Letters to the Editor
Jordan Orlando
Published Letters: 180
-
Greenwald's rhetorical strategy
[Read the article: Answers for Joe Klein]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Glenn Greenwald is strategically dividing the question in half, and then addressing only the first of the two halves.
He argues (persuasively, consistently, relentlessly) that the press doesn't work the way it should because it's ensconced in the Beltway power system. Reporters don't attack lawmakers because they want access, etc.
That's all true, and (perhaps more important) it's a conspicuously ideology-free position. It's a good way to win arguments, particularly in a hostile environment where one cannot blow one's nose without being accused of engaging in partisan bias and vitriol.
(When a reporter asks John McCain about factual evidence of Iraqis increasing their fervent efforts to blow up Americans, he replies, "Your bias is showing.")
But the second half of the question is the really important one. That's the part where, when Democrats are in power, the entire playing field changes and suddenly the press interprets its "voice of the people" role as a licence to relentlessly attack Democrats.
I hasten to add that Greenwald has, of course, addressed this point countless times, with his usual precision. But when he's called upon to defend his "anti-mainstream-press" positions, he tends to skew away from this part and talk only about the power dynamics, not the ideological slant.
It's a shrewd choice, I think, strategically, but I wonder if it's a good idea in the long term.
The simple fact is that in today's press landscape, "bi-partisan" and "centrist" and "popular" are words that don't mean what they seem to mean; instead, they all mean "conservative Republican." Similarly, "partisan" and "divisive" and "fringe" and "vitriolic" and "biased" (not to mention the usual "weak" and "non-masculine" and "immoral" and "unprincipled") are words that have been robbed of their actual meanings and are understood to be convenient synonyms for "liberal democrat."
In the end, that's much worse than the first half of the argument (the part about how reporters become part of the power structure.) You can find bloggers on the right who are nowhere near Washington who engage in every rhetorical trick I outline in the above paragraph, and it's nearly impossible to find anyone at all in Washington who doesn't engage in those tricks.
It's the larger, more dangerous problem, even though it's the more difficult argument to make stick.
Any thoughts, Glenn?
-
@LWN
[Read the article: Answers for Joe Klein]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, I used to comment at Unclaimed Territory before it was assimilated into the Salon collective (and Glenn's uniqueness became part of their strength or whatever the nerdly wording is; I can't remember).
I brought this up because Greenwald is, I think, uniquely qualified to address it, since he handles the ideological side of the equasion so well. It's built into his political roadmap, as explained in the introduction to How Would a Patriot Act? The "unclaimed territory" itself is supposed to be a clean landscape where policy questions can be examined without the taint of the usual rhetorical frameworks.
In other words, Greenwald's one of the few people who can actually talk about "bias" and "ideology" and make incontrovertable sense. His own "slant" is legitimately absent from the equasion while at the same time legitimately informing his political positions.
I am a progressive liberal democrat and I believe that I am correct in my political positions; that is, I believe that, given a level playing field, I can convince Conservatives that they are wrong (by means of their own postulates) or, failing that, force them to reveal exactly what their positions are (be they elitist, imperialistc, racist, acquisitive etc.) It takes a certain amount of honesty and character to go ahead and admit (as some conservatives of my acquaintance do) that they "don't think things SHOULD be fair" or that they "don't respect non-Western cultures." I really do think that most Conservatives are just not thinking clearly; but the ones that are need to be exposed as what they are ("legitimately" elitist, etc.)
Anyway, the rhetorical strategies couldn't be more important than they are right now, with Greenwald and the rest of the blogosphere under relentless, direct attack because of a (correctly percieved) territorial threat they represent against the mainstream press.
-
@shooter_242
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter:
During wartime, a citizen eligible for combat has three choices: enlist, protest, or hide.
A citizen who enlists has the moral right to support the war. A citizen who protests has the moral right not to fight so long as he/she faces the consequences. A citizen who supports the war and hides is a hypocrite and a coward, because he/she insists that others "must" pay a price which he/she is avoiding paying him/herself.
All the current vocal advocates of the Iraq war avoided military service in Vietnam, yet they all supported the war. They are all hypocrites and cowards. This includes the President, the Vice President, and the former Secretary of Defense.
Any questions?