Letters to the Editor
-
Objection!
people must give up the naive idea that reporters, reviewers and their ilk are journalists today. They are really like a black and tan beer - part propagandist and part entertainer - propa-tainers offering propa-tainment. --kedger
The quibble is not with your point about today's journalists and reviewers in their roles as propa-tainers; that insight is absolutely correct in far too many cases. However I must rise to defend the Black 'n Tan, a robust, meaningful, nutritious, and edifying delight which stands in stark contrast, not similarity, to the pallid, limp, pabulum dished up by your Propa-tainers. The Black 'n Tan is not propaganda, and is much more than mere entertainment.
;-)
-
PublishersWeekly
I noticed that review and was going to e-mail you something pointing out that Publisher's Weekly has a streak of conservative leaning reviews. I check out the description of political books at Amazon regularly and the dismissive Publisher's Weekly review is a regular occurrence
-
One thing missing
The only thing missing from your wrap-up on "balance" and "centrism" as it applies to book reviews was to quote from (for example) the Publisher's Weekly review of Coulter -- assuming there is one -- or any of her ilk.
It would be the absolute clincher for your argument to show that reviews of people like Coulter didn't call her "shrill" and "partisan" (or words to that effect).
Of course, it wouldn't completely destroy your argument if Coulter's reviews (again, for example) were of a similar tone to the ones you quoted. But it would mean that your chosen example (book reviews) was somewhat weak. What if it's simply the truth that all "political" books are treated with that sort of I-didn't-really-read-this cod-seriousness? Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence, etc.
I couldn't find -- in an admittedly cursory and non-exhaustive search -- MSM reviews of right-wing screeds that were _not_ similar in tone to PW's of you.
Here's a selection from a random website (notably, I couldn't find any "major" publication's reviews of Coulter):
Unless wildly naïve, Coulter must realize that this shtick is a great asset to her ideological enemies. In her role as a political shock-queen (like Howard Stern in a marketable, pop-tart form), she energizes Democrats and hamstrings Republicans.
Ouch!
I await links to MSM reviews of Coulter that are NOT similar to Glenn's examples, or alternatively (to prove the lesser point) reviews of Glenn that are as cutting and dismissive as the one I produced of Coulter.
-
The WSJ article
Here is the reference to the whole WSJ article bamage was talking about. Bamage posted on the previous thread that Leahy and Conyers are calling on people to write to their local papers to try to fend off the immunity clause in the FISA legislation.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120511973377523845.html
It's all a data mining issue now. Everyone please do believe that there are ways to digest that much data, regardless of articles that circulate saying otherwise. And please do believe that they are doing much more than looking at just header information. And please do believe they can do it anonymously until the final inverse transforms. That they are essentially admitting to the network of Narus machines, admitting to the use of the TIA software and admitting to the existence of new programs and methods that haven't been disclosed should worry people. Unless you like being watched.
A part of our Constitution seems to have been suspended, and a court seems to have been bypassed. Maybe we should be having our own black flag movement to restore the rule of law. Whatever the overt power grabs have been, the effort in the clandestine services has been to target essential features of the law and find out how to bypass them. With torture, they devise methods that cause no scarring and limited pain, but devastate the psyche. With this, they find methods that don't expose individuals unless asked and churn personal data pretending it is anonymous. With high level appointments, people are being repeatedly interim appointed to avoid congressional vetting. Treaties are being recast as strategic military decisions so that they won't need to be ratified by Congress. Our Constitution is being scrapped, item by item, by clean rooming techniques designed in the corporate world to bypass the law.
-
re: those funny Conservatives!
Take a gander at this PW review for Glenn Becks' An Inconvenient Book (HA HA! Get it! It's just like an Inconvenient Truth!)
In this appraisal of America's woes, conservative TV and talk-radio host Beck (The Real America) lays lighthearted siege to everything that makes the world worse. [P]olitical correctness is the biggest threat this nation faces today, he declares, as it makes us prey for Islamic fundamentalists, renders taboo the roots of our economic troubles (poor people are, in fact, lazy, he argues) and creates rampant distortion in the media. Beck goes paragraph for paragraph with global-warming alarmist Al Gore, merrily slaughtering the sacred cows of the environmentalist crowd. Not sated by the hide of the former vice president, he goes after everything and everyone from poverty to perverts, offering solutions to these and other problems (e.g., the key to success in the capitalist system is to believe in it). While often informative, as in his chapter on global warming, Beck is sometimes tedious, particularly when dealing with Islam and education (France is literally teetering on the edge, and our biggest ally, England, is about to be turned inside out as well). He's at his best when most absurd, and funniest when he's his own target (the father of four is little more than a flesh-and-bone jungle gym). This should make a good read for conservatives.
http://tinyurl.com/2fbv2q
-
It's the "Flat Earth" hypothesis
If you publish a discussion of geology that presumes the Earth is round (a globe actually), in order to be balanced you must find and include quotes from those who still believe the Earth is Flat. Otherwise you are espousing only one side of the issue and you are automatically "unserious."
-
Discrimination
And you're also a lawyer? That's like four strikes right off the bat. You couldn't possibly have anything Serious to say... And a piece of advice for your next book - don't rely so much on evidence and logic to determine your conclusions.
-- thehallmark
I agree with Hallmark, "serious" is a "Serious " word. And who in their right mind, whether a journalist or a lawyer for that matter would ever rely on "too" much evidence and logic. Why bother, it's much easier to make stuff up.
And well put, being a lawyer does have at least 4 strikes, just like in baseball. Right off the bat. But the 5th strike against lawyers are that they are all in disguise running the country in the form of elected officials and politicians.
----------------
It is funny that the word discrimination has both a good and evil side to its dictionary definition. The evil side refers to making distinctions based on racial, religious, sex, etc, intolerances or bigotry. The good side refers to the ability to make nuanced distinctions and use practical judgment based on facts and evidence. Who knows, maybe that is what forces "serious" journalists to be "balanced", they cannot determine when and how to use discrimination.
Lack of discrimination does things like:
tie together a lunatic/comedianne/sociopath/entertainer and an advocate promoting a position as the same thing,
tie together a politician who lies a nation to war and another who lies about an extra-marital affair,
tie together actions and events that can cause potential personal consequences, with those that can devastate an entire nation.
To bad discrimination has such a bad connotation, journalism sure could use some discrimination.