Letters to the Editor
-
@ ABAB
You DID champion that postmodern affect of accepting any point of view equally.
Oh, really?!?!? Where? Sometimes there's simply right and wrong. Such as claiming here that Glenn is "postmodern" (and insunuating he's into "postmodern relativism"). That's just plain wrong. And I'm not afraid to point it out.
Cheers,
-
What about Jefferson? Madison?
I wonder how comments by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others who founded this country would be viewed in this sort of equivalence prism? Probably we never would have had a revolution. Intended or not, it's a control mechanism used by one group to hold power at the expense of other groups.
-
I've read most of these books (except for yours that hasn't come out yet)
and while I might have a few objections to some of them (mainly that they tend to repeat each others' charges against BushCo and the GOP, so that they tend to merge after a while into one overall book), I would not consider most of them to be "screeds".
A screed is a one-sided rant, as I understand it, a emotive outburst rather than a substantive and factually supported list of charges. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter issue forth nothing but screeds. What Glenn writes in this blog and in his books, and what journalists, academics and pundits like Blumenthal, Boehlert and Chomsky write in their articles and books, are substantive pieces, fully supported by the facts.
It's like calling a carefully-prepared, meticulously argued and fully substantiated legal brief a "screed". Or, better yet, calling the Declaration of Independance a "screed". By the standards espoused by these critics, it was clearly a screed since it had an "angry" tone and failed to adequately if at all present the other side's position. It was neither fair nor balanced, and has no place being hung on our walls and taught in our schools.
I hold these gutless and unprincipled morons who call themselves critics to be self-evident.
As an aside, there's another way in which this false "fairness" manifests itself. I've noted on countless occasions that when a right-wing liar and actual screed-spouter appears on TV, their rediculous and often inflammatory talking points are often allowed to be made unchallenged and uncriticized, either on their "substance" (as it were) or tone.
Whereas when someone from the left (or merely an honest type) appears to offer the counter (i.e. reality-based) version, if they show the slightest bit of passion, anger or impatience, they are often (invariably) treated with irritation and condescension, as if to say "Ok, Mr. Tree Hugger, you've had your 5 minutes to vent, now go away and put on your tinfoil hat").
The decks are still clearly stacked against the left, and against actual fairness and balance, and not the faux kind we're served up every day by the establishment media, and the default position is still that you need to balance everything the left says with the right's response, regardless of how close to reality (or not) each side's position is, and that the right's positions are more credible than the left's, and its proponents' reputations more trustworthy. This doesn't even necessarily happen on a conscious and deliberate level, so deep into the media's collective subconscious have these assumptions sunk.
I see it all the time, even on CSPAN and PBS. Right-wing politicians, pundits and "experts" are treated with deference and credulity, whereas their left-wing (or merely neutral) counterparts are often treated with suspicion if not outright contempt. E.g. Gwen Iffil's famously calling Gore's latest book a screed--to his face--on PBS last year. Or the unwillingness of hosts to challenge even the most rediculous lies spouted by the likes of Bill Kristol, David Brooks and Trent Lott.
There's not just one factor that accounts for this, of course. It's likely some combination of the obvious RW leanings of most big media companies, residual favoratism towards the party that's dominated US politics for the past few decades, fear of the still-powerful RWNM, and journalists' and their editors' individual biases, fears, laziness, stupidity and lack of ethics.
I mean, when Iffil attacked Gore's book, she likely did so because she wanted to stay in good stead with her RW buddies, because it was the easy and obvious thing to do, and because she's lazy and stupid enough to not see (or want to see) through the brainwashing that the RWNM has done on her and her colleagues for years. And, perhaps, revealing her own biases and prejudices.
So "screed" on, Glenn. We've got your back.
-
late to the party, but..
just to note that you're right in every particular, Glenn.
And that it's pathetically obvious why the MSM is so desperate to maintain this fiction of "balance." Because the stakes here are so high that there is not any chance the powers that be in the MSM will EVER own up to what they've done, and not done, in the service of this corrupt, extremist presidency.
I'm convinced these waterheads know exactly what the truth is, and they're fighting tooth and nail to avoid it, because if they have to embrace it, they go down.
I thought the final episode of The Wire really captured this syndrome quite accurately, last night.
-
balance
why does balance have to come into play .Why do you have to give the other side equal time (sometimes) when the FACTS tell the whole story.Report the facts of a story and not what someone thinks the facts means.That is what's wrong with the beltway pundits.
-
Wonderful
Got here late, and haven't read the comments yet, since there are actually three other columns I have to catch up on. This topic is one that I've seen argued at school by some very bad professors, that every story has to be "balanced". I always thought the goal was truth? I thought the point was to inform the public, not worry about whether some powerful person was hurt by the truth.
The failure of the American press to live up to this ideal is a huge part of the problems the country is facing right now. I'm glad someone is calling them on it.
-
Satire, anyone?
It is impossible to satirize these people. Does anyone remember this pre-war point-counterpoint attempt at satire from the Onion?
<http://www.theonion.com/content/point/this_war_will_destabilize_the>
And who remembers this one from just before Bush's first inauguration?
<http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784>
Intended as satire, it now reads like a documentary.
And while we're on the subject of the media and election coverage, if you haven't seen this one, don't miss it.
<http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important?utm_source=videomrss_74800>