Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I typed out this comment and then we lost power and the generator didn't kick in, so I lost it.

Anyway, do I really need to do a diary explaining the difference between the opinion and news sections of a newspaper?  People keep conflating them.

I'm not going to defend in any way the editorial board of the Washington Post, which is so white and male and rightwing that one wonders what city the Post Company thinks it's based in.  It certainly couldn't be Washington, which is (despite gentrification) a majority-black city at the center of an ethnically diverse metro area that votes overwhelmingly Democratic.  (Perhaps the powers-that-be at the Post aren't reading their own paper.)

But honestly, I think you're hurting your own argument with statements like this:

the Washington Post had not published anything remotely serious for at least 20 years.

... which, regardless of the criteria one puts forward, is just patent nonsense.  

I mean, come on.  Off the top of my head, I'd say this story is one of the best I've seen anywhere about Egypt's bread crisis, while this series forced changes in the way the US military houses and treats wounded veterans at Walter Reed.  This story launched the CIA secret-prison scandal and helped prompt several European investigations into European governments' cooperation with the CIA black sites and renditions programs.  (The existence of "ghost detainees" had been reported in the British press and elsewhere earlier, but not to my knowledge the existence of CIA secret prisons in Europe.)  Meanwhile, just taking a quick look at today's paper, I found this story about how a McCain victory would likely push the Supreme Court far to the right for a long time to come.

Whether one takes issue with aspects of these stories or not, it's simply ridiculous to say they are not "remotely serious."

The No. 1 reason this nation cannot meaningfully address the big problems is that the main instrument of communication in the nation's capital has been highjacked by religious extremists and drooling idiots.

Um, ok.  Leaving aside the conflation of the opinion pages with the news pages, I hardly think that overhauling the leadership of the Washington Post would suddenly allow us to fix the health care system, launch a sensible energy policy, end the absurdity of US foreign policy in the Middle East, make everyone eat less and exercise more, and otherwise deal with all the other "big problems" that plague our nation.  I mean, seriously, the Washington Post has problems, but it is not the "No. 1 reason" we're in this mess.  But I guess it's far more fun to blame our problems on the media monster than to accept our own responsibility for the brokenness of our society and way of life.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
Obviously, you set the bar MUCH lower than I.  I mean, do you REALLY think an article on the possible right-wing supreme court nominees that would come from a McCain victory is remotely surprising or even interesting?  Do you really think the conditions at Walter Reed were surprising or especially relevant to our foreign policy.  Don't you think that article on the food crises in Egypt was a BIT patronizing. Etc. Etc.

There is a reason why the more someone reads the Post, the more ignorant he becomes.  It is just horseshit "journalism."  But go ahead--pretend that reading the Post is a legitimate way to become "informed."  

And I will stick to my conclusion that the main reason a guy like Jim Hansen at NASA can be absolutely ignored on climate change for 20 YEARS is because folks think that a story about mold at Walter Reed is "serious".

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean, do you REALLY think an article on the possible right-wing supreme court nominees that would come from a McCain victory is remotely surprising or even interesting?

I'm sorry, I thought the criteria was "remotely serious," not "surprising" or "interesting."  But for the record, yes, I do think the rightward shift of the Supreme Court is extremely interesting.  And important.  And serious.  And if a paper were to not talk about how the election might affect the Supreme Court, it would be supremely irresponsible.

Do you really think the conditions at Walter Reed were surprising or especially relevant to our foreign policy.

Again, make up your mind -- do you want "remotely serious," or do you want "surprising"?  And while I'm not ceding the point that Walter Reed is irrelevant to foreign policy (um, how do you think those soldiers get there?) does everything "serious" or "surprising" need to be "relevant to our foreign policy"?  Because then I guess we can forget about the health care system and the schools.

Don't you think that article on the food crises in Egypt was a BIT patronizing.

Uh, no.  But I'm curious why you think it was.  Please do elaborate.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A story about right-wing supreme court nominees is about as serious as a story about the coming of dawn.

We are on the verge of making the planet uninhabitable for human life.  We are coming to the end of the age of petroleum.  And trees should die to tell us that a right-wing president would appoint right-wing supreme court justices?  Oh. My. Gawd!

I ran into the smartest guy I have ever known at a wedding in January.  Even at 90, he still has most of his MANY marbles.  He says to me, "There is one subject that is so important that it should be headlined with 144 point type, above the fold, in every paper in the land, every day."  I said, "I hope you are talking about climate change because I cannot think of anything else that is that important."  He just smiles and says, "Well I'm glad someone gets it."

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 03:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We are on the verge of making the planet uninhabitable for human life.  We are coming to the end of the age of petroleum.  And trees should die to tell us that a right-wing president would appoint right-wing supreme court justices?  Oh. My. Gawd!

OK, first, if that's all you think the article said, you didn't read it very closely.  Or at all.

But I think the core of the issue is something else -- it seems that anything that isn't about climate change is by your definition "not serious" and thus unworthy of publication.  I'll grant you that the Post doesn't cover climate change well enough, or often enough (a criticism that could fairly be leveled at almost any newspaper on the planet), but there are other things to talk about that are no-less-legitimate subjects for reporting or debate.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to have you explain how that Egypt article is patronizing.  And to whom.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once we had 20 YEARS to do something about climate change.  And if we had gotten busy then, we would by now into "third generation" efforts to solve the problem.  But no.  We have done absolutely NOTHING about the problem except make it worse.

How did that happen?  Well, one thing that happened was that the Post, in its "wisdom," thought that climate change wasn't about science but was just another political story.  So instead of doing something useful, we are trapped by their James-Inhofe-just-might-have-a-point mindset.

We are talking about criminal levels of irresponsibility here.

Now YOU may think the Post is a pretty good paper.  I am certain the publishers thank you for your patronage--goodness knows, their readership is slipping by the day.  But try getting out and reading papers from the rest of the world and you will certainly discover that the Post is barely above My Weekly Reader in seriousness and content.

And BTW, if you cannot figure out why the article on Egypt is patronizing for yourself, try not traveling outside USA until you do.  You are an international incident just waiting to happen.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
_ But try getting out and reading papers from the rest of the world and you will certainly discover that the Post is barely above My Weekly Reader in seriousness and content.

And BTW, if you cannot figure out why the article on Egypt is patronizing for yourself, try not traveling outside USA until you do.  You are an international incident just waiting to happen._

Try reading the European Tribune so that you won't be a blog incident waiting to happen.

by MarekNYC on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marek, I'm going to buy you dinner the next time I'm in the States.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
mmhm, dinner.
by MarekNYC on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
techno, do you realize tsp actually lives in Cairo?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No!

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes! And she can read the local press in Arabic, too!

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then WHY is she defending the freaking Post?????

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On occasion the papers still do put out good work. As a whole, though, if they are your only source of information they will only help you cultivate a worldview that is inaccurate.

In terms of criminal neglect with regard to climate change - I'm not convinced a smooth transition was ever in the cards, and I'm not talking about the newspapers, I'm talking about us as a species.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes!!!  This is EASILY the biggest problem to face the human race.  NO ONE is saying it will be easy.

But it would have at least HAPPENED if the Post took climate change as seriously as a presidential blow job.  Or if they had been so damn busy lying us into an invasion of IRAQ!

Let's be serious here.  We can argue about my name calling--or we can demand that our papers get better.  What REALLY annoys me about the Post is that the personalities act exactly the way kids did when I was in 7th grade.  I'm sorry.  We simply CANNOT meaningfully address the most serious problem of the species if our communication is in the hands of people who giggle about blow jobs.

What is so sad is how many here still want to defend these people.  What?! Pray tell? will it take to make you angry with professional liars? who wouldn't know a serious story if it came up and kicked them in the groin?  And how do we know the last is true--check out the Post coverage on climate change.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is so sad is how many here still want to defend these people.

We all vary in our thoughts on what an ideal world we want to live in looks like and how much of ourselves we want to invest to achieve that ideal. This is what you are arguing over with stormy.

I don't know stormy's views, but the reason I'm not outraged over the poor state of journalism is that I will be neither happy nor upset if humanity goes extinct, and I also decided a few years ago that if my life goal is to be happy, which it is, activism and such can only play a small part of that path. I will not grind myself down or get myself thrown in jail in order to help forge some sort of longer term stability for humanity. Nor will I apologize for this decision. I would like, and likely will, be working in the alternative energy industry soon. That's as far as I'll go.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 06:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because those of us who read the major papers realize that there's a lot of good reporting among all the drek. Those of us who read the blogs closely realize how much of the important stuff comes from that reporting. And speaking as someone who reads the foreign press of several countries religiously, I have to say that while the ratio of ideological crap to good reporting isn't as bad in some of them (though worse in others), in absolute terms the big US papers of record do more useful reporting - a question of resources I imagine.
by MarekNYC on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Really?  The Washington Post is better at WHAT than Asia Time or Deutche Welle?

And at least those folks were lying us into the disaster that is Iraq.  For THAT, there is NO forgiveness.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Asia Times has its own ideological crap of a rather different variety among its good reporting. I never look at Deutsche Welle, I do, however, read the main German papers. Spend some time regularly reading FAZ, Die Welt, or Die Zeit and get back to me.
by MarekNYC on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I'm biased towards Asia Times because they always publish my stuff, which may be crap, but there's no ideology in it....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 07:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But don't take Die Zeit too seriously when it comes to U.S. politics. I caught them peddling the "Gore invented the internet" long after the better U.S. papers had finally given up on it, and that wasn't an isolated case. Concerning German politics, or other things closer to home, they are, indeed, much better than the equivalent U.S. papers on their local politics.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 03:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is increasingly loony, at least on the geopolitical pieces it publishes on Russia, China and oil&gas.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you could say why you find that article patronizing.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because I refuse to let this post get on that topic.  You want to write about it?  Fine.  Just keep me out of it.

All I know is that I had a roommate in college from Bangladesh.  He was VERY sensitive to slights--real or imagined.  So I read "third-world" coverage through his eyes.  I only read four paragraphs of that piece and decided it was just another Ugly American Special that Shamsul would NOT have liked.

Here endeth my conversation on this subject.

The topic here is whether the Post can effectively cover serious subjects.  I say they cannot because they do not.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The topic here is whether the Post can effectively cover serious subjects.  I say they cannot because they do not.

... a theory that has obviously been thoroughly tested by the reading of four whole paragraphs.

Honestly, I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but you might want to quit while you're only a little behind.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am 58 years old.  I read over 3500 books and 200,000 article before I stopped counting five years ago.

I think I am quite capable of judging a newspaper story by the first four paragraphs.  It is how they are designed to be read.

But hey, if you think the Post is a serious source of information, ignore me.  Read it with passion.  I just want better information.  And I know we are all going to die if we don't get serious about real problems.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ignore me

Oh, fear not.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find the way American journalists are trained to open their stories annoying, too, but that doesn't make the rest of the piece uninformative.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry techno, in my perspective, you completely lose the argument right here as you were the one who initially brought up the claim that the article was patronizing. This is relevant in your argument why the Post is no longer newsworthy on serious subject. Ignoring it because it becomes inconvenient is not a good strategy, especially when you even refuse to read further than 4 paragraphs.

A discussion on a tangent can serve as important example to flesh out your core argument.

Hell, I know I'm a poor judge on sensitivities, but living in a third world country does open up one's eyes. The anecdotal leaders in western press on describing "foreign" scenes are getting rather tiresome IMNSHO, but they generally serve as appetizer for an underlying point. It's the point that matters, not the anecdote, however patronizing that anecdote may feel to you.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 06:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and...

Obviously, you set the bar MUCH lower than I.

Yes.  Widely known for my low standards, thanks.  Have a nice day.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but think about how long it took the WaPo to get to the Walter Reed story.  Walter Reed hospital is -- what, maybe three miles from the WaPo HQ?  None of their little local hacks stumbled on it before things completely went to Hell?

I agree that blaming the paper for our problems is silly, and that saying it hasn't produced any good journalism is 20 years is silly, but let's be honest: The Post is a paper for the chattering class -- the snooty little shits who, as techno rightly points out, have anointed themselves Kings of Fucking EverythingTM simply because they live and work in DC.  That stretch of land from the Key Bridge to the Capitol must have its own water supply or something, because it even happens among those who aren't close to the rich and powerful.  But they kind of live near them, so they're important, too.  The name-dropping, the overpriced restaurants with food that doesn't measure up to the average TGIFridays, the "We know what's best for you" attitude.

You know this.

And the paper is perfect for it.  It's full of snooty little shits who count themselves among the Kings of Fucking EverythingTM.

Native Washingtonians are nice enough people.  Mostly black, culturally very diverse, very liberal, nice people whose city gets bashed all the time by the rest of the country simply because the Very Serious People, who think politics and government exist for their own amusement, happen to live there, too.

The No. 1 reason we're in the mess we're in is this: Our own population has been too lazy and too stupid to do its homework for too long.  They don't put the work in to cut through the bullshit.  Blaming the WaPo for it is dumb.  The WaPo only gets away with being more than a fancy-looking roll of toilet paper because of the failures of the citizenry.


Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 29th, 2008 at 10:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you (I think ;-)  Hard to top your description of "Kings of Fucking Everything TM."

The No. 1 reason we're in the mess we're in is this: Our own population has been too lazy and too stupid to do its homework for too long.  They don't put the work in to cut through the bullshit.  Blaming the WaPo for it is dumb.  The WaPo only gets away with being more than a fancy-looking roll of toilet paper because of the failures of the citizenry.

I am not certain I can agree with this, however.  My dear departed parents were news junkies.  They were devoted New Deal Democrats who voted for guys like Henry Wallace.  As they aged, they would set aside the hour to watch MacNeil Lehrer on PBS (which they contributed to every year.)  Not surprisingly, as MacNeil Lehrer drifted to the political right over the years, so did they.

Now it's true, with the Internet, anyone with a little energy CAN inform themselves.  But I remember when I abandoned the corporate media in 1982 as hopeless, it was HARD to stay informed.  I had read newspapers religiously since I was 11 and I went into acute withdrawal.  It took several years to find my way again.  

So I am not so certain that it is the fault of lazy citizens when they are misinformed.  The are being lied to by the most sophisticated liars in history.  So the harder they try to stay informed, the more confused they get.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now it's true, with the Internet, anyone with a little energy CAN inform themselves.  But I remember when I abandoned the corporate media in 1982 as hopeless, it was HARD to stay informed.  I had read newspapers religiously since I was 11 and I went into acute withdrawal.  It took several years to find my way again.

I can relate to that because I was inculcated with the idea that reading papers is something a self-respecting citizen does to stay informed but when you find howler after howler in the newspapers of record you sort of give up, and then what?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can relate to that because I was inculcated with the idea that reading papers is something a self-respecting citizen does to stay informed but when you find howler after howler in the newspapers of record you sort of give up, and then what?

Yeah!  Me too.  My mother used to scoff at people who didn't read newspapers.  She would say, "Folks who can read and will not are MUCH worse than people who cannot read at all."

I WISH the newspapers of record were good.  It would make my life MUCH easier.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own newspaper of record is El Pais, which I have given up on a long time ago and just keeps getting worse.
the journalist thought that DeLay was the biographer of Bush and now Obama. Which means this is probably not even a "foreign correspondent" (the story has no place listed in the byline) but just an internet copy job by a journalist in Madrid.
El Pais online has a "send in a correction" button. I sent in a correction that Tom DeLay is not Bush's biographer but a former texas Congressman who shares a biographer with Bush and Obama, and they still haven't corrected it.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am so sorry to hear that.  I have been under the impression that Spain is in its new Golden Age (something I am certain the football fans agree with).

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know about a Golden Age.

Not to speak of the fact that the first (artistic) Golden Age coincided with an age of political and economic decay (and cultural strangulation by religion).

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh I'm not so certain that artists should define a Golden Age.

For most of my life, Spain wasn't even on my intellectual map.  I went out of my way to cultivate bright foreign friends--part of how I "educated" myself when I discovered most of what I read was, at best, silly.  It's why I had a book published in Finland almost three years before I was published in USA.  But Spain--not so much.

But Franco dies.  Spain finally seems to have gotten the Basque problem "solved" to the point where people aren't killing each other.  The voters throw out a government willing to lie about a terrorist bomb.  I find out they are BIG into wind power.  They win a big football championship at a level that usually makes them "choke."

YOU!

And suddenly Spain is on my intellectual map.  Thank you!

Now go figure out your water problem.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 04:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This guy is largely responsible for Spain's progress in the 1980's.

I'm not so certain that artists should define a Golden Age

Well, that's what the Spanish Golden Age (17th century) is all about, because other than literature and painting there isn't much to write home about.

Spain actually had something going for it in the 15th and 16th centuries, but then the Reformation happened, Spain put itself at the forefront of the Counterreformation, and started doing silly things like forbidding their scholars from interacting with Protestant scholars, and 400 years later Franco dies, and...

Yeah, not much to write home about for 400 years other than literature and painting.

Being an empire where the sun doesn't set is not good for you...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 05:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great art is usually a symptom of aristocracy. You need plenty of surplus income to fund the arts, and you need a giant ego to feel good about funding the arts in a way which reflects on your personal glory.

Artistocrats have both, so historically, art tends to be more marginalised during more populist periods.

The one exception was the 20th century, when mass media made it possible to create a mass market for music and design - but not so much for fine art, which with only a few exceptions (Guernica...) remained aspirational and/or aristocratic.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 04:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Eric Hobsbawm in The Age of Extremes noted that one distinctive feature of the 20th Century was that, for the first time in history, cultural fashions derived not from aristocratic sources but rather from pop culture.

In  many ways, it seems to me, movies have replaced courtly sculpture and painting.  Of course there are movies that are targeted at a more up scale audience as well as the summer block busters. And QEII can well afford to commission portraits, landscapes and sculptures, but they don't seem to have the same effect as in earlier times.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, Finland has an empire on which the sun never sets... Half the year, at least :-P

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've come late to your article about him, but I found him very much buying the Europe. Is. Doomed frame. Why?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know, I think he got serious.

Do you think it's worth turning the discussion in the comment thread into a letter to him?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(a lot of our comment threads are worth turning into letters)

(which I think is ET's problem: too much good content is buried deep down in threads that only the hard core members read)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 at 02:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no shortage of good writing on the internet, from traditional sources or otherwise. You have to cultivate your sources yourself, of course, but the morning paper was never good enough to get a person all the accurate information they needed anyway. We're at the front end (where things still look bleak) of a solid era in journalism, but few are taking notice because we're lamenting the death of the newspaper.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The agencies.

Not that they don't publish nonsense or omit uncomfortable facts, but the twenty-word format of their releases mean that at least the facts that they deign to include are nicely concentrated instead of spread across half a square metre of page. And you escape the stupid tea-leaf-reading, horse-race coverage that passes for political analysis in the regular papers.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly, what's the point of buying a newspaper which is mostly a disguised collection of agency wires and press releases?

I know many people buy El Pais mostly for the columnists.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 30th, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In Copenhagen we have a couple of free newspapers which are almost exclusively Agency stories. Well, that and a few fluff pieces (no scandalously-clad females, though, that market is already cornered by one of the commercial newspapers). That's where I go for news. That and the radio, although the latter less and less as it gets progressively more contaminated with corporate "thinking" and government apparatchiks.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 1st, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series