Letters to the Editor
maniondl
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Cox (m46:00ish) - "You don't get into journalism for praise. You don't do it to be liked."
[Read the article: Book news and media campaign coverage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn: AMC's tone was unsteady and her body language was very uncomfortable. Were your email exchanges uncomfortable prior to agreeing to be on bloggingheads together? She really did not seem to want to be there and was on the defensive from the beginning ("I'm usually in the office...") Did you experience any mixed feelings about this exchange while you were having it?
Even when Cox (eventually) agreed with your point that the media should have challenged McCain more on the Iran-al-Quaida moment, she chose language that defended McCain, much like a friend would defend a maligned mate: "if McCain was wrong," that "hiccup of McCain's," "there has to be something between deliberate deciever and senile." These statements, in a circular way, edified your original point that an extremely cozy relationship between the media and their subjects can alter the coverage to the positive.
I kind of felt there was a vibe of gender roles going on though--traditional-male-logic-trumps-all-absolutism with a traditional-female-conflict-averse-let’s-focus-on-feelings-and exceptions. She even described the relationship between McCain and the press as "exceptional," for goodness sake! To be honest, that made me a little uncomfortable watching. I think, however, her argument about personal involvement between journalists and politicians set her up to take the "feminine" role.
In other words, Glenn, just to be clear: I don't think you were beating her up in a sexist way; I'm saying that you more than ably defeated all of her arguments logically, and her only response was to assert that "you can't be a robot," and defend her emotional reactions. It made me a little sad; your attempt to empathize with her without sympathizing really set her off because it fit into that gendered conflict model --since you are both intelligent, enlightened individuals I didn't expect to see that. Again, it's probably the nature of the argument you were having about relationships vs. objectivity. Maybe if she had more examples/research at hand there would have been a more meaty discussion, she would have appeared more confident, and the weird vibe wouldn't have happened. Did you, or anyone else out here in Salon.com letters land experience that vibe or was it just me?
-
Shame on you, Glenn Greenwald!
[Read the article: Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner's defense of the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shame on you for not knowing your place! How many times do we serious journalists have to tell you: "most people don't care about minor government functionaries, no matter how pivotal their role may be in screwing up the world...You can lead a consumer to stories of vital national importance, but you cannot make him care."
Our jobs are big business, and you just don't get it, do you? We have a responsibility to report the crap people want because crap sells. That's our job! Bloggers give a Sassy!Edge (tm) to those stories. You and your Serious Issues would never charm anyone into giving you the Inside Scoop that might make you more money, cough, enhance your career, cough, make you a better journalist. Looser.
The truth! How naive of you, Glenn. This job is hard work. Playing the blame game and gotcha is not what Bush is about. He told us that before he got elected when we used to ask harder questions. Accept it and move on already. How many times do we have to tell you? Pretty soon we're going to leave you alone to your obscurity and then you'll really be sorry you didn't accept our helpful advice. Looser.
-
Skin in the Game
[Read the article: Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner's defense of the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn wrote: Things like war crimes, torture, aggressive and illegal wars, and the destruction of the rule of law are things that, by definition, don't happen to or in the United States. . . . Both of them supported the Bush administration and advocated for the invasion of Iraq. Hence, the absolute last thing they want to face -- just as is true for most of our political and media establishment -- is that the things they cheered on have spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction.
To these wonderful lines may I add: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and History is written by the winners.
We desparately need to "win" in Iraq so that we can write the history of this debacle in ways that protect the powerful from justice and obscure the moral failings of thier enablers. Once "winning" is accomplished, the machine can wash, rinse, repeat as necessary with the next blunder or deliberate suppression of human dignity.
I strongly believe that the Bush administration and their ilk not only understand these truths thoroughly, but also manipulate the media so completely that individuals don't even need to be pressured to kill stories--they self-censor automatically.
I think it's our obligation as citizens to call the powers that be (TPTB) on this kind of bs, as Glenn does admirably. If we hold columnists accountable for what they write or don't write, maybe they will consider their next articles more carfully.
I don't think the public wants trivial crap all of the time. I think we hunger for substance. The effort it takes to find substantive writing, think about it, debate it, and pursue it further is considerable when the airwaves are filled with tripe PASSING as substantive discussion.
FYI, Drezer has some serious invested interest in saying "Let's not look to the past but focus instead on the future!" I found an interesting old piece on his blog, and many others in the Wash Monthly and Chronicle of Higher Ed with a quick google search (the blog post is linked in my sig line).