I'm angry about this dispute because I think it's an invasion of privacy and an attack on a profession that I studied for a year and a half in a very, very cold place (that you both of you will no doubt remember). We have long argued about whether or not journalists are capable of balance (I find it curious that conservatives believe judges can be even-handed and non-ideological, even though they instinctively believe journalists care more about their partisan agenda than earning a paycheck). But most journalists in this country do not work in Washington, and they do not cover the Obama Administration (I'd venture to say most do not even cover political issues, but particular beats like health, crime, etc .). It's really, really hard to be biased one way or another about whether or not a new traffic signal should be installed in X Township. (It's also really hard to feel motivated enough to convey this bias in print.)
At a time when easily edited videos (some, like those that supposedly exposed ACORN, taken under false pretenses) can masquerade as journalism, I think the need for people who at the very least ask all sides in a particular dispute for comment deserves a little more respect than currently on display.
Would you agree that having "secret meetings" (sort of speak, online or otherwise) at least leaves open the possibility of inpropriety? It doesn't guarentee that there is, but it's neither bizarre to suggest that there could be.
ReplyDeleteThe heads of 4 mafia families could all meet for ice-cream and have it be nothing more than four gentlemen getting ice-cream. But one can also be forgiven for speculating that perhaps the meeting was more than that as well.
The fact is that, whether anything improper re: a journalistic standards occurred, the Journo-List idea simply looks bad when there is already ample evidence that the media tilts towards one ideology.
As for judges versus journalists...judges historically have a better track record at objectivity.
Also, am I correct in understanding that you think ALL of the latter were baseless, made-up/nothing-to-see-here affairs:
ReplyDelete1)ACORN's impropriety
2)Climate-Gate
3)Journo-List
???
Jesus. Were I less charitable, I'd start to wonder about about your capacity for perceiving wrong-doing by those with whom you agree. But of course, I'm always charitable. :)
Finally (for now), regarding your "most reporters aren't in DC/bias via traffic lights" point. There's some merit to that.
But all politics is local. And everything that the Feds do impacts local issues. Therefore the choices local reporters make on a whole slew of issues come into the political sphere (And this becomes truer and truer the more Washington tries to regulate anything and everything). I've read enough of my hometown paper (which is as liberal as can be, thanks to the fruit-bags who live in my home town) to see how even local reporters can have their heads up their ideological asses.
Esquire, you're moving quickly from the facts at hand to an abstract level of discussion. Yes, on principle, I'd be more worried about "secret meetings," as if anyone could argue against transparency (and it's very sly of you to force me into a position where I have to defend secrecy, even though that's not the question here).
ReplyDeleteAgain: a bunch of friends/ideological allies meeting in person or online is not inappropriate. Imagine the standard you would create in its stead -- any meeting, even for drinks after work, should be open to all, with invitations sent to Tucker Carlson, just in case he needs to be at hand to prevent a democracy-killing conspiracy from forming.
What utter nonsense. Whatever happened to the right to associate with like-minded fellows? As for something "looking bad," it absolutely drives me insane when people talk about the "appearance" of a conflict of interest being equally offending as an actual conflict of interest. I deal with reality, not appearances of it. (Well, as long as I'm outside Plato's Cave.)
To take your example: if four mafia families met in secret, I wouldn't necessarily be worried about the secrecy part, but the fact they are all MAFIA FAMILIES. That's not an apropos analogy, Esquire.
And one more time: a) I don't agree there is "ample evidence that the media tilts towards one ideology," though, per Lewis Carroll, perhaps saying it three times will make it true. b) Even if there were an ideological tilt, these people on the list are not -- I repeat, not -- balanced journalists. They are opinion writers! They're supposed to be titled towards an ideology, for God's sake!
Do you realize, Esquire, that your logic also impugns the point behind this website? I argued for creating this forum in part because I thought it would be more convenient than bandying about e-mails (which, again, I did in the full expectation of privacy, as did you two). Now, anyone could go through the hundreds of e-missives we have exchanged and pull out offending comments (uttered no doubt from all three of us), most of which occurred in light, humorous moments during honest, free-wheeling political discussion.
There are moments, Esquire, when I think you are too ready to condone the pet causes of conservatism, no matter how silly or spectacle-oriented, because of some deep-seated cultural annoyance you have with perceived liberal discourses. If American movement conservativism were more about Burkean cautionary tales on human agency and knowledge, I would, quite honestly, be one with it (not least because Burke was quick to remind the British of the folly of their actions in India).
And even though I have policy disagreements on where we stand on the Laffer Curve, I wouldn't lose my mind completely about whether or not the upper tax bracket should be 35 percent, or 39 percent. It isn't all that important to me.
But the cultural baggage that modern conservativism now carries -- this eternal sense that an older, more simple American time has been corrupted by malicious elites (experts, scientists, journalists, college-educated professionals) -- it takes a kernel of truth and transforms it into misdirected and useless populist battles.
I think this fracas over Journlo-List is nothing more than the desperate musings of an angry man (namely, Breibart) to drive up Internet hits and take out important political foes -- but you're willing to give it credence, Esquire. I just don't understand it. Count this as one of the few moments where I do not understand your opinion.
Oh -- I didn't read your second comment, only your first.
ReplyDeleteClimate-gate -- I think the official inquiries that have come out in the U.K. have not found any evidence that questions the prevailing scientific consensus that man-made activities are contributing to global warming. Of course, I haven't read through all of them, so feel free to pass along any information I'm missing.
ACORN -- Some of the videos Breibart (am I spelling his name right?) presented were, in fact, edited and taken under false pretenses. We now know that at least one person caught in the tapes -- I think a man in San Diego -- was made to look like he was trying to facilitate a pimping scandal when, in fact, he was trying to find information to send to the police (which he immediately did after the pair left).
But whatever -- I never cared about ACORN as much as you conservatives did; quite frankly, not that it has been largely dismantled, I can see how threatening and ominous it was. Liberty feels much safer now. (I'm being sarcastic because I haven't had lunch yet.)
Journo-List: Really, a nothing, truly a nothing-nothing, scandal. Everyone has known about Journo-List for a long time, and no one made a big deal about it until Tucker Carlson decided he needed to bring Daily Caller on the map. And it worked. Kudos to him.
Finally, about your argument that there is no local reporting anymore (because of D.C.'s reach): I really don't agree. You would have a more compelling argument if you said that there is politics in everything (even the features section), but I know you're wary of that line of thinking.
But I can't go into details from my own experience lest I divulge my identity. Wouldn't want that.
By the way -- your local paper -- are you talking about The Oregonian? Because it has a great reputation for solid reporting in the industry.
ReplyDeleteWasn't talking about the Oregonian. I'm ambivalent about the Oregonian though they almost always endorse liberals.
ReplyDeleteI was going to omit mention of my hometown as a way to preserve some anonymity, but since you ask...was talking about the Ashland Daily Tidings. They'd endorse Mao if they could.
Re: the larger conversation...I actually figured my second email would get a larger, more emotive reaction since I was being provacative. The first one I thought was mostly just a "I can understand why conservatives are skeptical..." without actually endorsing one way or the other.
I'd comment, but I'm burning a bratwurst on the grill.
You must separate editorial page from the rest of the paper!
ReplyDeleteAlso, why am i not invited to said barbeque?
I'll separate the editorial pages from the rest of the paper when they do.
ReplyDelete(Ohhhh! See what I did there?)
Also, I did invite you. But you refused to buy a plane ticket.
Unbelievably entertaining. So delicious!
ReplyDeleteIf I had something good to say, I would. But I'll just this one out.
(OK, I lied. I do have one thing to say. Can the two of you be any more unconcealed about your secret identities? Geez. You two are about as discreet as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were sincere.)