Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 120 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Savviness: Flip Side of Fear
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the observation about the cult of savviness is truly insightful, though I would take it a tick farther: it's not a love of savviness but rather a dread fear about being found out as someone not "in the know." Now of course most people - and even the vast majority of press types - are not "in the know." They know they are not "in the know." And they live in complete fear of being found out. So trying to have a point of view about the war or the economy or torture or anything substantive opens them up to a risk of being revealed as pikers, if you will. But "bitter-gate" or HRC's weird lying about Bosnia, etc - that's something where all the facts are out there to see.
This fear is what lies at the heart of the right-wing strategy, which is not only a media strategy but also an electoral one. Think of how many LGF'ers support right-wing lunacy because of a belief that their guys "know things." Rove was the apotheosis of this in that he made people believe that he had Great Secret Knowledge About Politics. And I think his additional fillip was to run with the only-half developed strategy of turning your weaknesses into strengths by lying, so that Bush becomes this deep, thoughtful guy, or McCain this "straight-shooter," etc.
-
A bit of contrast
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When AB says that the President's words are news, he does so to insinuate that that is the reason why the coverage slanted pro-government. A good way to play "shoe on the other foot" is to recall the press' reaction to Bill Clinton's pronouncements on Bosnia or Kosovo, or on the impeachment or on just about anything else. Viturally everything he said was reported (first, just like AB said), but only as a springboard to the entertaining bombast of right-wing kooks -- of which there was no shortage, and of which there is no left-wing equivalent. (OK, I guess the American Communist Party, but come on.)
I think AB deserves kudos for doing this at all. He always struck me as a good guy. But this interview reveals what his reporting also revealed: in trying to frame a national debate on whether and how to go to war, he is simply in over his head. I can hear his defensiveness, so I know he has regrets. He's not dumb or mean-spirited or overtly biased. He is, however, the product of his education, his training, his experiences. While he studies political science in college, his career was similar to most broadcast news journalists -- a local reporter, then a local anchor, and finally the move to network correspondent and anchor. He is not a policy analyst, he has not spent years thinking and reading about these issues, he does not spend his spare time talking to experts in this area. His skills have to do with being glib on the air, making sure his prose is engaging, being a likable on-air presence, etc.
It is no surprise that the employees or large public companies have no ability to conduct meaningful journalism. What GG does is meaningful journalism -- though his on-camera manner isn't polished (yet!).
"Journalism" is shifting at long last back to its roots as meaningful reporting and analysis, and away from its corporate-entertainment form as the 4th hour of Good Morning America.
-
Who would invade us?
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bucky1, I think you know the answer to this question, and it's not Al-quada or the taliban or even Hamas.
Only China (and possibly India) have the resources to invade us. If we manage our relationship with these countries successfully, we will have no more reason to fear them than we do NATO.
I hope the US's policy of death will end. And I too despair that I don't see how. All I can say is that I'm joining BHO in placing a bet on the American people that when they understand the things that their government does in their name they will put a stop to it.
It's how Mussolini was brought down, wasn't it?
-
Tosh & Nonsense To Me
[Read the article: You are the river: An interview with Ken Wilber]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Count me in the "woo-woo" clan. I find the "pre-rational" bit wickedly egotistical -- the "I'm enlightened and you're not" rap. I don't think the evidence of evolution shows that evolution has any normative values. So too I don't think one's "spiritual journey" (ugh!) has any "story arc." If most people walk around "pre-rational," but with effort and guidance can become "transrational," that to me implies some sort of progress, some sort of normative value that the "trans" is somehow better than the "pre." Hence "tosh and non-sense."
I'm often struck by how egomaniacal we humans are. The grand scheme that produced wonderful, amazing us! Surely that shows some sort of guidance!
Or, it shows a coupla billions years of trial and error -- basically value-less chance played out over a really, really long time. It makes humans much less consequential, which comes closer to putting us into accurate perspective.
Reason is a wonderful thing. So is the ability of schools of fish to swim in unison. One trait is not "better" than the other.
-
Like this post needs another comment
[Read the article: Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just wanted to point out that as decent human beings we are prone to assume the good faith and competence of others.
Even though our experience should have taught us otherwise by now.
I just listened to Harry Reid's appearance on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/05/05) and agree with those who think Sen. Reid is either medicated or simply out of it.
He took the interview as essentially an opportunity to make one long Senate floor speech, informed directionally by the questions. He contradicted himself a million times, but always giving things that terribly "reasonable" veneer that is the sine qua non of the Senate.
Whether he is unable to perform, or somehow venal, I could not speculate. But that he is woefully inept for his duties seems clear beyond any doubt.