Letters to the Editor
maniondl
Published Letters: 52 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Honesty, Good Faith, and Serious Political Analysis
[Read the article: Karl Rove: Honest political genius]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Praising whomever appears to be the loser at the expense of the winner -- while issuing "advice" designed to exacerbate tensions and wedges -- is one prong in that strategy. Why would anyone take any of that seriously, as though it's some sort of serious political analysis being offered in good faith?
Excellent, excellent question. My opinion is that these one-time power brokers have never been held accountable--that is, called on their b.s. It's like the absurd construction of objective journalism = one person spouting one extreme so-called rightwing position and the second guest spouting an argument from the "opposing" side. This flawed model makes no space for truth, honesty, or good faith in the discussion. When anchors/editors are passive and allow the back-and-forth without any challenge, the almost inevitable conclusion is that both "sides" have equal merit and the viewer must sort them out.
But many news watchers don't view the media as a subject of critical deconstruction, and if they do many don't have the time and resources to thoroughly vet each contributor and his or her history of positions.
This if-we-say-things-are-A-then-A-must-be-true-or-at-least-have-merit, the "Heckuva job, Brownie" mentality, is very corporate CEO: everything's great, nothing to see here, move along. If the folks in power say it's so, then they "speak the truth" and are above questioning because they are the good guys. They, in the words of Charlie Rose, "can't [be] accuse[d]...of not having good intentions."
To posit that perhaps nefarious motivations are at play is somewhat sacriligious, or at the very least, paranoid, liberal, and extreme. Yet the military analyst story PROVED that the administration performed Psych Ops on it's own populace, that Rummy paid for misleading coverage. In terms of accountability, however, the story has generated merely the chirps of crickets.
Not to be so gloom and doom: I believe individuals can transcend these narratives and can take creative agency against the dominant narratives. But if we continue to look at those who have had power as "right" only because they had power or have connections, then we can loose that individual ability to perceive nuance and dare we say it, honesty, and good faith in presenting political arguments within these broadly labeled forums.
I'd like to think of Salon.com this way--a place for debate and dissent, and a place for calling out accountability and further discussion. I'd pay for someone in traditional media to say to Rove, however, "I don't think you're being completely honest here" (with evidence), or "Are you honestly trying to help Obama here, or do you have an agenda?" Oh, the scandal that might generate!
-
Can Obama be President now that he said he was offended by Wright?
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope the press conference alleviated your depression; we both agree, Joan, that we feel profoundly sorry for Obama.
I await the next argument against an Obama nomination. First it was not black enough, then too black, and then and then and then.
-
Three cheers for satire!
[Read the article: Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The humor that can be wrangled from the sadness and fury in the real world.
Thanks Glenn.
-
Moving on
[Read the article: Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the risk of putting words in Greenwald’s mouth—and I wouldn’t blame him for scolding me if I did—I think the larger point here is that we have more important things to focus on than Reverend Wright and twittering about how everything is reflected as pro- or anti- Obama or Clinton. I don't think Glenn has to post his thoughts about Wright because in my mind he's got more important things to point out to us. Wright isn't running for office.
I am guilty of having Democratic nomination tunnel vision for a few months now, so I understand, but take a look at what was in Salon.com a mere four years ago (type "Apr-29-2004" into the Salon.com search box). Granted, Kerry had long since wrapped up the nomination, but the focus on the dangers of Iraq (3 stories!), and the examples of media manipulation (1 story), contrast brightly against the lead stories of today. We're feeding the beast. Google the date for even more stories about Pat Tillman, Abuse coverup. It's astounding.
For a real chill factor, check out a horrifying blast from the past on the White House briefing on April 29, 2004
(Link also in sig) Helen Thomas, you are my hero. Remembering McClelland squirm about withrdrawl deadlines and not wanting to be occupiers would be hilarious if not so many people were still dying.
Salon, you got rid of the Fix (as much as I sometimes miss it, I admit) because it wasn't nutritious enough. Give us some more vitamins in the news coverage too, please?
Press Conference Transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040429-4.html
-
Colbert's term for women's balls is "Thatchers"
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, Hillary has Thatchers. That her Thatchers are not in dispute is a victory for some branches of feminist thought: the first serious female presidential candidate is not a walking breast of a leader. "Is she tough enough?" and questions of that ink are not at issue.
In my personal opinion, however, Thatchers without wisdom aren't all that admirable (cf King George W. Bush). By Joan's own admission, her gas tax stance is the worst of political pandering. And her beyond hawkish position on Iran smacks of ubercynical, tone-deaf posturing (unless she's a secret warmonger--maybe that's a good line of investigative journalism to persue).
So, what kind of victory is a woman with Thatchers when said woman is thinking with them? Just wondering.