Letters to the Editor
-
Invasion of the Mind Snatchers
As usual, you're dead on, Glenn. But, god, it's depressing. Call it the invasion of mind snatchers. The country's journalistic elite has been taken over by the right and the acquiescent, idiotic mainstream.
-
But unfortunately that applies to almost everything in public discourse now.
Whether dealing with evolution or global warming, why same-sex marriages would ruin the united states or when is torture acceptable; both "sides" must be presented, even if one is completely wrong.
-
You DID champion that postmodern affect of accepting any point of view equally
The chickens have come home to roost. There is no longer any right or wrong, merely points of view to explored and embraced.
-
Personal Attacking?
Comparing you (or your writing at any rate) to Ann Coulter? And the PW reviewer has the gall to say YOU engage in personal attacks? An amazing upside-down world.
-
Proof Positive
I love how you don't just claim something, and expect it to be taken as fact by your readers, but instead provide us with copious examples to illustrate your point-- sort of the opposite of Joe Kleinism (although, in his defense he's really not qualified to comment, nor does he have the time to delve into the details)(he's a busy, busy guy). It's one of the reasons I read you first, every day.
Congratulations on the book, Glenn. Let us know when to order!
-
too true
You forget to mention here what you say elsewhere: what a double standard it is. There is no similar requirement that conservative authors, columnists and pundits be "balanced". In fact, it is expected that they will behave precisely as movement conservatives and team players with the White House (or against it when a Dem is in it) and the RNC. Nobody says that because they are conservative they are "unbalanced," "shrill," or "unserious."
That's because in the current media template, conservatives are expected to be conservatives and liberals are expected to be "balanced." Balanced to the point that they aren't even actually, you know, liberals. Can you even imagine Jonah Goldberg pointing out in his latest ideological screed all the examples in which the Bush White House behaves exactly like fascists? It's inconceivable, yet no one expects it and he gets reviews and TV appearances aplenty.
When someone comes out with a book that really makes a strong case against Bush or the Republican Party -- you, Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman, Al Gore (The Assault on Reason), the establishment media make sure that the authors are almost never invited to come on their teevee shows. Because they are exactly like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Except for the fact that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are constantly invited to be on their teevee shows.
Amazing -- even after years and years of seeing this, it still makes my jaw drop.
-
The direct result
"Balance" and "centrism" are only virtues when prevailing circumstances are actually balanced and centered. When they're not -- as they haven't been for the last eight years at least -- respectful balance and restrained centrism are delusions, self-regarding luxuries, ones that can be as dangerous and destructive as they are slothful and unserious.
And because of this "balance" and "centrism", of course, impeachment is off the table.
The effects of this situation on our country cannot be overstated. As Glenn points out, there is no analogous marginalization of those who produce their own partisan screeds on the right, such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Goldberg. This is especially frustrating, because, as Glenn points out, the screeds on the right are full of outright falsehoods and it is just not allowed for a writer on the left to dismantle these falsehoods.
My hope is that in this campaign year, a number of 527 groups will spring up with sufficient funding to put some of the wonderful viral videos we have been enjoying recently onto TV so that a much wider audience will be exposed to the ease with which the myths of the right can be busted.
-
One thought
Glenn, you make a very good point that there's a difference between calling someone a liar when he IS than when he isn't. That being said, there's a difference between calling someone a "no-good, low-down dirty stinking liar" and calling him a liar. One is a statement of fact, the other is an angry rant.
Also, honest feedback, this post comes across as "Publisher's Weekly was unfair to me, waaaah!" It would have been much stronger if you'd left out your review, and talked about the reviews of others, where you have a very fair point.
-
A profound tendecy towards "Centrism" obviously isn't a bias.
. . . and I obviously speak American English without any accent.
-
@meffert
"Whether dealing with evolution or global warming, why same-sex marriages would ruin the united states or when is torture acceptable; both "sides" must be presented, even if one is completely wrong."
When dealing with a point of view that one deems to be "completely wrong," even when the facts bear you out, it's always constructive to analyze why the other side believes as they do; as misguided as they may seem, from inside their skin what they are saying makes sense, it "works for them." If you don't try to find out why they're sticking to a point of view that is not supported by the facts, you'll never pry them loose from their argument. I'm not talking about Coulter and Limbaugh, who do it for money but their audiences who desperately need to believe what they say is true. Or the reviewers who call Glenn "shrill" instead of "deadly accurate." What's motivating their selective blindness/deafness? I don't think some writers on the left, feeling they are totally supported by empirical fact, take the time to look at why they're not being heard. Not feeling heard, they scream louder, "Can't you see how right I am?? Look at the facts!!!" But it isn't always about facts, with people. We're not all Mr. Spock. When BushCo taps into people's fear, facts go out the window. When people perceive their economic well-being threatened by oh, say, reduced military spending, their brains go out the window. If you want to convince them that an economy that relies on instruments of death to maintain it is ultimately going to destroy the world, you have to take into account their fear of being poor, or all the screaming in the world isn't going to change their minds.
It makes for good debating to remember that the other person, inside his/her skin, subjectively, feels just as correct in what he/she is saying as you or I do. If you want to change his/her mind, you've got to get inside, not just point at facts.