Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogroll
-
-
-
An Unlucky President, and a Lucky Man3 years ago
-
Search6 years ago
-
32+ Years...6 years ago
-
A Glimpse of Hell6 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Farewell!15 years ago
-
-
A couple of things:
ReplyDelete1. Isn't the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate over in California? I thought it was, and Kaus received 5 percent of the vote. Gone, Mickey, gone!
2. I don't disagree that much with Kaus' argument about the JournoList idea. That's because rather than painting it as a vast media conspiracy to fool the American Republic, he says the list was basically a clubby networking tool for friends to advance their careers. Fair enough.
I've long argued to both of you -- well, you, Esquire, since V.M. seems have gone AWOL of late -- that journalists are more preoccupied with professional demands (getting scoops and exclusives, being linked, becoming editors) than with getting their political agendas into print.
2A. But I have a different fight. Kaus pooh-poohs Weigel and Salam when they say they treated the List as an "idea latrine," that is, a safe space to test arguments before publishing them. Now, I don't see why that's completely ridiculous -- in the past, that is, before the Internet and listservs, people talked with each other in person (or on the phone) to ask, "What about X?" and reflected before heading to the typewriter.
The idea that people should now just put everything out on the Internet first -- that is, making the publishing point the start of the discussion, rather than the a second or third step in the political conversation, worries me. I'm not a huge fan of putting instant thoughts on the web. And if people want to use technology to see what other intelligent friends and colleagues will say privately about an idea before they hit the publish button, what's so wrong with that?
2B. Finally, Kaus says the journalists in JournoList should have put their opinions out in the open, implying that the journalists in question -- bloggers and opinion makers like Ezra Klein and Spencer Ackerman -- weren't already doing that for the past five years (or more). In fact, Ackerman was famously canned by The New Republic after he said he would "skullfuck" terrorists to prove his fidelity to the war on terror. That's a crude example, but Kaus acts as if those on the list did not engage in open-ended discussion while in JournoList. Not true -- everyone knows what Klein believes, how he thinks and where he stands, precisely because he engaged his audience.
There are many things wrong with your argument Berchmans. I’ll only point out the two most obvious.
ReplyDelete1) Open-ended discussions? Testing arguments? Remember, entry into JournoList was by a political-established ideology only. It was harder for the Salahi’s to get into the White House than it was for conservatives to get on that email listserv. And if you want to test your ideas – fine, I have no problem with that. But can you really call it ‘testing’ when those on JournoList were throwing their ideas out there amongst people who were their political and ideological friends? What is it that you suppose was being testing? Good grammar?
And anyway, what’s the standard to ferret out poorly-reasoned ideas among like-minded journalists? I mean, this isn’t science. There’s no method that I know of that journalists use to debunk ideas. That’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact.
I guess it’s surprising to see you defend JournoList when you’ve argued forcefully again and again and again that human beings are not rational decision makers when it comes to economics or politics or anything else. We love to join the crowd, to do what others are doing. We think like our friends, we seek their approval. We often mindlessly go with the flow. That’s why we need to be nudged, remember?
(Not surprisingly, like-minded people can rationalize a host of stupid ideas. And if you need proof of this proposition, just re-read Alice Walker’s “The Lottery” or a history of any one of the 20th century’s genocides. Or better yet, just look out your office window. How many women are wearing high heels to work? How many men are wearing suits in the middle of summer?)
So my question to you Berchmans is, how was JournoList any different?
2) Which brings me to my second point: you imply that journalists are more career-minded than they are political. That seems to me to fail to understand that these two ideas are one and the same. Berchmans, our beliefs – political, ideological, whatever – are what propel our careers.
If someone decides that they want to devote their lives helping the poor, they can work for some international NGO digging wells or fashioning malaria nets. Or they can open a business selling baked goods and hiring people to staff the bakery. Both paths are each predicated on their own set of beliefs. To go far on either path – that is, to be career-minded – that someone will have to make nice with like-minded people who share her beliefs. That’s not cronyism, that’s just life.
It’s very hard to successfully meet professional demands without politics becoming involved. Call me cynical, but I just don’t think career-minded journalists in a politically exclusive club ‘testing’ ideas with other like-minded friends before hitting the publish button should count as an “open-ended discussion.” Journalists are not some special class of humans who can cast aside irrational ideas, who do not seek approval from others, or who can advance their careers without politics getting involved.
But maybe I'm just cynical.
VM --
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see you back in the game. Well, "good" may be too strong a word. Cute, maybe?
There are a couple of reasons why like-minded people would argue among themselves about ideological dilemmas. Take the recent debate on health care reform: some liberals thought the only way to effectively reduce our medical spending was a public option, but others on the left disagreed (and for a variety of reasons, from policy disagreements to political considerations).
Secondly, you should know, as an accomplished writer, that everyone needs an editor. That could be an ideological foe or friend, but it doesn't matter. If you asked me if I could have Matt Yglesias or Ezra Klein take a quick look at an essay or argument before I published, just to see if I could emphasize something or remove another thing, I'd be more than happy to take part.
As for your second point about careers and politics: let's take your bakery example. In this case, I presume you mean someone decided to start a business because she believes small businesses run the American economy and would do a better job alleviating poverty than working for a NGO. Fair enough.
But once in operation, I sincerely doubt that same business owner would make decisions based on political considerations, rather than profit-oriented ones. (Since you believe everyone is rational, I would have thought you'd appreciate this element.) So, she will not bake cakes with President Obama's face if she doesn't think they'll sell.
Do you understand? Journalists -- the objective kind, not the editorialists on JournaList -- know that they cannot appear to be biased in their pieces, because there are plenty of people who believe that is a firing offense (witness the CNN editor was removed for a Tweet about a dead Hezbollah leader). Based on those professional considerations, they scrub themselves of writing anything other than what one side says, and what the other says in response.
That simple.
Esquire made a different argument earlier, when he said that the federal government's power has grown so extensive, no reporter, no matter how local, can avoid being politically influenced. I find that a bit hard to believe -- if there is a local debate about whether or not a traffic signal should be built, it's highly unlikely that a reporter will use his print space to somehow include a note about unenumerated rights and all that. More likely, he will write, "X people oppose a traffic light because it obscures a wonderful view, while Y people argue it is necessary for traffic flow."
Again: that simple.