Mon, Oct 6, 2008

I'm going to catch that horse if I can ...

I did a short post on the VP debate for the Guardian on Friday; it's here. Speaking of which, the moderating, again, was lousy. Just look at this question from Gwen Ifill: "Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why."

I know it sounds smartish at first, but really, what kind of a comparison is that? "Sir, would you prefer a punch in the nose or a kick in the knee?" The question is not which is a greater threat, as if they are planning to wait their turn if we ask politely; it is "what is to be done" about each one? The way Ifill phrases it, it is pure nonsense.

And second, in light of both McCain and Palin's 'Reptitive maverick syndrome" Petey did a little research. OK, it's Wikipedia, but still:

Samuel Augustus Maverick (July 23, 1803-September 2, 1870) was a Texas lawyer, politician, land baron and signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. From his name comes the term "maverick", first cited in 1867, which means independent minded. Maverick was considered independent minded by his fellow ranchers because he refused to brand his cattle.[1] In fact, Maverick's failure to brand his cattle had little to do with independent mindedness, but reflected his lack of interest in ranching.[1] He is the grandfather of U.S. Congressman Maury Maverick, who coined the term gobbledygook (1944).

Remember The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein rant of last week in this, where he complained about the stupidity of "the left wing bloggers," adding, "Thank God there is a mainstream media out there that actually does reporting and has people who understand thing [sic], because if the flow of information and news to the American people were left solely to bloggers, we'd be in a big mess."

Not long after reading that, I came across this piece, entitled, "The business press is missing the crooked heart of the credit crisis," by Dean Starkman in Columbia Journalism Review, here. It's a pretty long piece and it almost entirely contradicts the argument of Pearlstein's rant, and gives added ammunition to those "bloggers" of whom he is so contemptuous. I wonder how his quote would read if we substituted the words "Columbia Journalism Review" for "left-wing bloggers." (And wait, it gets much, much better: Check this out: "What we didn't understand was that this was building up. We all bear responsibility to a certain extent," Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli tells Howard Kurtz here. So dude, you think your new editor-in-chief- is also just another loudmouth know-nothing lefty blogger too? Inquiring minds want to know ...)

One of the many twists in the path towards last week's bailout bill was the right-wing uproar over the funding allegedly provided to the community-organizing group ACORN. Conservatives alleged, falsely, that ACORN would get millions of taxpayer dollars if the bill were approved. For example, on the September 29 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs claimed: "ACORN stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars from a government bailout of Wall Street." Dobbs added later: "This is a straightforward deal for ACORN and other groups, left-wing groups, set up by the Democratic leadership of Congress. They're not interested in the bailout per se. They want to spread this out, and many people believe that this bailout in part is dear to the Democratic leadership because they want to advance a social agenda here as much as much as an economic bailout of Wall Street." This was a claim repeated by Fox News, conservative columnist Mona Charen, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, and others.

The ACORN claims, as Media Matters documents, are plainly false. An amendment -- later dropped -- did direct 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets towards competitively bid block grants for certain community groups, but it didn't mention ACORN at all, and all the money was subject to competitive bidding. ACORN's own legislative director says the group probably couldn't get that money anyhow.

CBS News describes this attempt to tie ACORN to a bill with which it has no plausible association as "institutionally driven." It seems like an odd maneuver until you understand the subtext.

Note Dobbs' description of the "left-wing group," and the push to "advance a social agenda." House Republicans described ACORN in an e-mail as a "scandal-tarnished 'community organizing group'" - the scare quotes are theirs. Charen says it's "a busy hive of left-wing agitation.... ACORN does many things under the umbrella of 'community organizing.'" (Scare quotes again hers; she also is sure to note the group's efforts to "try to unionize welfare workers.") The Wall Street Journal described ACORN as "one of America's most militant left-wing 'community activist groups' " (scare quotes also the Journal's).

We have also seen a sustained push to associate the financial mess with -- well, black people, really. In a September 28 Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby asserted: "The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to 'meet the credit needs' of 'low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.' Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans." With her trademark sledgehammer wit, Ann Coulter titled her most recent column "THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY."

This anti-ACORN crusade that materialized out of nowhere is simply an extension of that campaign -- the right-wing Investor's Business Daily claims the group is "the activist leader for risky 'affirmative action' loans." Mainstream media outlets, such as CBS News and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder should note the obvious context of these random assaults on ACORN - if they choose to repeat them at all.

Imagine how baseball fans would react to this:

The umpire from yesterday's White Sox-Devil Rays game says he regrets letting the players "blow him off." Although Paul Konerko refused to leave the batter's box after three strikes, the umpire said there's "little an umpire can do" to stop that.

That's probably how we should be reacting to this.

George Zornick writes: The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg writes that Campbell Brown is "tack[ing] toward commentary." He notes her recent grilling of McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, and also a comment about how the campaign is handling access to Sarah Palin.

Steinberg writes: "Ms. Brown's plea to 'Free Sarah Palin' has appeared to have had journalistic repercussions for CNN. Unlike ABC, CBS and Fox News, CNN has yet to be granted an interview with Ms. Palin, a distinction the network shares with MSNBC and NBC News, which have also run afoul of the McCain campaign."

"Has appeared to have had," I think, means Steinberg can't draw any connection here. How are we really to know that the reason Palin has done no CNN interviews is because of Brown's commentary? Maybe, but maybe not.

Also, does Steinberg really think her questioning of Bounds represents a "challenge" for Brown, who may want to distinguish herself "from the loud advocacy of Mr. Olbermann" and Bill O'Reilly? If you remember the interview, she was simply trying to get an answer to the question she asked. Steinberg does note this later:

As evidence that her program is more down the middle than might at times be apparent, she argued that rather than attacking Mr. Bounds, she had persisted only in trying to get him to answer her questions. This included her insistence that he name any decision Ms. Palin had made as Alaska governor concerning the state's National Guard unit.

Ah, now that's balance. No danger of commentary in this description -- no logic, either.

The irony: Conservative radio host Armstrong Williams criticized vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill over her upcoming book about African-American political leaders, saying she "should have disclosed" it, and that it is "ultimately impossible" for her not to favor Obama, because she has a "financial stake" in his winning the presidency. However, beginning in 2003, Williams did not disclose that he received $240,000 in Education Department funds to promote No Child Left Behind. The Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Education's actions constituted "covert propaganda" in violation of the law. The rest is here.

In our recent Think Again "The Crisis From Nowhere," we noted that even in the week where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over and even more ominous signs were on the horizon, the economy got only 6 percent of the "newshole" and the presidential campaign got 39 percent.

During the crisis the economy did take front seat, but it was a short ride -- during the week of September 22-28, the presidential campaign was back out in front on cable TV.

From TomDispatch:

Here's a look at the world of 2010 (as seen by the U.S. Intelligence Community back in 1997): "We find a Russia irredeemably in economic decline, a China beset by too many internal problems to hope for military dominance in Asia, and a North Korea so transformed that military tensions have vanished from the Korean peninsula (along, evidently, with the North Korean nuclear program). Oh, and those food riots that swept the globe recently, they never happened. After all, it's well known that food production has kept up with population pressures, and energy production has been more than a match for global energy needs. As for global warming? Never heard of it. On the bright side, the key to the future is 'international cooperation,' led, of course, by us truly."

Consider Tom Engelhardt's latest post, "Spying on the Future," the strangest little tour of the future you've taken in a while. Every four years or so, representatives of the 18 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) turn into so many sci-fi writers and produce a Global Trends briefing document on the relatively distant future for new presidents. It is then made public. The newest one is to arrive this December and a speech by Thomas Fingar, the IC's "top analyst," previewed its main prediction: "reduced" American dominance for 2025. (Evidently Obama and McCain are already being briefed.) This is the sort of prediction that would have been striking back in 1997, but, as Engelhardt writes, "if you've been paying the slightest attention to your daily paper, Fingar's speech offered a hint of a future hardly more illuminating than a headline saying, 'Water predicted to remain in Indian Ocean in 2025.'"

Out of curiosity, then, at a moment when American global power is being shaken to its core, he took a little time-traveling trip of my own back to the intelligence reports of 1997 and 2000 (on the years 2010 and 2015) just to check out the skills of the IC when it comes to planting the Stars and Stripes in the future. As a result, he takes readers on a quick tour of wish-fulfillment worlds that will never happen and conclude:

"The Global Trends reports will remain significant documents for future historians who want to chart just how glacially slow was Washington's realization that the collapse of Soviet power didn't actually mean American power was destined to be transcendent on Earth. In its predictions, it's clear that the IC had little better luck getting its agents embedded in the future than it did getting them inside al-Qaeda or into Iran. Not surprisingly, given what we know about the bureaucratic morass that is American intelligence, the GT reports have all the faults of intelligence by committee and negotiation -- which is why H.G. Wells, Arthur Clark, Isaac Asimov, George Orwell, and others, who caught something of the strangeness of possible futures, would never have had a chance in hell of succeeding in careers in the IC."

In this case, the faults of the future should really be seen as belly flops by an obese IC into a present it never saw coming. Think of this piece as another way of offering an anatomy of American intelligence disaster.

Correspondence Corner:

From LTC Bob:

Today there are some very nice fellows ripping the roof off of my house. They promise they will be putting a new one on. So, because the constant pounding above my head precludes any rational thought about serious intellectual issues about which I am writing for other venues, I present the first LTC Bob video collection (Warning: Some of these are non-military related. Only one of them is serious. But it is Monday, and we can use this.)

We appreciate the sentiments when our children show love upon our return from combat. Some of our children have four legs.

Despite my best hopes, karma apparently exists.

And now, the first of my quadrennial rants. I implore you. I beg you. I demand of you. DO NOT VOTE. These people are right. Do not vote. (Follow the link or this whole thing falls flat.)

Being from Ohio, I, of course, take exception to this video. (I also love commas.)

You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com. Angry writers welcome. This is, after all, an Altercation.

Name: Stephen T.
Hometown: murfreesboro TN

Hiya,

After watching that softball game of the Veep debate last night [one soft lob after the other], I've decided that "Reporters" have roughly the same 5 questions that they repeat over and over -- I'm not surprised that the candidates are answering the questions in their sleep.

I know that Iraq and the economy are important, I do, but does that importance mean those are only topics that the candidates are questioned about?

And worse we already know those answers -- the candidates have already answered them a hundred times anyway.

Where are the questions about India and nuclear proliferation or anything about the forgotten continent -- South America. I would be curious to hear comments about changing US relations with Columbia, Ecuador, and say Venezuela. How about responding to the Chinese space initiative? Or the tainted milk scandal? Remember Georgia, that whole little Russian incursion thing? Or that worrying naval standoff we have brewing off the coast of Somalia now?

But, no, we are treated to the same old questions and the same old answers. And it just makes me miss ole Mike Wallace. The US sure could use a couple of old style hard-nosed reporters of his breed now.

Name: Michael Green
Hometown: Las Vegas, NV

Perhaps the saddest spectacle I have seen in journalism this year was David Broder's Sunday column "analyzing" the Biden-Palin debate. Not because I support one candidate over the other but because he completely bought the Republican talking points: she did well, showed that she can handle herself, Biden didn't do a better job, etc.

Once upon a time, David Broder was considered a journalist with knowledge and integrity. I have to wonder whether that was untrue or senility has caught up with him. I began to suspect him when he announced that the Senate Democratic caucus wanted to oust Harry Reid as majority leader, every member of the caucus signed a letter to The Post countering that, and his response was that they were full of it. When it comes to being full of it, sadly for those of us who once respected this shell of a reporter, it turns out that Broder is more full of it than anyone else.

Name: John Emerson
Hometown: Osakis

LTC Bob Bateman: As I said, I would have been receptive to your message (and Farley's) if they had not been part of a no-holds-barred onslaught on Greenwald.

Limbaugh has a twenty-year track record of lies, misrepresentations, smears, insults, and nasty, inflammatory, racist, sexist, and homophobic statements, whereas Greenwald has been an indispensable resource for those of us trying to resist the Bush administration. For that reason it seems quite reasonable to expect that Greenwald (but not Limbaugh) be treated respectfully if and when he makes a mistake.

You wrote: "But it seems to me that every time I find myself reading this guy [Greenwald] he is either a) twisting history, b) misinterpreting the military, c) misportraying the military, or, most often, d) all of the above."

Greenwald seldom writes about the military, in my memory. He almost always writes about the Bush administration. I understood his most recent piece to be about something that the civilian Commander in Chief has ordered the military to do which Greenwald rightly or wrongly considered to be part of the Bush Administration's well-known policy of increasing the police powers of the unitary federal executive. I regard this concern of Greenwald's as entirely legitimate, and in no way an attack on the military, but since you vehemently think otherwise, perhaps I'll reconsider my opinion of the military's role in this.

Name: Bill Osborne
Hometown: Glen Burnie, MD

Hello Eric,

Well I, for one, would still like to hear LTC Bateman's (and anyone else who cares to) comments and insights regarding what appears to be increasing politicization of the military. During 32 years of Federal service, culminating at Fort Meade, I found a significant number of officers who were very strongly conservative, not unexpectedly; but also radically so, to include denigration of those with a middle of the road or liberal perspective to the point of disenfranchisement, imprisonment or -- in the case of recalcitrant Federal judges -- death. It seems from the blogosphere that there are increasing numbers of soldiers, or those who claim to be, that reflect similar outlooks. Truly scary if the military has been taken down this path. Oh, for the days of Mr. Kipling's Army, when officers considered themselves above politics ...

Name: Fran McCarthy
Hometown: Washington, DC

Just read your Guardian piece on Paul Newman -- beautiful and heartfelt. The best piece I've read on his passing. Thanks.

2:38pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Fri, Oct 3, 2008

Slacker Friday

If you missed yesterday's postings, they went up quite late but can be found below: We've got a new Think Again column called "White Open Spaces, Owned by Us," and I wrote a short appreciation of Paul Newman for The Guardian, which you can find here. Also, I've got a new Nation column, "Reality Bites," here.

Rampant, like herpes, but positive.

Quote of the Day:

Uncut Magazine: "Who will you be voting for in November?"

Brian Wilson: "McCain. John McCain. He has a good smile."

From TomDispatch:

This post brings a stunning historical perspective to the present American economic meltdown. If there's a bright side to it, writes Steve Fraser, then maybe it's that, after 50 years of relative immunity from criticism, Wall Street is again the street Americans love to hate. Right now, Fraser, a TomDispatch regular, is everyone's expert on Wall Street's grim history and author of the indispensable book Wall Street: America's Dream Palace. (He was on Fresh Air yesterday afternoon.)

He begins his latest piece this way: "Wall Street sits at the eye of a political hurricane. Its enemies converge from every point on the compass. What a stunning turn of events. For well more than half a century Wall Street has enjoyed a remarkable political immunity, but matters were not always like that. Now, with history marching forward in seven league boots, we are about to revisit a time when the Street functioned as the country's lightning rod, attracting its deepest animosities and most passionate desires for economic justice and democracy."

Few today remember that Wall Street, for populists, anti-monopolists, everyone living on what the press now calls "Main Street," was the "Great Satan" until, after the crash of 1929, in the midst of the Great Depression, it was brought to heel by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and became politically invisible until almost this very second.

This is a moment of profound change and in it, as Fraser makes so clear, Wall Street's position in American politics and consciousness has just changed drastically. As he concludes: "Many will seek retribution as well, just as Americans used to do in the decades before the Great Depression. How could they not? That's what happens when simple rage turns into moral outrage, when people are finally called to account for the damage they've done. The emotion fuels a chemical reaction even now at work in our cultural innards. It may prove the catalyst for an intellectual and emotional explosion that someday will add up to a genuine break with the past. It did so back in 1929."

Slacker Friday:

Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA

Hey Doc:

"He's a drifter, and a driller of oil wells/He's an old school man of the world/He taught me how to drive his car when he's too drunk to."

Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "Sun Up, Sun Down" (Jealous Monk) - Even though the egregious Supreme Court decision called Plessy v. Ferguson originated on one of its streetcars -- a decision that is not Roe v. Wade with which I disagree, Katie -- I nonetheless love New Orleans.

Short Takes:

Part The First: I know that MSNBC is starting to get a little itchy about the Olbermann-Maddow Fortress Of Liberaltude, but would somebody like to explain what in the name of pole-vaulting Jesus Tom DeLay was doing on Hardball the other night? Was it Take A Crook To Work Day? Folks, this greasy little homunculus is under indictment. Right now. Today. At least Gordon Liddy had to serve his time before the electronic media redeemed his ass.

Part The Second: Hey Jay Carney, I think it's time for you to send Josh Marshall a nice fruit basket or something.

Part The Third: All of them? Hell, the porn alone must take most of the week. I'd hate to be the mailman in Wasilla.

Part The Fourth: You have garnished your salad with things that are smarter than this post. Now that I think about it, you have fed to your fish that which is smarter than this column. Is it too much for Little Lulu to use the Google to mention that Gwen Ifill is dinner buddies with noted liberal activist Condoleezza Rice? Of course, on the brighter side, it does enable us once again to make gratuitous use of this.

Part The Fifth: Eight more milligrams and maybe we'd have been spared this. I swear, Naomi Klein's going to come after him with an ax.

Part The Sixth: Biggest Knob In Knoxville Update: Who's ahead? This guy or this guy.

Part The Seventh: Bill Maher regularly provides a valuable voice to the scene. However, get him on religion, and the guy turns into just another Ivy League snob. "Questions nobody asks"? Are you kidding? OK, you don't believe in God and you date strippers. What a freaking renegade! That said, young Ms. Hasselbeck can grow up now, please.

Part The Eighth: Great news in the blogosphere, as people who really deserve it again find themselves one-timed through the Five hole! Bienvenue back again, young feller. We need a lengthy deconstruction of the wonder that is this guy, like, stat.

Part The Ninth: If I'm keeping track correctly, just this week, I heard the great Ralph Stanley cut a radio ad for Barack Obama, and a new tune called "O-B-A-M-A" by funkmaster Zigaboo Modeliste. Now that's cool.

Part The Last: Mo, sweetie, your personal inconvenience doesn't rise to a constitutional issue. Jeebus Christmas, woman, make your own damn reservations.

Over the past week, it was distressing in the extreme to see what my business has become. For several days, it was made increasingly apparent that the Republican Party has nominated for vice-president a person who is manifestly unqualified to teach middle-school history. (Hint: the default answer, always, is, "Dred Scott v. Sanford, Katie." The Civil War was, like, a bad thing.) And yet, through the entire run-up to the debate, it was argued by serious people who analyze serious politics and make a serious living doing it that Sarah Palin could reveal herself to be non-dim by putting on the correct puppet show for the media in her debate against Joe Biden. Make no mistake. That's what the punditocracy was arguing. Give us a reason, please, not to have to write what we all know to be true, what has been self-evidently true to the entire country since you walked off the podium in St. Paul. No rational person can possibly believe that she got smarter, or better informed, or more curious in the time that elapsed between when she talked with Ms. Couric and last night's debate. What we were being asked to judge was purely how well she had refined her performance skills in the interim. None of what the Walking Dead on the cable shows were looking to see has the slightest thing to do with her fitness for the office she seeks, let alone the office that might descend upon her. Journalists should not be in the business of perception-is-reality. It is our job to hammer the reality until the perception conforms to it. Hell, even Katie Couric's pretty much figured that out. Any postgame analysis that doesn't reflect this principle is not worth talking about.

Name: Bob Cawley
Hometown: Ballston, NY

Eric,

The AP fact check on AOL is a total joke. Of course, it is a textbook case of on-the-one-handism but most of the Biden "errors" are -- well, calling it a stretch really doesn't do it justice.

BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."

THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.

So ... if he's right, why are they calling him out?

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

Again, are they getting the tax break under McCain's plan or not. There is no refutation of his claim.

BIDEN: "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry -- deregulate it and let the free market move -- like he did for the banking industry."

THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Ummmm ... ? What do they think deregulation is? I'll bet proponents said the same thing about financial industry deregulation when they were pushing those bills.

Name: Joe Raskin
Hometown: Brooklyn, NY

Dr. Alterman --

As far as the Mets are concerned, I stand with my team (well, most of the team. There are certain pitchers who I hope will go for a cruise. A very long cruise). I am counting the days until spring training and the opening of CitiField.

As far as Mr. Newman is concerned, we were all truly fortunate that we lived in the same time as a very great man like him. For all of the wonderful eulogies that he has received over the last few days, I'm not sure that he was appreciated enough.

Name: Josh Silver
Hometown: freepress.net

Hi Eric,

I am surprised by how many significant media policies are in play in these waning days of the current FCC and Congress. As usual, most of it is technical and inside ball, but I'll give you a quick summary of what's happening.

More than 60,000 Free Press members sent letters to the city of St. Paul during the RNC demanding that charges be dropped against Amy Goodman and dozens of other journalists arrested covering the convention. We staged a press conference the day after the convention, and as you've probably heard, all charges were eventually dropped. Public and grasstops pressure definitely moved the ball.

The Resolution of Disapproval -- the congressional vote that would reverse the Dec. 2007 FCC vote to allow cross ownership of newspapers and broadcasters -- has died in the House, after the Senate had passed it by wide margins. While this is disappointing, the measure would have surely been vetoed by the president, and the rule is tied up in the courts now, which buys us time.

In a major -- and wonky -- victory, Congress overwhelmingly passed the "Broadband Data Improvement Act," a bill that would close the current gaps in data on the availability, speed and value of U.S. broadband. We have been pressuring Congress and the FCC since 2005 -- producing two subsequent studies, successfully lobbying for the bill's introduction and finally testifying in support of the bill in front of key congressional committees. The information collected will lay the foundation for policies in the next Congress to promote universal, affordable high-speed Internet access for all Americans -- the key goal of our Internet for Everyone initiative.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will likely leave the agency in January, and he is making some interesting moves to further improve his legacy. He has indicated support for some key policy "gets": allocation of unlicensed "white spaces" -- chunks of the broadcast spectrum that can be used to create cheap wireless "clouds of Internet connectivity"; redirection of the "Universal Service Fund" from funding phone build out to broadband build out; and taking the first steps in applying Net Neutrality not just to wireline broadband (cable & DSL), but also wireless Internet, like cell phones and all other wireless systems. This means intense negotiations between now and December.

Like always, while these issues are wonky, they remain hugely important for the future of journalism, the Internet and virtually all media.

1:26pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Thu, Oct 2, 2008

A failure to communicate ...

We've got a new Think Again column called "White Open Spaces, Owned by Us," and I wrote a short appreciation of Paul Newman for The Guardian, which you can find here. Also, I've got a new Nation column, "Reality Bites," here.

Oh and an Alter-Correction: The great Edgar Doctorow informs me that he was not, in fact, a partner of Paul Newman's in his laundry business at Kenyon College back in the day. He was merely a patron. But he also points out that patrons were given a free glass of beer when they brought their laundry to his shop. We apologize.

I don't have strong feelings about the bailout, though I lean "yes" in large measure because of my own self-interest, and so I've not said or written much of anything about it. And I never really noticed The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein before. I knew he existed; I just never paid particular attention. But yesterday, perusing Romenesko, I came across this:

The left wing bloggers are out in force on this one -- they see this as a seminal issue, like the Iraq war vote and the vote on warrantless searches. But other than not really understanding the problem and not really having studied the proposal, you guys are doing just great! Thank God there is a mainstream media out there that actually does reporting and has people who understand thing [sic], because if the flow of information and news to the American people were left solely to bloggers, we'd be in a big mess.

And so I clicked on the washingtonpost.com discussion, and came across this:

This is not a bank bailout, in the sense that you use that term, meaning a bailout for its shareholders and its top executives. Nobody has been more critical of the practices of banks and Wall Street and brokers than I have, probably long before you were even focused on this issue, so I certainly don't owe you any apology on that one. If you want to check, you'll see I won a certain prize for that. We have already passed legislation to "bail up," several months ago, using an idea that I was one of the first people to push (refinancing involving a reduction of principal in return for equity stake in the house).

And I thought to myself, "Oh, damn. Not only is this more work for me but it's the kind of work that makes enemies of people I don't know and have never met, and so 10 years from now, I'll be introduced to the guy at some function, and he will still remember this and I won't even remember who the heck he is -- which in my line of work -- and advancing age -- happens more than most people could imagine.

One of the great things about going to bed early -- there is not much to do in Ithaca at night as a grownup beside drink, apparently, which I can do in my room, thank you very much -- is that bloggers who stay up later than you might do your job for you while you're asleep, saving you, not only work, but said awkward moment with Mr. Pearlstein. So take it way, Glenn Greenwald:

Just today, in Pearlstein's own paper, Jonathan G.S. Koppell and William N. Goetzmann of the Yale School of Management argued that a far preferable solution is to have the government pay off all delinquent mortgages -- which would transform the toxic waste into solid instruments and would prevent people from having their homes foreclosed -- the very plan Pearlstein's reader advocated which provoked such snotty scorn. Many other ignorant, ill-informed morons have had the temerity to argue that other proposals were superior to the bailout, including George Soros (recapitalize the banking system) and Actual Economist Brad DeLong (nationalize under-capitalized institutions). One of the leading blogger-opponents of the bailout has been Duncan Black, an Actual Economist with a Ph.D. in Economics from Brown. And Actual Economist Dean Baker wrote earlier this week:

How do we go about getting the banks in order? Almost every economist I know rejects the Paulson approach and argues instead for directly injecting capital into the banks. The taxpayers give them the money and then we own some, or all, of the bank. (That's what Warren Buffet did with Goldman Sachs.)

There's a lot more and Pearlstein's earned every word of it. I expect this is going to be one of those "And it's not his town" and "Suck on this" comments that will likely live forever.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker got some nasty mail for speaking some uncomfortable truths -- for her side, anyway -- about Sarah Palin. She writes: "Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a Dumpster, but since she didn't, I should 'off' myself." These were randomly selected from thousands of emails she received in response to her column.

Parker then goes on to explain that the "public discourse has[] deteriorated," and that "[t]he mailbag is about us, our country, and what we really believe" and that "[e]veryone's to blame." Wait there's more: "The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve. Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different than one's own, then we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)"

Thing is, the only people Parker quotes -- indeed, the only ones who've abused her as far as we know -- are conservatives. What's all this about "the discourse" and the "country" then? How about putting the blame where it actually lies?

George Zornick writes:

If the What Liberal Media? audiobook ever comes out with one of those fancy, commemorative 2-CD packages -- you know the ones, larded up with all the bonus tracks, updates, behind-the-scenes (me at my desk!) photos -- I think Rudy Giuliani's conference call with the national media yesterday would be a hilarious and useful addition.

On the call, the former mayor of New York decried "the media double standard" for the GOP, according to Time's Mark Halperin. Giuliani said that had Sen. Joe Biden, who has committed gaffes, been a GOP candidate, "there would be entire specials devoted to" them; Giuliani also criticized the scrutiny of Gov. Sarah Palin's foreign policy expertise, asserting that Sen. Barack Obama has never faced the same level of questioning.

Following his remarks, the McCain campaign opened the call up to questions. According to The Huffington Post, "[o]nly three people were called upon." The first was a Townhall.com blogger, who asked about the Wall Street bailout. The next was someone named Chuck Pardee, who runs a site called NewsBull.com and is a maxed-out McCain donor. He reportedly asked:

Thank you Mister Mayor. Some of these comedians like Tina Fey and some of these journalists that are out there seem to actually be making a living embellishing the facts. Do you think embellishing the facts is actually what the concerned voter is after? And specifically, Joe Biden seems to embellish and forget facts just to kind of impress people but when you take Sarah Palin she seems to impress others with her quick study without embellishing the facts. In other words do you think people want a straight shooter or do they want the stuff and fluff?

The final question was from "Sherry" of an unidentified outlet, who actually took issue with something Giuliani said about Obama not having any business experience -- Sherry helpfully asserted that Obama did, in fact, serve on a community board with former radical William Ayres. "Isn't that a huge point to bring up?" she wondered.

One is left to presume this is the balanced standard of journalism to which Rudy was hoping that horrible liberal media could conform to. This, or the Hugh Hewitt interview with Sarah Palin yesterday, where he asked questions like "Governor, your candidacy has ignited extreme hostility, even some hatred on the left and in some parts of the media. Are you surprised? And what do you attribute this reaction to?"

But of course Giuliani's not a dumb guy, and he couldn't expect the mainstream media to really be like this. No, the complaints are just a strategy to get a little slack from mainstream journalists -- as former Republican Party chair Rich Bond once admitted, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]. ... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one." (And let's not forget Bill Kristol: "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.")

The unreality of conservative complaints about "the liberal media" and their supposed idea of "balance" are most surreal in this hilarious conference call. (By the way, Halperin never noted any of this in his blurb about Giuliani's call, just his comments. Does Halperin mind taking a back-seat to the editor and founder of NewsBull.com?)

This is a pretty interesting project: a Web documentary by the historian Kenneth Hughes based on the Nixon tapes called Fatal Politics, "which contrasts the adulatory media treatment of Nixon and Kissinger in their Opening to China days with the declassified record." It also has:

1. Leading Democrats accusing the Republican president (also the Republican presidential nominee) of offering the nation an endless war in defense of an experiment in nation-building.

2. A declassified transcript of Henry Kissinger's secret talks with a foreign premier that proves the Democrats wrong. How? Kissinger provided assurances that if the enemy held off a year or two after the president withdrew the last of our troops before overthrowing the government they fought to defend, the United States would not intervene. It's not 2008, but 1972, and the Republican president and candidate is Richard Nixon, who turns out not to have been committed to South Vietnam's survival but to concealing his own failure to win the war.

This episode is in two parts: here and here.

From TomDispatch:

Nearly four years ago to the week, right-wing bloggers were basking in the glow of their CBS Memogate caper. Today, the same bloggers are almost unrecognizable in terms of their shrinking clout and the almost complete un-seriousness with which they operate. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Read more here.

"In 1932," begins TomDispatch regular, American historian, and professor of religious studies Ira Chernus, "in the midst of a disastrous economic meltdown, Franklin D. Roosevelt made 'the forgotten man' the centerpiece of his presidential election campaign. Far more than we suspect, this year's election may turn not on a forgotten man, but on a forgotten war in a forgotten country."

Iraq is, of course, that forgotten war and surge "success" has, in recent months, consigned it to the inside pages of our papers and largely pushed it off the TV news. And yet, that war, Chernus suggests, moving in two powerful riptides just below the surface of American politics, may still decide the election.

Chernus then traces those two currents -- Barack Obama's war, the realistic disaster that most Americans have already rejected, and John McCain's war, the symbolic success story that so many Americans still wish was the reality. As he points out, "The eclipse of the war -- which was supposed to be Obama's winning issue -- is one big reason that he has, until recently, remained stuck in a statistical tie with McCain in the opinion polls."

This is a canny account of an unpredictable set of forces, set loose in this year's presidential campaign, and, even out of sight, sure to affect it deeply. Chernus concludes: "Amid all the confusing crosscurrents, one thing is clear: No wave of symbolism can stop the flow of empirical realities in Iraq. No matter who moves into the Oval Office on January 20, those harsh realities and their fallout around the world will be waiting on his desk, piled high and deep. They may, unfortunately, still be there when that president ends his first (or only) term in office four years later."

From ANP:

Recently, it was reported that the rate of carbon dioxide emission during the last seven years exceeded even the IPCC's worst-case scenario. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have offered their support to global warming legislation in the past, but climate legislation continues to stall, as it has for more than a decade. Why? In large part, because of an expensive, prolonged propaganda campaign waged by producers of big oil. And what did they look to for inspiration? Big tobacco.

Does Sarah Palin believe in the Antichrist? Does she believe true Christians will be whisked up to heaven sometime in the near future? Does she expect Jesus to come back to Earth in our lifetimes and battle the armies of Satan? Would biblical prophecies about Armageddon influence her foreign policy positions on Israel and Russia? These are urgent questions the media have failed to ask. According to Chip Berlet, a leading expert on the Christian right, mainstream reporters tend to view apocalyptic fundamentalists as a "silly little side show" in American political life, when, in fact, one of their own may soon be a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.

This Week on Moyers:

In a week chock-full of breaking news and historic moves -- from proposed economic fixes to record-breaking market flux to vice presidential debates -- how did the media fare in informing the public? Bill Moyers Journal takes an in-depth look at the news of the week to sort out the media-frenzied information available from what the public still needs to know. In wide-ranging interviews with economic and political experts as well as media analysts, the program looks at what's at stake in the proposed bailout package and explores the key messages from Thursday's vice presidential debate. Also, Bill Moyers looks at the headlines you may have missed.

Correspondence Corner:

Name: LTC Bob Bateman
Hometown: Capitol Hill

John Emerson puts me in a curious position. In the past, when I have laid into Rush Limbaugh for saying something stupid about the military, or when I ripped Victor(y) Davis Hanson for his shoddy scholarship and misrepresentations of the historical record, or indeed at any time when I have taken up the cudgels on topics relating to military history, accuracy, and the military... just about everyone here on Altercation has seemed quite happy.

So long as I only call out those who abuse history on the right side of the aisle.

Folks, Eric has never asked that I limit myself in that way. History is history, and while everyone is entitled to their own interpretations, they are not entitled to their own facts. Greenwald, by either deliberate omission, or just simple ignorance of the history of one of the major laws of the nation, put forward his own "facts" in order to advance a rhetorical position. I hate it when Limbaugh, Rove, or Hanson does that, and I hate it when Greenwald, or somebody like Zinn, does it.

There is nothing about "military honor" in there. His misuse of terminology ("deployed"), his misrepresentation of what is, essentially, an administrative preparatory relationship, was designed to elicit fear.

Folks on the left cry "foul" when they see the right trying to whip up American's fears of the "other" (to use the academic concept). Fear-mongering and hyper-simplification were exactly what Jon Stewart was complaining about with the now-famous diatribe on CNN's Crossfire.

Please do not expect me to hold a double standard. When I see deliberate (or just stupid) misuses of history, for the intent of whipping up unreasonable fear, I call BS.

And I think you should too.

Name: Matt Shirley
Hometown: Ewa Beach, HI

Dr. A,

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts to the Bateman-Emerson conversation. I happen to know a thing or two about this as I was the Head of Operational Law in the Office of Counsel at U.S. Transportation Command from 2000-2004, and I attended a conference sponsored by U.S. Northern Command on homeland security. First, at least through 2004 (and I suspect longer), Posse Comitatus is alive and well. In fact, DOD has for a long time extended its limitations by Regulation beyond the scope of the Statute. The original Act applied only to the Dept of the Army (and by extension, to the Air Force when it was separated from the Army); however, Regulations have extended its limits to the Navy and Marine Corps.

Second, the crucial distinction for the Armed Forces under Federal Service is that they provide support to law enforcement, but do not have actual arrest authority. It's worth emphasizing that the lead Federal agency in these scenarios is NOT DOD, but usually FEMA, DOJ, or some other Agency with primary responsibility in a given situation. It takes a substantial amount of people and supplies to mount something like hurricane relief or to manage the consequences of a weapon of mass destruction.

One opinionated Lieutenant Commander's opinion: I think many people look to DOD for help in this area because (1) we are organized to communicate and follow orders rapidly, (2) we can defend ourselves in chaotic situations, and (3) unlike some government activities that have been sabotaged by small-government conservatives and libertarians, we are staffed, trained, and equipped to actually be able to complete a mission. Third, do not become overly concerned about military organizations planning for certain contingencies. That is how they are able to perform missions on short notice. You do realize that responding to something like Katrina requires more planning that drawing up a street football play in the dirt, don't you? Fourth, I can understand Mr. Emerson's concern about victims of a disaster being perceived as a crowd control problem. He has a point, but with respect to less that lethal force, would he prefer that the on-scene commander have very few options other than deadly force if threatened? That is a recipe for Kent State.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer that commentators like Mr. Greenwald take a moment to learn a bit more about what they hear before they go immediately to the worst possible alternative. Their lack of experience and understanding of the Armed Forces shows rather clearly.

Name: Eric
Hometown: Chapel Hill

Prof. A-

I read your Guardian piece with interest. One thing that I have been thinking about the debate is that Obama had no business being too hard on McCain in the first debate. Look what happened to Bush/Kerry four years ago. Kerry wiped the floor with Bush in the first debate, and the bar for Bush was immediately lowered for the other two. He did not actually have to do well, just well enough. Kerry, on the other hand, suffered for not being able to repeat his performance from the first night. We all know that the press loves narratives, and I can only imagine the stories about McCain picking himself off the mat again had Obama been too hard on him. Now, in the third debate, Obama should be able to go all in, if he wants to. However, he may not have to.

We'll see.

Name: Susan Abe
Hometown: Portland, Ore.

I agree that the term "high-functioning moron" is a slur... but not against President Bush. The bigger problem is that Begala is almost surely not qualified to render such a diagnosis -- if he were, he would know that the scientific community now rejects that classification.

Name: Barbara
Hometown: Portland, ME

Hey Eric,

Read your Think Again column and was musing on that and the financial crisis. I have been in banking for 28 years and am amazed at the scale of this failure. I am not really certain though, if anyone truly understood the interrelatedness of those pesky mortgage-backed securities. Apparently, the accounting rules allowed several institutions that "touched" these lovelies to show them on their financial reports, so that several institutions claimed them as assets... which overinflated their statements, plus others.

What I do know is that not one business reporter (whether magazine or newsprint) followed the mortgage-backed securities to see where they landed. I am really disappointed in that. Accounting rules have become so murky over the years that companies can hide stuff (remember Enron?), however surely some reporters keep up with them to understand whether some CEO is feeding them crap.

As to the "bail out": I have no faith in it. I remember back in the early '90s with RTC, so many banks ate underperforming banks and put assets into RTC that were performing and made big bucks out of defrauding taxpayers. I strongly believe that they should be allowed to fail. The small to midsize regionals may be hit hard because of their investment in Freddie/Fannie -- WSJ covered that today, so we will see a number of our "local" institutions devoured by others.

'Course this time around maybe there will be a no-bid contract to operate the bailout and Halliburton can run it... Cheney will be available to take over as CEO soon.

Name: Dave Higgins
Hometown: http://www.quantumage.org/

As Jacquie Mardell noted, a common theme in the media these days is that Obama's temperament is "too cool." Interestingly, about a year ago, the media was full of similar stories about this guy. As I recall, they changed their tune dramatically a few months later.

Name: Gab
Hometown: Philly

I've got the number for a good doctor who can teach the Mets' coaching staff how to perform the Heimlich maneuver on their players. Lord knows they're not doing anything else to stop them from choking...

Hey at least Mr. Springsteen is playing the Super Bowl. Now there is something to look forward to until February! Well, that and the end of the Bush era. Wow, I can't wait for that to happen...

Eric adds: The rest of this letter has been censored.

8:09pm EST | Permalink | | Digg this!

Email Eric Alterman

You must have javascript enabled to use this form


The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.

Make a Donation

Links

Recent Columns

Bookmarks