concerned there is an anti-Bush bias that pervades reporting about Iraq (ignoring his inflammatory phrasing) -- is certainly accurate. But that's hardly a proof they're willing to lie, which is the implication he has added.

And the third charge -- they want to "silenc[e] skeptical voices" -- is even worse. There's no need to assume, because a group of people are asking to know more about a questionable source and story, that they are also trying to stop reporting of clearly reliable ones, or wish to silence all political debate in the United States of America.

And, indeed, the mere existence of this accusation itself is odd: If everything is on the up-and-up, why not just produce the source, and evidence for the story, and move on? If Boehlert's opponents' questions are unwarranted and groundless, why are we even this far into the debate? It should have ended quickly.

Perhaps this is projection: He himself seems rather uncomfortable with the existence of this debate, a debate which, contrary to his assertions, his opponents are apparently enjoying.

As American Prospect blogger Greg Sargent noted, "Malkin and her compadres are trying to accomplish one thing, and one thing only: They want to staunch the flow of images back to America of President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq."

This is also a rather strange accusation, since this is a story where apparently no images of the burning, or even aftermath, could be produced! How odd: Michelle and her ken are demanding images, and further reporting on a specific story, and yet the charge becomes the opposite.

In fact, Boehlert undermines his own premise, listing a series of other stories of violence and then admitting (though he thinks its an accusation): "To date, warbloggers have not raised serious questions about any of those slayings or the reporting surrounding them." Right! So why are you alleging they're trying to silence all negative reporting?

His own evidence, from his own article, cannot account for the malevolent, secret internal motivations he asserts his critics must harbor.

What an odd dialog!

And things get weirder still in the next sentence, Boehert now in full froth:

Indeed, censorship via intimidation -- not authentic media criticism -- has always been atop the warbloggers' agenda. (Their main beef with the press is that it exists.)

What is this "censorship via intimidation" -- according to Boehert himself? Writing? Asking questions? Demanding more evidence? Other than his belief they have bad intentions in their heart, his own article cites nothing else. Is it "intimidating" to merely have someone ask journalists questions? I should hope not, since that's what they themselvs do for a living.

And of course, it wouldn't be a leftist article without an accusation of (can you believe it?) racism!

For today's right-wing warbloggers, whose contempt for journalists is matched only by their unbridled hatred of Arabs and Muslims, the AP kerfuffle represented a perfect solution that, at least temporarily, lifted their November blues.

... neatly interwoven with his ongoing thesis that this is better explained by a Republican loss at the polls, than anything happening in Iraq. (One wonders, then, what explains a similar set of accusations, "Fauxtography" which erupted in August, when Republicans were still in control.)

And I found this statement equally strange:

It's clear warbloggers long ago passed the breaking point in terms of Iraq. But to see them recoil and lash out with such unhinged and oddly personal hatred for the press is shocking.

"Oddly personal"? Who did they savage? AP? Is AP a "person"? And what's so "shocking" about asking for more information, or looking for hints of bias? Kind of odd from a site named "Media Matters", which was constructed to do exactly that. "Oddly personal"? Count the number of times he singles out his opponents by name, and then imputes bad motivations to each action.

Boehlert goes on for a dozen or more paragraphs (but I won't) on his charge that 'warbloggers' and others on the right are saying that skewed reporting has hurt the US effort in Iraq.

He's right -- that is the big debate at the moment, and the question itself shouldn't be criminalized. But note the patttern: He doesn't even engage that question. It's not enough to show their wrong (which he hasn't done) but you must also show why it wasn't reasonable to ask the question in the first place -- nor about any of the many other substantive allegations which have ranged back over the last several years.

Has biased reporting harmed the Iraqi war effort?

It's a fine question to debate, but Boehlert skips over the part where you refute the meat of the charge. It's apparently unthinkable that his critics could seriously believe that, so he spends his article explaining, instead, how his opponents have bad motivations, don't want to allow free discourse, aren't really interested in Iraq, hate Arabs, etc.