IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT

by Ted Welch Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 02:24:01 PM EST

Criticism of US journalism does not just come from the Left, of course; many in the US see the mainstream media as too Leftist - bizarre as that probably seems to most Eurotribbers.

Diary rescue by Migeru

TIME Out: Another Death Knell for American Journalism
First there was the self-disembowelment of The New Republic; now TIME magazine has joined the list of big media publications which have jumped the tracks, all in the never ending quest of promoting World Socialism and torpedoing the United States--especially when it is at war. Fortunately there are Uncle Jimbos, Gateway Pundits, and Instapundits out there to expose them for the poseurs they are. But is that enough?
The vision of Clare Booth Luce is officially dead. TIME under the Turner Administration has become little more than a dumbed-down version of The Nation. And CNN too for that matter. MSNBC is as hyper-partisan as is The Daily Kos. CBS?? Dan Rather. Katie Couric. 60 Minutes. Need I say more?
Astute Blogger

Chomsky lives !

Another premature report of death was noted recently in the New York Times:

At a news conference after his spirited address to the United Nations on Wednesday, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela expressed one regret: not having met that icon of the American left, the linguist Noam Chomsky, before his death.
... At 77, Mr. Chomsky has joined the exclusive club of luminaries, like the actor Abe Vigoda and Mark Twain, who were reported dead before their time, only to contradict the reports by continuing to breathe.
"I continue to work and write," he said, speaking from his house in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Chávez, while addressing world leaders at the United Nations, flagged "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance," which Mr. Chomsky published in 2003, as a must-read.
... Mr. Chomsky said he had taken no offense at Mr. Chávez's remarks about his being dead. In fact, Mr. Chávez's promotion of the book propelled it yesterday into Amazon's top 10 best sellers.
New York Times

"Sometimes they get things through"

In 1988 Chomsky and Herman wrote "Manufacturing Consent", a thoroughly researched study of the journalistic failings of US media institutions (even then). However Chomsky, despite his general criticism of US media, emphasises that there are journalists who try very hard to get published stories which are important and will embarrass the powerful. This becomes more possible when there is some scandal. I like Chomsky's combination of well-researched realism and respect for those trying to effect change from inside the beast:

While the propaganda model [in Manufacturing Consent] describes a global system that results in the ignoring or suppression of voices of dissent, Chomsky does not argue that it is an all-encompassing theory. Reportage asked whether the model allows scope for journalists wanting to remain independent and to avoid becoming a mouthpiece for the ruling elites.
...
[Chomsky] "It is well known among serious journalists that after a major scandal, like say Watergate or Iran-Contra or something, there is a period of a couple of months when the media tend to be more open. And then you can sneak in the stories that you've been storing up.
"So if you take a close look at the media you'll discover that the really smart reporters often are coming out with things in that window of opportunity that opens up in reaction to the scandal.
"On top of that there is just plenty of people with integrity and who are really working hard to stretch the limits, and sometimes they get things through."
zmag

A golden age of US journalism?

Chomsky began his career as a "public intellectual" during the Vietnam War. It's important to remember that the 1960s, for example, weren't some lost golden age of journalism. Thus in the early years of the Vietnam War, as David Halberstam admitted, while US journalists might have criticised HOW the war was being conducted, they didn't generally question whether the US should be there at all:

David Halberstam in the "quagmire" of Vietnam

For a very clear explanation of why going on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War would have landed the US in a "quagmire" see this (from 1994) - by none other than Dick Cheney !

Halberstam: ... we were frequently criticized for being too pessimistic, I believe that a more valid criticism would have been that we were too optimistic. This is debatable, of course, but I think that anyone watching so much bravery squandered during those months could not have helped wondering what would happen if that talent were properly employed.
Poynter Online

However, as in the case of even staunch defenders of the attack on Iraq at the beginning, the reality of their experience in Vietnam forced most journalists to acknowledge that it was a disaster, and then, as now, they were labelled "traitors" for doing so:

Initially persuaded that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was correct, Halberstam soon realized that there were yawning differences between what he and other reporters were seeing and what the administration was telling the people back home. He knew that military advisors and others on the scene in Saigon could see that the United States was marching into a political swamp that would consume it. He also knew that the government wasn't paying attention to its own advisors. And he said so.
His reporting from Vietnam earned him a Pulitzer Prize, as well as the ire of the Kennedy administration. John Kennedy asked Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger to send Halberstam someplace else. Later, Lyndon Johnson accused Halberstam of being a "traitor to his country." For doing his job. For telling the truth about failed policies and their consequences.
Colby Magazine

Signs of life

Today there are still distinct signs of life, even in the mainstream media. Of course such journalism is not likely to fully satisfy most Eurotribbers, but we can find much to agree with, even in the New York Times.

The examples which follow are well worth reading in full, and many here might enjoy the verbal kicking given to Republican presidential candidates.

They are not just politely chided for some policies, but described in such terms as:

"the collective nastiness of the Republican field"

Frank Rich op-ed in the New York Times

"The Republican pack is one extremely unappealing bunch of politicians"

Gail Collins op-ed in the New York Times

"Knee-deep in religion"

In the US things are made even more difficult for "liberal" journalists today by the shift of the political spectrum to the right (see "astuteblooger" above) and the increasing influence of conservative Christians, e.g. on the Republican candidates. Even a conservative like Charles Krauthammer is exasperated by the Republican candidates craven attitude regarding religion (in this case in the Washington Post):

... This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN-YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
Washington Post

The NYT is not, of course, a mouthpiece for Noam Chomsky, but nor is it just like Fox News; we need to be a bit discriminating, even while deploring the overall inadequacies of the system. The NYT engaged in a bit of much-deserved self-flagellation over its coverage of the run-up to the attack on Iraq. Lessons have been learned, if not by the neo-cons, and NYT opinion can be very robustly critical, especially that of Maureen Dowd:

The man crowned by Tommy Franks as "the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet" just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet.
Doug Feith, the former Rummy gofer who drove the neocon plan to get us into Iraq, and then dawdled without a plan as Iraq crashed into chaos, was the headliner at a reunion meeting of the wooly-headed hawks Monday night at the American Enterprise Institute.
...
He noted that in battles through American history, "the military fights better over time." This from a guy who sent our military into Iraq without the right armor, the right force numbers or the right counterinsurgency training.
New York Times

Recently the NYT even has op-ed pieces singing the praises of Europe! - in this case, while taking a swipe at Romney:

Secular Europe's Merits
By ROGER COHEN, December 13, 2007, ST. ANDREWS, Scotland
The cathedral here, on which work began in the 12th century, was once the largest in Scotland, until a mob of reformers bent on eradicating lavish manifestations of "Popery" ransacked the place in 1559, leaving gulls to swoop through the surviving facade.
Europe's cathedrals are indeed "so inspired, so grand, so empty," as Mitt Romney, a Mormon, put it last week in charting his vision of a faith-based presidency.
...
Religion informed America's birth. But its distancing from politics was decisive to the republic's success. Indeed, the devastating European experience of religious war influenced the founders' thinking. That is why I find Romney's speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe's vacant cathedrals.
...
Romney rejects the "religion of secularism," of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson's "wall of separation" must be restored if those who would destroy the West's Enlightenment values are to be defeated.
New York Times

Actual experience of living in Europe, and benefiting from some of aspects of its social system, can have a radicalising effect on Americans. On French TV some Americans living in Paris were interviewed and generally they were very happy with the French system, particularly health care.

Postpartum Impression

From the NYT again:

By PAMELA DRUCKERMAN, PARIS December 13, 2007
I HAD a chance to think about the American health-care debate recently, while I was undergoing a procedure that's mostly paid for by the French state: re-education.
This has nothing to do with adult learning, or with those work camps organized by the Khmer Rouge. It's a girl thing. After a woman has a baby, perineal re-education shapes up her stretched-out birth canal. It also strengthens her pelvic floor for the next child, and helps keep her from leaking a little bit every time she sneezes. My doctor prescribed 10 sessions of it after my daughter was born. (American doctors typically suggest just doing some Kegel exercises, if anything.)
Where do America's presidential hopefuls stand on re-education? I think it's safe to assume that no Republicans would think the government should meddle with my pelvic floor.
...
I don't doubt the rewards of re-education, but what about the costs of a system that would provide such a seeming luxury? Well, France spent $3,464 per person on health care in 2004, compared with $6,096 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization. Yet Frenchmen live on average two years longer than American men do, and Frenchwomen live four years longer. The infant mortality rate in France is 43 percent lower than in the United States.
... This American has certainly been converted. Do I want the government in my crotch? Of course I do.
Pamela Druckerman is the author of "Lust in Translation: The Rules of Infidelity From Tokyo to Tennessee."
New York Times

In a more general op-ed on the health system, the authors criticise Democratic candidates for adopting a Nixon-style "mandate" approach to health care - this time the positive reference is to Canada, but also to Europe by implication (there's also an allusion to Al Gore and his "An Inconvenient Truth"):

I Am Not a Health Reform
... The "mandate model" for reform rests on impeccable political logic: avoid challenging insurance firms' stranglehold on health care. But it is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes universal coverage unaffordable.
With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic presidential hopefuls sidestep an inconvenient truth: only a single-payer system of national health care can save what we estimate is the $350 billion wasted annually on medical bureaucracy and redirect those funds to expanded coverage. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama tout cost savings through computerization and improved care management, but Congressional Budget Office studies have found no evidence for these claims.
In 1971, New Brunswick became the last Canadian province to institute that nation's single-payer plan. Back then, the relative merits of single-payer versus Nixon's mandate were debatable. Almost four decades later, the debate should be over. How sad that the leading Democrats are still kicking around Nixon's discredited ideas for health reform.
David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler are professors of medicine at Harvard and the co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program.
New York Times

"Bush team ... brain dead on the climate issue"

The NYT's Thomas Friedman complains of the idiocy of the Bush gang in relation to climate change:

While the Bush team came into office brain dead on the climate issue and will leave office with a perfect record of having done nothing significant to mitigate climate change, I'm heartened that our country is increasingly alive on this challenge.
First, Google said last week that it was going to invest millions in developing its own energy business. ...
Its primary focus, said Google.org's energy expert, Dan Reicher, will be to advance new solar thermal, geothermal and wind solutions "across the valley of death." That is, so many good ideas work in the lab but never get a chance to scale up because they get swallowed by a lack of financing or difficulties in implementation. Do not underestimate these people.
New York Times

THE NYT reports Gore's criticism in Bali:

The escalating bitterness between the European Union and the United States came as former Vice President Al Gore told delegates in a speech that "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali."
New York Times

"Think big, start small, act now"

Reporting from Bali, Friedman sounds like Al Gore, but with pessimism about market forces!:

... Market-driven forces emanating primarily from China, Europe and America have become so powerful that Indonesia recently made the Guinness World Records for having the fastest rate of deforestation in the world.
Indonesia is now losing tropical forests the size of Maryland every year, and the carbon released by the cutting and clearing -- much of it from illegal logging -- has made Indonesia the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, after the United States and China. Deforestation actually accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world, an issue the Bali conference finally addressed.
I interviewed Barnabas Suebu, the governor of the Indonesian province of Papua, home to some of its richest forests. He waxed eloquent about how difficult it is to create jobs that will give his villagers anything close to the income they can get from chopping down a tree and selling it to smugglers, who will ship it to Malaysia or China to be made into furniture for Americans or Europeans. He said his motto was, "Think big, start small, act now -- before everything becomes too late."
New York Times

A NYT editorial deplores the Bush team's negative attitude:

From the United States the delegates got nothing, except a promise to participate in the forthcoming negotiations. Even prying that out of the Bush administration required enormous effort.
...
The decision to maintain the tax breaks was particularly shameful. Blessed by $90-a-barrel oil, the companies are rolling in profits, and there is no evidence to support the claim that they need these breaks to be able to explore for new resources. Yet the White House had the gall to argue that the breaks are necessary to protect consumers at the pump, and the Senate was craven enough to go along.
New York Times

Meanwhile, more NYT criticism of the Republican presidential candidates, in this case focusing on Giuliani:

... While running as the master antiterrorist, for example, Mr. Giuliani declines to lay out his post-9/11 security business dealings with high officials in Qatar, reported by The Wall Street Journal. Qatar is now host of a United States air base, but the 9/11 commission found that its government provided sanctuary a decade ago to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then under indictment in New York and later the mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities.
Mr. Giuliani should explain all of his dealings, and set the bar for the entire field of candidates to provide the truth.
New York Times

The Democrats don't escape censure, Hillary gets a good satirical kicking from Maureen Dowd in relation to a member of the Clinton team's comments about Obama and drugs - condemned by Hillary:

... WASHBURN: Can you both please describe the key features of what you consider to be the best education system in the world?
CLINTON: Well, I know that some of my supporters have been spreading gossip that Senator Obama loves the madrassa system for pre-K through terrorist training camp. But there is not a gram of truth in those accusations. We shouldn't inject intolerance into this race.
WASHBURN: I would like to talk about the Peru free trade deal that was signed on Friday. You both missed the vote.
CLINTON: Oh, Barack should take that one. His views on Peruvian are positively flaky.
OBAMA: You're the flaky one, Hillary, backing up the president when he wanted to rush into Iraq and wage this trillion-dollar war.
CLINTON: It's no wonder you didn't want to go into Iraq, Barack. There are no free bases there.
WASHBURN: All right, you two. We're out of time. Have a Merry Christmas and --
CLINTON: And I am sure that Senator Obama is dreaming of his usual White Christmas. Hitch up the reindeer!
WASHBURN: As I was saying, a Happy New Year.
CLINTON: He gets no kick from Champagne ...
New York Times

"Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" A. Gramsci

It would be a pity of Eurotribbers missed such stuff. Those who are trying to live up to the best journalistic traditions deserve support in what are admittedly difficult times.

Chomsky's message for journalists is that there is a way of bringing information to the public that many would prefer to see kept secret. His message, in the face of his own theories of media dominance by the powerful elites, is given with a surprising optimism.
zmag

IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - Speculatin' I Is (4.00 / 4)

Over the last two days I've been speculating on what would happen if ET had its own News Program, 30 minutes, once a day.

Would any "serious" network even consider buying the thing? I doubt it. The combination of knowledge, analysis, snark, and a Left POV isn't Prime Time. In their view, in my view. The pros-from-Dover 'round here would know better.

Given the lack of programming - as I understand it - would one of the secondary (whatever that means) networks or TV channels pick it up? Again, The pros-from-Dover 'round here would know better than I but I think one might. They should. The potential audience is there.

Going 'live' over the internet would mean the in-house acquisition of the necessary bandwidth infrastructure but would instantly open the program to a global audience that could watch a show (and the advertising?) whenever they wished. And please note 'a' show is correct. By keeping the shows on-viewer-demand every show is a potential sell -- as it were.

Then there is the FaceBook, YouTube, all the different virtual reality niche markets, tee-shirts, coffee/tea mugs, toys, records, DVDs, CD, CCCP, and the People's Front for the Liberation of Judea markets.

We'll make a killing, I tell you. A killing!

Sven - BABY! - let's do the meeting thing and ....

slap, slap, slap

(thank you. I feel better, now.)

All kidding aside, it is true there are journalists doing what they can, as best they can, when they can. But I suggest as long as we depend on the corporate media companies to spread our message we lose.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 09:56:43 PM EST

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - Speculatin' I Is (4.00 / 2)

It will happen. But who will initiate it and what it will look like are unpredictable. The means for decentralized production are in place. There are hundreds of millions of video cameras and camera phones out there. There are desktop assembly systems out there. There are people who want to say something and be something. The 'Facebook' solution is missing, but the idea is being tested by - who else - the MSM. 'Readers' videos' are being exploited by the BBC as well as many large online newspapers. Whether floods or snowstorms - the first pictures published these days are often supplied by ordinary people experiencing the event. The autofocus/autoexposure technology in an always-ready portable personal object ie the mobile phone, means that the eyes of society are always open.

The most important factor though is that it will NOT be anything like news as it is now. As the music industry is undergoing decentralization, it has shown that the music that becomes available is different in kind from what went before. One could argue that this new music has always been made, but never made available. But I would argue McCluhan style, that the medium is the message. New technologies for making and distributing creativity, mean a change in the type of artefacts produced.

Same with news. It is worthwhile to speculate IMO what news might look like without the middlemen, because that in turn might reveal what is wrong with the news creation business now.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 05:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - Speculatin' I Is (none / 1)

qv my Lessig diary, which is still In Progress and probably won't appear till Jan now.

I've been thinking about ET News since 2006 - I mentioned it at the first Paris meet - but
the point, mainly, is not the form or even the content, but the narrative. And especially the audience reach.

There is, for better or worse, a disconnect between Media and Influential Media. Giving everyone a camcorder creates plenty of media. But it doesn't necessarily map to influence, or even to significance.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 11:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - Speculatin' I Is (none / 0)

Yup - wondered where that diary had got to. But we can wait ;-)

I don't think any of us can really say what influence or significance might look like in the future. To me, everything is going up in the air and it will be hard to predict what will happen.

That is not to say it is not worth discussing. I think we have a chance to 'change the game'. And every conversation gets us a little closer.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - Speculatin' I Is (none / 0)

What happened to Internet Radio? A couple of years back it was supposed to be the Next Big Thing.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ahhh... cartoons... (4.00 / 6)

Tom Toles from the WaPo is one of my favorites...

Cheney:

Gitmo:

Economy:

DC transportation policy:

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:38:34 AM EST

Re: ahhh... cartoons... (4.00 / 2)

Thanks for those - great stuff.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

your youtube link to cheney has expired - you need to refresh it with a new one - below:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 05:53:32 AM EST

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

It's working for me.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 2)

They are not just politely chided for some policies, but described in such terms as:
"the collective nastiness of the Republican field" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html
"The Republican pack is one extremely unappealing bunch of politicians" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/opinion/13collins.html

But what they fail to see and critique is that the Democrats really have nothing different to offer. I would argue that the Republican bashing we are witnessing is an attempt by mainstream media to give the American voter the impression that there is actually a choice... whereas in fact there is none.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 05:58:41 AM EST

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

Very astute.

I'm reminded of the way that the Murdoch press got behind Blair once Murdoch recognised the pro-Corporate New Labour reality.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 4)

But what they fail to see and critique is that the Democrats really have nothing different to offer. I would argue that the Republican bashing we are witnessing is an attempt by mainstream media to give the American voter the impression that there is actually a choice... whereas in fact there is none.

Had you said, "very little difference" you'd have a more valid point; there's certainly not as much difference as most Eurotribbers would like to see, but that's a different point and we aren't representative of American voters.

The same kind of thing was said back in 2000 - are you seriously suggesting that things would be just the same now if Gore had become President? Obviously not - Bush and Cheney were concerned to find excuses to attack Iraq - Gore wasn't, nor would he have opposed any positive steps to combat climate change - quite the opposite - though he would have met great opposition.

There are even significant differences between the Democrats:

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator -- Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register -- suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington."
Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."
This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Cf.:

Opinionator is struck by the good news the figures hold for two candidates who've been on the outside looking in of late:
On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent) ...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/the-stealth-candidates/index.html

The fact that the differences aren't as great as we'd like to see doesn't mean there are no differences, much as we might deplore the fact that they are not great. What's needed is support for the differences we favour and encouragement to go further - not generalized dismissals which encourage apathy.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 07:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

I take your point and yes, there are certainly "some" differences between Democrats and Republicans, although I do believe that these differences are peripheral, cosmetic by nature, and represent in no way or form an opportunity to break with current policies both domestically and internationally.

Domestically, my impression is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Democrats are proposing very little that would have real impact on: social security (for example, reducing the 40% of Americans that today live and work without medical coverage), funding of schools and research centers, minimum wage (still $5.15/hr, the same as it was in 1997... how long have the Democrats been in control of the House of Representatives?), or increasing taxes for the wealthy to fund this. What about the retirement time bomb? Anybody addressing that issue?

Concerning foreign affairs, don't forget the hawks in Clinton's team who had no qualms about bombing a sovereign country without UNSC approval: from Al Gore - who was there to plan, to Madeleine Albright who "accidentally screwed up negotiations that led to a major war in Europe" according to Upstate NY / ET, to Wesley Clark who was at one point tipped to become the... get this... the Democratic candidate set to run against W Bush! You may not be aware, but this guy (Clark) gave orders to the Jackson - British NATO General in Kosovo to fire... yes to FIRE on the Russian contingent as it was arriving in Prishtina airport. Thankfully, Jackson flatly refused. From Somalia, to North Korea to China and Russia, I have been unable to discern differences in policies between Democrats and Republicans since... Gerald Ford... JF Kennedy? What differences?

I suggest you take some time and read Hillary Clinton's international political agenda in a paper published in Foreign Affairs: Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century. Foreign Affairs, November/December, 2007.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

While unlike vladimir, I do believe that there are substantial differences between the candidates, I think your approach of half-full/half-empty glass is too naive, and this is more important at the end of the day.

One way a different Dem government can be of no solace is considering timeframes longer than one Presidential term: the Repugs can come back in power. If a different presidency is just stasis, i.e. no pushing of more bad policies but no correction of most prior bad policies, it will be only a delay in the inexorable slide down the slope. If, worse, that Dem government has to face some major to unsolvable problems, and just toss around without waging a real bold counter-policy and the Repugs manage to put all the blame for failure on them, they can return stronger than ever, and achieve much more than if they just held to power with a lame duck candidate.

There is also the circumstance that the status quo on policies is NOT a status quo in society, the economy, and the environment: and festering problems left unsolved can grow on their head.

Finally, it can be, and on foreign policy it has been, that the Dems differ in being more talented at sugar-coating the same bad policies: this may actually be worse than the Repub brashness, in making the intolerable acceptable. Both directly and by pushing the Overton Window. (Clinton's not-UN-approved terror bombing of Serbia and his spin-prepared Desert Fox bombing of Iraq were jointly rather good templates for the Iraq War.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 03:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Well maybe I'm naive - or maybe you are - again, do you REALLY think it would have made no difference if Al Gore had become president rather than Bush - do you really need time to think about this ? No, I think not. Your general pessimism isn't very helpful.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 4)

Really, no difference? No difference between John McCain and John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson?

One side has candidates who want to begin withdrawing from Iraq, while the other not only refuses to withdraw but wants to start another war in Iran. One side is proposing universal health care, while the other side says the health care problem is all the fault of the government. One side is proposing measures to reduce CO2 emissions, while the other side doesn't even acknowledge the existence of climate change.

Are the Democratic leaders in Congress a bunch of spineless weasels? Yes. Should Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (and the people of San Francisco and Vegas for voting for them) be thrown off a cliff? Yes. But this talk of there being no differences between the candidates of the two parties is nonsense.

What a different world we might live in if, in 2000, so many didn't believe that bullshit about Al Gore and George W. Bush. (And, no, I'm not blaming Ralph Nader.) We'd be on our way to ditching the oil, we wouldn't be in Iraq, the national debt would be about half what it is now (and a significantly smaller chunk of our national income than it was in 2000), and we probably would've dealt with the health care crisis by now. And, most importantly, 3800 of our soliders, along with countless Iraqis, wouldn't be dead.

But, no, millions believed and continue to believe that there was and is no difference -- proving that religion is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

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

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 07:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

"begin withdrawing from Iraq"?
is that the withdrawal that's going to take 5 years to complete - just in time for the next presidential election - in time to stay another 5 years? I don't believe it.

Republicans threatened to cut off funding for troops in Bosnia and bring them back home too while Clinton was in office - remember? And what of it? nada.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

Now that the US is in Iraq and so many American troops have been killed or wounded, of course it's not easy for any politician to just pull out quickly and say it was all a mistake. The point is who is more likely to pull out sooner rather than later ? - of course you know the answer. Just as steps towards a more just social/medical system are more likely under the Democrats. Will they go as far and as quickly as people here would want - no. Is one side preferable - yes. Again, would Gore have made huge cuts to taxes of the rich, no. Nor would he have suppresseed the views of US scientists and environmental agencies. These are important differences, if not as marked as we'd like.

Also I think it rather patronising to say that journalists in the NYT don't recognise that there isn't a lot of difference between the two sides. Of course they're aware of the old "they're all the same" charge. They know there is some truth in it, but they also note the remaining differences. In the NYT the other day (can't find it right now) one of them compared the debates of the two sides and said that in terms of the subjects given most attention, the two sides could almost have been on different planets.

Anyway - I'll stick with the glass half FULL approach :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 11:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 2)

Actually, the reason you offer as to why a US politician can't just pull out of Iraq is flawed. The real reason is because it would leave Iraqi oil to the most powerful military that stayed behind in the region - Turkey in the North, Iran to the East and perhaps Syria to the West. Once you understand that, it becomes clear that there ain't never gonna be a withdrawal, coz "our oil" is gonna become "their oil".

Scenarios? There's a good chance that the US military withdraws (after a couple more years of bleeding) to Kurdistan, thus maintaining an easy air & especially ground strike capability in the region which it'll use to try and maintain its grip on the hydrocarbons.

Regarding your "positive approach" to American politics and wanting to see the glass as being half full rather than half empty, I can only sympathize. But it's sorta like that guy who's fallen off the Empire State building - he gets to the 70th floor & thinks "so far so good...I'm still alive" down to the 50th & he thinks "so far so good..." down to the 10th...

The major problem of the US political system is its incestuous relationship with business. Business => media => candidates that get the marketing they need to be elected. Obvious. In practice, that means that if you're not with the Boeings, with the Chevrons, with the big business elites, you are never going to make it anywhere near real political power. Big business on the other hand is really not interested in issues like the environment, dead Iraqis, increasing minimum wage or starting to finance social security benefits for those who are about to start retiring. So you've got a situation which is analogous to over-fishing. The boats are just going to keep plundering the seas until there's nothing left to plunder. Same with the big business concerns: they're just going to keep financing those candidates who will promote their narrow, short-term interests.

Solution? It's about building a second power base. Grassroots fundraising, recruiting, campaigning, communicating. Identifying and enlisting those with money (lots of it) who don't necessarily have the same "narrow" interests as the Boeings & the Chevrons. What comes to mind? Biotech & medical - which is an interesting one because they're loaded with cash and they also have a direct stake in financing a comfortable retirement of millions of Americans who are about to... be deprived of one. Other sources of funds: most green businesses - although not yet cash heavy, they have a clear incentive to push through clean air & environment legislation and they need grassroots political support. We could go on with this brainstorming, but first: is there an interested audience?

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Actually, the reason you offer as to why a US politician can't just pull out of Iraq is flawed. The real reason is because it would leave Iraqi oil to the most powerful military that stayed behind in the region - Turkey in the North, Iran to the East and perhaps Syria to the West. Once you understand that, it becomes clear that there ain't never gonna be a withdrawal, coz "our oil" is gonna become "their oil".

It's your thinking which is "flawed" by your tendency to put things in either/or terms - the kind of thinking I'm generally objecting to, e.g. US journalism is either alive and agreeing with us - or dead. So you imply that if it's about oil it can't "really" be about such political considerations as likely voter reactions. It can, of course, be about both, and I didn't say the reason I gave was the only, nor the "real" reason.

Regarding your "positive approach" to American politics and wanting to see the glass as being half full rather than half empty, I can only sympathize. But it's sorta like that guy who's fallen off the Empire State building - he gets to the 70th floor & thinks "so far so good...I'm still alive" down to the 50th & he thinks "so far so good..." down to the 10th...

Very droll, but, of course, another either/or caricature. The alternative to cynical general dismissals of something is not uncritical acceptance of it: "so far so good". How many times do I have to note that I generally agree with Chomsky and Herman's powerful critique of the US media (I spent years encouraging students to read it) - hence so far is by NO means "so good" - so far is very bad in general. Got that now? But again I prefer, with Chomsky, not to just dimiss the whole of US journalism, and not even the mainstream like the NYT, but to note what is worthwhile it and support it. Those who investigated Watergate were a tiny minority, they persisted, luckily got some support, and in the end had an important effect. Seymour Hersh has had a major impact.

The major problem of the US political system is its incestuous relationship with business.

Not exactly an original insight and some of our insight into this has come from mainstream reporting.

As to your "solution": "building a second power base. Grassroots fundraising, recruiting, campaigning, communicating." This is pretty much Chomsky's view and why he tirelessly gives talks to grassroots groups, often documenting the faults of the media. But, because he isn't a prisoner of either/or thinking, this doesn't stop him acknowledging the efforts and successes of some journalists in the mainstream media - see the quotations in the diary. As I said it's a mixture of very critical realism and optimism that change can happen - as with Gramsci - and that journalists who want to help that process should be recognised and encouraged - not lumped together with all journalists and cynically dismissed.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:46:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Grrr (none / 1)

Actually, the reason you offer as to why a US politician can't just pull out of Iraq is flawed. The real reason is because it would leave Iraqi oil to the most powerful military that stayed behind in the region - Turkey in the North, Iran to the East and perhaps Syria to the West. Once you understand that, it becomes clear that there ain't never gonna be a withdrawal, coz "our oil" is gonna become "their oil".

Armed occupation is REALLY not a good environment to invest any money in oil production.

There will be no significant investment in Iraq for as long as US (or other foreign) forces occupy the country an,d, beyond that, until there is a legitimate government with actual authority over the relevant territory.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Grrr (none / 1)

There will be no significant investment in Iraq for as long as US (or other foreign) forces occupy the country an,d, beyond that, until there is a legitimate government with actual authority over the relevant territory.

... or, alternatively, that the 20 million remaining Iraqis die of famin, pandemics, ethnic cleansing, and eventually a bit of nerve gas for a topping.

I mean, it's not like if one million had already died in the past four years, and four more millions fled into neighboring countries. That would be like, 20% of the target in four years ?

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

And don't forget the circa 30 000 US soldiers who have been seriously debilitated in Iraq.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 4)

A few swallows don't really make a summer tho', do they ? The NYT may not be as bad as the WaPo as a repugnican water carrier, but it's done more than its fair share during the Bush reign.

The front page lies by Judith Miller propagandising for the Iraq war have never been formally repudiated. I believe they half-heartedly admitted they might not have been as rigorous in their fact-checking (which they constantly hit bloogers for) at some point. However, this might have been more forgiveable if they hadn't gone out to bat for Cheney's war on Iran with the same gross dishonesty they employed back in 2002/3.

Miller was generously "retired" after her discrediting following the Plame outing, when she should have been fired for her proven use of the NYT frontpage for govt propaganda. However, Michael R Cooper, who shared her byline for some of the more blatant lies was the man who wrote the Iranian bs.

Plus I don't forget they provide a pulpit for Tom "Iraq will turn a corner in 6 months" Friedman and David "I never read the NAFTA agreement, it was enough to know it was about free trade" Brooks. Two of the more committed neocon apologists. Friedman may be claiming to be a born-again environmentalist, but he will forever more be associated with "The Friedman Unit".

Equally, they sat on the FISA illegal wire-tapping revelations for over a year to avoid embarrassing George Bush during the 2004 re-election.

So, they protected republicanism when there was a chance it could be stopped. Now bush/cheney are certain to go and a democrat may be allowed into office to sweep up the mess they pretend to be fair for a while.

The NYT isn't so different from the repugnican house magazine, WaPo, or Time (which employs the increasingly ridiculous Joe Klein). It remains essentially a corporate magazine, it just has to give the appearance of presenting both sides of the political divide. It's just it has become too out of balance in the last few years and needs to do a root and branch re-modelling of its attitudes before anybody seriously believes its changed from being Judy Miller's megaphone.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 11:14:42 AM EST

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 3)

The questions that matter are:

Where is the Overton Window? (Aka 'Why are we debating torture at all and pretending to be at war when the earth is burning?')
Related - where's the centre of gravity of the establishment narrative?

Some dissent is always allowed. Even the Soviets allowed dissent, up to a point. You could point the finger at corrupt officials and even have a go at the nomenklatura - as long as you didn't call for a dismantling of the entire corrupt system.

But if the establishment narrative is insane - which it very much is in the US (torture? wiretapping? Iran war?) - then being a little bit sane around the edges doesn't cut a lot of ice.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 12:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

But if the establishment narrative is insane - which it very much is in the US (torture? wiretapping? Iran war?) - then being a little bit sane around the edges doesn't cut a lot of ice.

Clearly (isn't it?) I wasn't saying everything's fine with US journalism - hence the reference to "Manufacturing Consent" where Chomsky and Herman also make the point about some criticism giving legitimacy to the system. But Chomsky has an appropriately nuanced view, and, as I said, acknowledges the efforts of good journalists to get stuff through and he values that, rather than just dismissing it as "cutting no ice".

We shouldn't oversimplify. Here's an example of the NYT on torture, they are very clear (and not at all "insane"):

In Arrogant Defense of Torture
Published: December 9, 2007
The White House is already complaining about reports that House and Senate conferees have come to an agreement on an intelligence measure mandating that all agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, comply with the Army Field Manual's outlawing of torture. The manual properly reflects American law by explicitly proscribing the gamut of torture measures -- including waterboarding -- that have proved dear to the heart of administration zealots.
...
The new attorney general, Michael Mukasey, twisted himself into knots during his confirmation hearing, refusing to say whether waterboarding was torture and therefore illegal. Small wonder that Congress feels obliged to require that all agencies follow the Army manual's clear proscription of torture.
There is certainly merit in a Congressional debate. Lawmakers should demand that the White House and its allies explain why intelligence operatives should scoff at a ban on torture that soldiers swear to and is unquestionably the law of the land.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09sun2.html

It's Republicans like Giuliani who twist themselves in knots debating the issue - and try to blame their confusion on the liberal media:

"O.K. First of all, I don't believe the attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think Democrats said that; I don't think he was.''
Ms. Gustitus said: "He said he didn't know if waterboarding is torture."
Mr. Giuliani said: "Well, I'm not sure it is either. I'm not sure it is either. It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it's been defined in the media, it shouldn't be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that's the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn't be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I've learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don't always describe it accurately."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/in-his-own-words-giuliani-on-torture

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 2)

The test of ice cutting is influence on policy. You start by crafting a competing narrative, and then if there's enough unanimity around the new story it creates pressures to change policy.

If there's no change of core policy, dissent starts to look very token.

This doesn't mean journalists should stop trying - obviously I agree with Chomsky that dissent is an excellent thing.

But I see no reason to believe that Bush would last five minutes if the media turned on him. They turned on Nixon, and that led to impeachment and resignation - a very obvious change in the institutional narrative.

With Bush - not so much of that.

So it's not what one or two voices, or one or two 'fair and balanced' op-eds say - it's what the chorus says as a whole, and how willing the chorus is to stick a knife into weaknesses which are present in any administration.

The chorus still seems to believe that not only does Bush at least get a pass, but that a slightly softened version of the Bush narrative - 9/11, Al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorism, 9/11, WMDs, etc - is the centre of gravity around which policy should revolve.

Soft criticisms on specific issues are not the same as the press in full attack mode. We're very much not seeing the latter happening, and that makes the former rather toothless.

Compare that with what's happening in the UK, where the press is very much working itself up into attack mode with repeated stories of lost information.

I'd guess that government agencies lose information all the time - and most likely have been losing critical information for decades. (I know my tax records were lost when I moved here - which was fine with me, as it happened.)

But it's a convenient weakness with a dramatic narrative of Total Incompetence. And it's being exploited to the full, in a way that it wasn't when Thatcher or Blair were PM.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

But I see no reason to believe that Bush would last five minutes if the media turned on him. They turned on Nixon, and that led to impeachment and resignation - a very obvious change in the institutional narrative.

TBG, I'm sure you remember the Watergate affair and "All the President's Men". You do remember that a few journalists were pursuing it for months almost alone, until they unearthed enough stuff that the rest couldn't ignore.

With Bush - not so much of that.
So it's not what one or two voices, or one or two 'fair and balanced' op-eds say - it's what the chorus says as a whole, and how willing the chorus is to stick a knife into weaknesses which are present in any administration.
The chorus still seems to believe that not only does Bush at least get a pass, but that a slightly softened version of the Bush narrative - 9/11, Al Qaeda, 9/11, terrorism, 9/11, WMDs, etc - is the centre of gravity around which policy should revolve.

You can allege what you like, how about backing it up - as I did my claims. It's not just one or two voices and it's not just mild, some of the op-eds I cited weren't "fair and balanced at all - read M. Dowd for example. Bush and gang are being criticised increasingly, often in quite strong terms, cf the NYT editorial on torture, Friedman on Bush and team being "brain dead" on climate, etc. - just like the very harsh criticism of the Republican candidates I cited.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Influence on policy is a VERY interesting subject. But policy itself is the open question.

Take the peak oil / climate change problem (do we ever NEED a simple word to refer to these related issues).

Certainly there are policy issues at play. Oil companies and coal companies have interests and lobbies. So do the financial markets that feed off the oil trade. etc. There ARE vested influences. And the vested interest own the media (mostly.)

But this is different. We are talking about the radical reduction or even total elimination of FIRE. No one knows how this can be accomplished. The proposed "solutions" are pathetic compared to such a problem. Politicians and economists discuss billions when trillions are required. Anyone who even HINTS this might be easy should be required to go to a monastery and shut up for at LEAST as long as it takes to get caught up to speed.

Certainly we are hampered greatly by an economic system that can only be called industrial sabotage. By we are also doomed because of ignorance and lack of imagination. We are Prometheans who are required to abandon the very basis of civilized life and we cannot even get the questions right.

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

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

A few swallows don't really make a summer tho', do they ? The NYT may not be as bad as the WaPo as a repugnican water carrier, but it's done more than its fair share during the Bush reign.

Straw man argument; had I been arguing that the NYT was a model of responsible journalism your point would be relevant, as would the examples (whether or not accurate) you bring up. If you read my diary you would see that I made it very clear that the NYT was part of the system Chomsky and Herman criticised. Despite their general condemnation, Chomsky tries to be fair to those who sometimes get things through. You might try following his example, rather than simply issuing over-generalised condemnations.

My deliberately restricted point was clearly NOT that the NYT is beyond reproach, but that there are still critical articles to be found in the NYT (for all its faults) which are worthwhile - and not just a few - I found more than a few in a quick look in one week (others were cited in an earlier comment in an open thread:

http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2007/12/13/13932/356/28#28

So, like Chomsky, as I said, I am well aware of the general failings of the US media, while still welcoming good stuff which does get through.

Amongst the NYT articles were very critical op-eds on the Republican candidates. Perhaps you'd now like to admit that your suggestion that the mainstream media doesn't criticise Republican candidates, supposedly not even giving a "hint" of a "flaw":

And my question is this; When, in the last 10 - 15 years have the traditional media even published a hint that a GOP candidate might have a flaw ?
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/12/8/103830/416

and that:

The NYT may have it in for the Big G but they certainly love Mitt & Huck.
ibid

(based on not a single piece of evidence and in stark contrast to that presented by me) - were wildly inaccurate - or show us the evidence.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (4.00 / 4)

I will only add that this and this and this, for example, were the products of long-term, intensive investigative reporting projects that had to have been endorsed by several layers of editors and top management. These weren't "gotten through," they were planned, with time and money devoted to them on an institutional level. The same papers routinely publish the work of the man who wrote this and the woman who wrote this.

So it could well be (gasp!) that "they" are actually trying to tell stories that are important and may embarrass the powerful, and to represent a wide spectrum of opinion. (Heresy, I know.) They may not be as successful as we might wish, or anywhere near as successful as we might wish, and I particularly bemoan the woeful rightward slant of the editorial pages, but I do also weary of this idea that there is some monstrous grand media conspiracy in which every single journalist on Earth is working in lockstep to shift the entire planet 15 meters to the right....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

They may not be as successful as we might wish, or anywhere near as successful as we might wish, and I particularly bemoan the woeful rightward slant of the editorial pages, but I do also weary of this idea that there is some monstrous grand media conspiracy in which every single journalist on Earth is working in lockstep to shift the entire planet 15 meters to the right....

Ah - sanity :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 03:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

The cynical view is that newspaper editors and owners deliver a specific audience to advertisers - whatever it takes. Loyal readership = advertising bucks and everyone gets paid.

Television is largely driven by the same motivation.

Everywhere you look it is 'sales-driven'. Even politics - maybe 'especially*.

The transaction costs of eg ET are almost painless. It is virtually a friction-free transactional environment by nature. Lubrication is always expensive and points to bad design.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

What I admire about Chomsky is that he tends to avoid reductive simplifications, often substitutes for thought, such as: It's all about money. The same with Marx, despite some "followers". Thus he said: "Men make history, but they do not make it in circumstances of their own making." Therefore one has to pay attention to people (who are complex) AND to circumstances (also complex), as he did in historical works like that on the Paris Commune, without reducing everything to the economic.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 04:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

There you go again. Of course people and events are complex. We all know that. But some of us seek simple insights in a social discourse that may be useful framings of more complex arguments. Because the majority of those who vote will never read Chomsky. They have never heard the name even. Not would they understand the distinctions that are intellectually transparent.

Some of us are still engaged every day in a process of change. It is to those people that I direct my comments.

If you have some thing constructive to say, I will be happy to continue this conversation. But any semiotic analysis will be treated with disdain. I know what I mean (mostly) and a few other people here know what I mean. It is enough - for the moment - for me, in the time I have available.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 05:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

There you go again. Of course people and events are complex. We all know that.

But they don't always act on that knowledge (if they have it) - hence we get simplistic claims such as that all mainstream US journalism is bad - if not dead.

But some of us seek simple insights in a social discourse that may be useful framings of more complex arguments.

If they are too simple they are unlikely to be useful.

Because the majority of those who vote will never read Chomsky. They have never heard the name even. Not would they understand the distinctions that are intellectually transparent.

If they are "transparent" why wouldn't they be understood? Or do you mean transparent only to intellectuals ?

What has reading Chomsky got to do with it - where did I say it was necessary to read him? I was talking about reading mainstream media and not refusing to do so due to simplistic dismissals of it all. I simply compared Chomsky's attitude to reading mainstream to my own, noting that he is one of the people most critical of mainstream media. Also I was talking to people here - not all voters.

Some of us are still engaged every day in a process of change. It is to those people that I direct my comments.

I hope they appreciate them.

If you have some thing constructive to say, I will be happy to continue this conversation. But any semiotic analysis will be treated with disdain. I know what I mean (mostly) and a few other people here know what I mean. It is enough - for the moment - for me, in the time I have available.

I don't do "semiotic analysis" - my arguments are in pretty standard form and have been in defense of a constructive attitude towards the kinds of mainstream journalism which can help promote some change.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 07:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

There you go again...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 01:38:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

There you go yet again.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 07:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

An echo - yet again :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 10:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Also

Plus I don't forget they provide a pulpit for Tom "Iraq will turn a corner in 6 months" Friedman

Here's what he was actually saying - in October (yes, maybe he's changed his mind - that's to be welcomed, not ignored while making out-of-date allegations):

... the air has gone out of the Iraq debate.
That is too bad. Neglect is not benign when it comes to Iraq -- because Iraq is not healthy. Iraq is like a cancer patient who was also running a high fever from an infection (Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia). The military surge has brought down the fever, but the patient still has cancer (civil war). And we still don't know how to treat it. Surgery? Chemotherapy? Natural healers? Euthanasia?
To the extent that the surge has worked militarily, it is largely because of what Iraqis have done by themselves for themselves -- Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders rising up against pro-Qaeda Sunni elements, taking back control of their villages and towns, and aligning themselves with U.S. forces to do so. Some Shiites are now doing the same.
There has been no equivalent surprise, though, in Iraqi politics, yet. If you see that -- if you see Iraqi politicians surprising you by doing things they've never done before, like forging a self-sustaining political compromise and building the fabric of a unified country, then you can allow yourself some optimism.
So far, though, too many of Iraq's leaders continue to act their part -- looking out for themselves, their clans, their hometowns, their militias and their sects, and using the Iraqi treasury and ministries as looting grounds for personal or sectarian gains.
As a result, what you have today is more of a spotty truce, with U.S. soldiers still caught in the middle. That is a quiet strategy, not an exit strategy.
Study the travel itineraries of Iraq's principal factional leaders after the Petraeus hearings. Did they all rush to Baghdad to try to work out their differences? No. Many of them took off for abroad.
As one U.S. official in Baghdad pointed out to me last week, ''at no point'' since the testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker ''have you had the four key Iraqi leaders in the same country at the same time.'' They saw the hearings as buying them more time, and so they took it.
''We have created a real case of moral hazard in Iraq,'' said Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at George Washington University. ''Because all the key players think the Americans are going to bail them out, they have no incentive to make any real concessions to one another.''
...
Letting everyone know that we're not staying there forever would be the best way to catalyze both local and regional negotiations and give us something we don't now have: leverage. Just letting Iraq recede into the back pages does not serve our interests.
If we're going to just forget about Iraq, let's do it when we're gone -- not when we're still there.
NYT Oct 24

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 03:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

Yes, Friedman has come around on Iraq. He still writes stupid columns at a higher frequency than smart ones. I see no reason to take him seriously. And the NYT has a fair share of very flawed columnists.

Like Maureen Dowd, who writes vapid pieces about Edwards' haircut and generally prefers style over substance. Understandably enough, as she's a great stylist, one of the best, but has little substance.

Like David Brooks. When he's not spinning for the Republicans, he writes up excruciating pieces of pop sociology that attempt to determine the way entire American generations and classes - which he often construes purely on the basis of his own preconceptions - relate to reality. Or to the issue of the day. At his worst, he combines the two and will blather about 'security moms' backing Bush.

Like Roger Cohen, who is a decent thinker about half of the time, but is so enamoured with his own 'seriousness' that he mistakes it for, you know, actually being right about something.

Criticising these people and undercutting their reputation has been a great service of the US left-wing blogosphere. That's independent of the question whether or not the NYT should be criticised for not firing them.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Yes, Friedman has come around on Iraq. He still writes stupid columns at a higher frequency than smart ones. I see no reason to take him seriously. And the NYT has a fair share of very flawed columnists.

I suppose all those who choose to read his columns and books are stupid too. Why not just show where he is wrong.

Yes he has come round on Iraq and that is to be welcomed, because, whatever you might think, he has an influential voice. I don't find what he now says about Iraq stupid, nor what he has to say about climate change - and I'm glad that someone like him, in the pages of the NYT is calling Bush and team "brain dead".

Like Maureen Dowd, who writes vapid pieces about Edwards' haircut and generally prefers style over substance.

Read her piece on Feith - and it wasn't about his haircut, and it certainly isn't "vapid".

Understandably enough, as she's a great stylist, one of the best, but has little substance.

I'm still waiting for some substance, rather than a litany of acerbic opinion, from you.

Like Roger Cohen, who is a decent thinker about half of the time, but is so enamoured with his own 'seriousness' that he mistakes it for, you know, actually being right about something.

If he's a "decent thinker about half the time" how is that - according to you - he's apparently not right about anything?

Is he wrong about this ? Is it just about his own "seriousness"?

Romney rejects the "religion of secularism," of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson's "wall of separation" must be restored if those who would destroy the West's Enlightenment values are to be defeated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/opinion/13cohen.html

Criticising these people and undercutting their reputation has been a great service of the US left-wing blogosphere.

Nobody has suggested they should never be criticised - where appropriate. For those not "enamoured" with their own opinions, it's also clear that these people don't always need criticising, and that when they say things we can agree with, we might well acknowledge that and encourage it. A modest proposal.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 07:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

I suppose all those who choose to read his columns and books are stupid too. Why not just show where he is wrong.

Should I take this as a request for deconstructions?

Yes he has come round on Iraq and that is to be welcomed, because, whatever you might think, he has an influential voice. I don't find what he now says about Iraq stupid, nor what he has to say about climate change - and I'm glad that someone like him, in the pages of the NYT is calling Bush and team "brain dead".

Yes, Friedman is influential. That's precisely the point. I haven't fully figured out why he is influential. I think he has some ability to connect, but that's eeehm, esoteric.

I'm still waiting for some substance, rather than a litany of acerbic opinion, from you.

I try to write substantial pieces most of the time. Dowd doesn't. Now if I'm right about this, I should be able to come up with at least two counterexamples for each substantial piece she's written. I grant that the Feith piece does have some substance. So here's one vapid piece, and here's another. Dowd on the campaign trail is a complete disaster.

If he's a "decent thinker about half the time" how is that - according to you - he's apparently not right about anything?
Is he wrong about this ? Is it just about his own "seriousness"?

I don't mean to say that Cohen is wrong all the time. Just that he's often more concerned about being 'serious' than about being right.

Now Cohen is wrong about the supposed morality of his support for the Iraq war, and his assorted liberal interventionist poses, and he's definitely been embarassingly wrong in writing about that solipsistic metastory. Read this post on that.

All I can say otherwise is that I like or can find enough interesting angles to provide redeeming value in about half of what Cohen writes. YMMV. But he has deep flaws that interfere with his writing.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Should I take this as a request for deconstructions?

If you like, but if you think his work requires deconstructions this suggests that it's not simply "stupid" (nor are most of his readers) but rather that he may be misguided, mistaken, etc. - which I am very ready to believe.

Yes, Friedman is influential. That's precisely the point. I haven't fully figured out why he is influential. I think he has some ability to connect, but that's eeehm, esoteric.

If he's influential that also suggests he's not just stupid - you are only puzzled about this because you are attached to the idea that he is :-)

I try to write substantial pieces most of the time. Dowd doesn't.

But then you're not trying to ensure a large readership at at the NYT are you? - and they, like most of us, like to be amused from time to time. Also - once again - it's no part of my argument that she ALWAYS writes substantial articles with which many eurotribbers would agree - it's enough for me that she does so from time to time - it's not either/or again.

I don't mean to say that Cohen is wrong all the time. Just that he's often more concerned about being 'serious' than about being right.

Could it possibly be that you have to admit he's a "decent thinker" and serious, but you happen to disagree with his conclusions - so attribute this to a supposed excessive attachment to his "seriousness" ? :-) Again, I'm not arguing that any of the people I quoted from are always right or worth reading - just that they shouldn't be automatically dismissed just because they write for a mainstream journal like the NYT.

All I can say otherwise is that I like or can find enough interesting angles to provide redeeming value in about half of what Cohen writes.

That's much more than enough to provide support for what I was arguing - thanks :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 1)

Ted, you are framing yourself as an independent consumer of this medium - the NYT. That is fine. I myself appreciate the NYT as a source of news and opinion. I also appreciate that you point out that the paper is not all that bad.

The argument the left wing blogosphere has made against the particular set of columnists is not about this frame. It's about their influence on the overall discourse.

Now if Maureen Dowd chooses to devote her prime piece of news media real estate to pranksterism and political coverage as theatre criticism two out of three times, that's a bit of a waste IMHO. But your mileage may vary.

However, Maureen Dowd is influential. She has a large and largely malign influence on political discourse in the US, by normalising her kind of content-free campaign coverage. This is why criticism and ridiculisation of Maureen Dowd is very important.

So I don't mean to attack your point that there is stuff worth reading in the NYT. I'm pointing out that the criticism you see of the NYT - especially of the opinion pages - is an important attempt to improve the political discourse in the US.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Nanne - perhaps you are enamoured by your own seriousness - to borrow a phrase :-)

Of course I'm not at all against anyone criticising the NYT and its columnists - generally I'm extremely critical myself. What I'm against are simplistic generalizations and sometimes ignorant dismissals.

As far as Dowd is concerned, I'm not a regular reader, but concerning what I have read, I don't share your criticism. I think satire can be a quite potent weapon - e.g. her article about Clinton and Obama and drugs. Her latest piece might be one you'd call "vapid" because it deals with appearances. If so, again I'd disagree, since the first TV debate between Kennedy and Nixon it's become very clear how important appearances can be and she rightly deals with the problems mature women have in this respect and the wider obsession with appearances in US culture:

... some conservative pundits who disagree with a woman on matters of policy jump straight into an attack on the woman's looks or personal life.
And so the inevitable came to pass this week when Rush Limbaugh began riffing about an unflattering picture of Hillary in New Hampshire that Matt Drudge put up on his Web site with the caption, "The Toll of a Campaign."
"So the question is this," the radio personality said. "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?"
Observing that Hillary is stuck with a looks-obsessed culture and that the presidency ages its occupants, including W., Limbaugh observed that "men aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished. Sadly, it's not that way for women, and they will tell you."
...
Paul Costello, who was an aide to Rosalynn Carter and Kitty Dukakis, calls this "the snake belly of the campaign," and notes drily: "We've been staring at aging white men from the beginning of the democracy."
Yet it's true that looks matter in politics, even though Abe Lincoln still ranks as our favorite president. J.F.K.'s tan and Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow helped turn that 1960 debate in Kennedy's favor, just as Gore's waxy orange makeup and condescending mien hurt him in a debate with W.
It is also true that perfecting the outer shell has become an obsession in this country. We're a nation of Frankensteins and the monster is us. Jennifer Love Hewitt was on the cover of People last week and ended up defending her less svelte pictures with her new fiancé in Hawaii, writing on her Web site: "A size 2 is not fat!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/opinion/19dowd.html

You might think this fails to deal with "serious" stuff - I don't.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

Ted Welch:

Yes, Friedman has come around on Iraq. He still writes stupid columns at a higher frequency than smart ones. I see no reason to take him seriously. And the NYT has a fair share of very flawed columnists.
I suppose all those who choose to read his columns and books are stupid too. Why not just show where he is wrong.
Yes he has come round on Iraq and that is to be welcomed, because, whatever you might think, he has an influential voice.

Oh no, LOL... Ted, I can't believe you fell for this guy. I myself have an allergic reaction just to his style, all those verbal leaps and twisted allegories that don't really make sense upon closer inspection.

No amount of talk on climate change will alleviate his sins. Those include playing a prophet of neoliberal globalisation (culminating in his infamous Flat Earth-ism), and his choice of such a superficiality as example of action on climate change as Google's decision shows that despite talking about market forces, he is still pre-occupied with his glorious private start-ups and their shiny toys and corporate propaganda than to think about large-scale (government) policy.

With Friedman there is also the issue that when you'd think he understood something, in another six months you'll scratch your head. It appears to me downthread that you haven't understood what's up with the Friedman unit: it's not a single column, it's several columns over years that always signalled a changing opinion and expectation of a make-or-break soon -- but that soon never came, just another proclamation of an impending watershed.

Finally, Friedman's foreign policy views are thoroughly rotten, it's not just the Iraq War. What he writes on anything connected to the Israeli-Arab conflict is simply disgusting -- I deconstructed once one nasty example. He was also a bloodthirsty promoter of terror bombing Serbia -- when he wrote the infamous line:

"Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance."

The second sentence is said to be his motto, often repeated privately as well as in talk-shows.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 03:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT (none / 0)

No I didn't "fall for this guy" - I just made a simple distinction between what he has said on other subjects, and what he's currently saying on climate change - which is to be welcomed. If he changes his mind in six months time I will criticise him then. I suggest you try to be a bit more discriminating and not divide people simplistically into the saved and the damned.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it. (none / 0)

Why has the last half of this thread devolved into a bash-fest against a very reasonable appraisal - with relevant citations - of the recent history and current state of the editorial stance of the NYT? Ted Welch has stated repeatedly in the thread that the commenters' criticisms of NYT 'reporters', pundits, and editors are valid. His only caveat is that ETers should show the same approval, where warranted, that, say, a Chomsky would allow.

Personally, I will hate Friedman, Brooks, Miller, et al forever for their role in, for example, the Iraq invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean that I can't agree with correct or corrected views.

Points about the new systems, paradigms, influences, and means are interesting and to some extent occuring. I'll add that the established media are alleged to be losing income, circulation, and standing. (ET News 'channel' would probably find a substantial niche in a very short time - another co-op idea?) The blogs -and the MySpaces, etc - represent a democratic movement, however anarchic, and they seem to be having a very definite effect. I think that we can ascribe the relatively quick attitude turnaround in the U.S. public, concerning the occupation of Iraq, to the influence and interaction of the blogs. The resistance to the FISA update bill yesterday was motivated, led, and organized via the blogs and related groups (MoveOn, for instance).

For now, though, - and probably forever - it seems reasonable to give credit where due and meet improvement with approval.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 11:46:03 AM EST

Re: I don't get it. (none / 0)

How very astute :-) - thanks Paul.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 12:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get it. (none / 0)

(ET News 'channel' would probably find a substantial niche in a very short time - another co-op idea?)

So why don't we start one? DR (the Danish public radio is being ~~downsized~~ butchered (as punishment for not drinking the neo-lib/neo-con kool-aid), their TV anchors are fleeing in droves and the fecal matter is about to hit the rotating air impeller on the radio side as well. So I think I know where we can find some excellent newsies if we can raise the capital and convince them that we have a reasonable business plan...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Watch for it (none / 0)

In the new year things that lower any status America had as a great nation will dominate "media".

Declining nations, ie, nations scheduled for termination shall generate all sorts of "news".

Here is one from the conservative slant.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/pat-buchanan-plays-nazi-card.html

I don't see the press as being "leftist" as much as I see media attempting of offer something to every "demographic" they research and profit from. So they are manufacturing debate yet keeping anything destructive of American ideals perpetually "in the news cycle". This war does make division and may account for such things as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, a more widespread American rejection of the conventional establishment.

by Lasthorseman on Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 09:35:18 PM EST

IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

IT'S ALIVE ! - even in the NYT

Top Diaries

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Sovereignty 2040

Recent Diaries

Biden's Headache in Middle East: Israel

EU as Client State of Joe's America

Canada's Trudeau Honoring an Ukrainian Nazi Collaborator

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

A Tale by Benjamin Franklin

Fail in Democracy Return to Authoritarianism

Yemen From Ceasefire to Peace Talks?

Huge Cost Proxy War of Choice

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Top Military War Planning Under Joe Biden - Ukraine

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Joe's Fuck the EU -- Showdown

Modi G20 One Earth, One Family, One Future

Conflict In Syria's Deir Ezzor Province

Sovereignty 2040

Some September Food/Ag Events

September 2023

The Leading International Pariah State