Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think it's a stupid piece, mixing together a whole bunch of unrelated things, on some of which I completely agree with Taibbi and on others I think he is off the mark. What he really needs is an editor. His headline is about "the press" but then he also complains about "the left," which is music to your ears, I know.

On the fight between Lee Fang and Akela Lacy, why should we care? So lots of people liked a bad tweet.

"There were other incidents. The editors of Bon Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations of toxic workplace culture." And this is bad? I've never heard of Refinery29 so I don't know why I should care, but I heard a lot of stuff about Bon Appetit and it sounds like the editor had it coming. So?

About Bennet, he says "The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking." Actually, many people said that Cotton's views should be covered by the Times as news. Then Times readers would know what he thinks. Taibbi doesn't seem to know that, suggesting that he has been shielding himself from what a major segment of American society is thinking. Also, Taibbi doesn't seem to know that Bennet admitted he never read Cotton's piece.



Where are the "amazing contradictions in coverage"? I have seen all of these things reported.

Get him an editor. That piece is a mess.

On the lack of editing, I agree with you. It is too lengthy and pulls in items best discussed in separate stand alone pieces.

But as one of the few people writing the critiques he does, I'll take what I can get. If Taibbi gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the criticism he's offering near entirely disappears from public view.

I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting there are now more enlightened newsrooms where objectivity cedes to the important narratives that progressive journalists want to emphasize, and anything that challenges them is potentially offensive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Re Taibbi, this is the best stuff from that article:

The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey’s firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence “whistleblowers,” all those interminable months of Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.

It’s been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, “why the presumption of innocence is so important,” she said). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment, in other words, ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.

There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won’t be a few weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days.

My sole criticism is use of "manias." Moral panics is the better term.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re Taibbi, this is the best stuff from that article:

The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey’s firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence “whistleblowers,” all those interminable months of Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.

It’s been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, “why the presumption of innocence is so important,” she said). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment, in other words, ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.

There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won’t be a few weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days.

My sole criticism is use of "manias." Moral panics is the better term.

He is so lazy. If you are going to do media criticism, name names. He has perfected a way of writing that makes it impossible to figure out who he is talking about -- his blog says he is reporting, but he "reports" nothing here. If he had to pay to use passive constructions, he'd be bankrupt. "The media has devolved." "We are told." "Subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten." "The tone remains." "It's been learned." "We may freely misreport reality." "It was okay to publish." "MSNBC could put." And so on.

I can't figure out who he's talking about. TV, I think.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He is so lazy. If you are going to do media criticism, name names. He has perfected a way of writing that makes it impossible to figure out who he is talking about -- his blog says he is reporting, but he "reports" nothing here. If he had to pay to use passive constructions, he'd be bankrupt. "The media has devolved." "We are told." "Subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten." "The tone remains." "It's been learned." "We may freely misreport reality." "It was okay to publish." "MSNBC could put." And so on.

I can't figure out who he's talking about. TV, I think.

1. The names would fill volumes. But also, he does name names. And when he does, you assert he’s bringing too many disparate sources together.

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

2. The media has devolved. Right and left. It’s garbage all around. The right is just dumber. You seem to value the credulous who think they’re smart above the generally credulous. That’s understandable when they’re driving your Uber, but here?

3. Taibbi almost never uses the passive. He’s been driven to it. If you doubt me, there’s more than enough of his work to review. This is always your technique, by the way, and you complain about it as much as you use it.

If you’re cornered, you’ll demand an impossible quantum of empirical or specific proof. When slammed with empirical and specific proof, you’ll become petulant and dodge. Flower’s a child in many regards, but I’ll offer him this: He’ll admit when he’s wrong. Twenty years on, you’ll give Trump a run for his money. I’m not sure which of the two of you would do that first.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

He says you are elite, he is not, and he resents you for it. Objectively.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He says you are elite, he is not, and he resents you for it. Objectively.

I was saying he's the left wing analogue of a Fox News viewer. His politics are straight out of my sophomore year Poli Sci course. Almost universally in step with whatever the left holds as a sacred cow of the day.

He probably thinks Trump is responsible significantly for the racism that led to George Floyd's death. And if he understood even a shred of the economic causes behind that racism, he'd be left politically rootless, having found that the Democrats are as much if not more responsible than the GOP, or our current populist buffoon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. The names would fill volumes. But also, he does name names. And when he does, you assert he’s bringing too many disparate sources together.

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

2. The media has devolved. Right and left. It’s garbage all around. The right is just dumber. You seem to value the credulous who think they’re smart above the generally credulous. That’s understandable when they’re driving your Uber, but here?

I'm glad you found media criticism that makes you happy.

3. Taibbi almost never uses the passive. He’s been driven to it.

Well played.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On the lack of editing, I agree with you. It is too lengthy and pulls in items best discussed in separate stand alone pieces.

But as one of the few people writing the critiques he does, I'll take what I can get. If Taibbi gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the criticism he's offering near entirely disappears from public view.

I can't figure out what his point is. What's the criticism? It's a bunch of drive-by shootings on separate topics that other people have done more with.

I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist?

Who are you quoting?

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting there are now more enlightened newsrooms where objectivity cedes to the important narratives that progressive journalists want to emphasize, and anything that challenges them is potentially offensive.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

I think your "objectivity" is a charade, a pretense that is used to hide choices being made by journalists, editors and publishers. When the New York Times pretends that it published Cotton to present all sides, it avoids acknowledging why it published Cotton instead of, say, another GOP Senator who didn't go to Harvard and isn't close to Bill Kristol, or why it presented those views unedited on its op-ed page instead of reporting on them. More generally, political reporting is full of all sorts of conventions that are designed out of a pretense of objectivity that is more about not making either party unhappy, especially Republicans, who constantly work the refs. When CNN reports that Trump is lying, you call them biased, because how can they know what Trump is thinking? But when CNN similarly reports on what Trump is thinking about trade policy, neither you nor anyone complaint that they can't really know what he's thinking. Trump lies constantly, as well all know, but you and so many others have some concept of "objectivity" that stands in the way of simple reporting on that objective truth. Here's a good example. Another example that I'm sure you will agree with has to do with the contortions that reporters will go into in order to avoid saying that a cop hurt someone. Objectivity? Hardly.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who are you quoting?

Aw, does it hurt your little feelings when he “quotes” you about things you “didn’t say”??? Maybe if you didn’t admit to wanting to “suppress dangerous ideas” that did not “conform to [your] militant left wing ideology,” he wouldn’t have to use those tactics to engage you.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

Mods, can we set up a macro that automatically responds to any post that Sebastian directs to me with the above-quoted language? TIA!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Aw, does it hurt your little feelings when he “quotes” you about things you “didn’t say”??? Maybe if you didn’t admit to wanting to “suppress dangerous ideas” that did not “conform to [your] militant left wing ideology,” he wouldn’t have to use those tactics to engage you.

I apologize for saying "who" instead of "whom." Clearly, standards are in decline.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I can't figure out what his point is. What's the criticism? It's a bunch of drive-by shootings on separate topics that other people have done more with.



Who are you quoting?



I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

I think your "objectivity" is a charade, a pretense that is used to hide choices being made by journalists, editors and publishers. When the New York Times pretends that it published Cotton to present all sides, it avoids acknowledging why it published Cotton instead of, say, another GOP Senator who didn't go to Harvard and isn't close to Bill Kristol, or why it presented those views unedited on its op-ed page instead of reporting on them. More generally, political reporting is full of all sorts of conventions that are designed out of a pretense of objectivity that is more about not making either party unhappy, especially Republicans, who constantly work the refs. When CNN reports that Trump is lying, you call them biased, because how can they know what Trump is thinking? But when CNN similarly reports on what Trump is thinking about trade policy, neither you nor anyone complaint that they can't really know what he's thinking. Trump lies constantly, as well all know, but you and so many others have some concept of "objectivity" that stands in the way of simple reporting on that objective truth. Here's a good example. Another example that I'm sure you will agree with has to do with the contortions that reporters will go into in order to avoid saying that a cop hurt someone. Objectivity? Hardly.

Read Henry’s In Defense of Elitism. I don’t disagree with the concept of lack of objectivity. I disagree with who should be considered elite.

Trump should certainly not, and nor should his staunchest detractors.

The media holds a candle for a competing idiocy. If you give me two idiocies and demand I pick, I pick a drink, and not voting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read Henry’s In Defense of Elitism. I don’t disagree with the concept of lack of objectivity. I disagree with who should be considered elite.

Trump should certainly not, and nor should his staunchest detractors.

The media holds a candle for a competing idiocy. If you give me two idiocies and demand I pick, I pick a drink, and not voting.

You were talking about objectivity, so I responded about objectivity. If you are going to change subjects and talk about elitism, go nuts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You were talking about objectivity, so I responded about objectivity. If you are going to change subjects and talk about elitism, go nuts.

Your argument is an attack on objectivity. Essentially, you are saying that we must "make choices" about what is allowed to be stated on the OpEd pages.

But who makes those choices? Ah, yes -- someone whose views and sensibilities mirror yours.

This is an argument for laddering the quality of views. Hence, I leapt to Henry. (Sorry about expecting you to be a bit faster, but whatevs.) If we must ladder views, his book struck me as a great analysis of whose views are more worthy than others'.

Henry's "choices," were he allowed to rank what was worthy and what was not, would eliminate a lot of the pieces you favor, and a lot of the views you hold. (He'd be very much with you on trade and laissez faire economics.) He'd eliminate almost all of the right wing voices save Never-Trumpers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your argument is an attack on objectivity.

I'm not "attacking" objectivity. I'm saying your notion of press objectivity is myth. It does not exist.

Essentially, you are saying that we must "make choices" about what is allowed to be stated on the OpEd pages.

Are you familiar with the NYT op-ed page? On paper, it takes up two pages. That's enough room for, say, three editorials, some letters to the editor, two columns by regular columnists, and two guest pieces. It's hardly a brainstorm to point out that someone has to "make choices" about what will appear in that limited space. There has always been someone whose job it is to "make choices" about what appears in a newspaper. That person is typically called an "editor" because they "edit" the pieces before they appear, in the process, "making choices" about what is said. None of this is particular controversial to anyone who has, say, ever picked up a newspaper.

But who makes those choices? Ah, yes -- someone whose views and sensibilities mirror yours.

If you are trying to describe the world as it is, this is obviously wrong. If you are trying to describe the world as it should be, I don't really care about the personal views and sensibilities of the editor of the NYT op-ed page. I'd rather not need to know who that person is. A good editor elevates the voices of the authors she is editing. A good editor of an op-ed page curates interesting views. Do I want an op-ed page that simply tells me what I already believe? No, I do not. For that, I could have Facebook, as I was just saying. Pass, thanks.

The New York Times has never, ever chosen to use its op-ed page to reflect the wide range of political views. It does not publish pieces calling for things like communism, racism, man-boy love, or ethnic cleansing, even though all have their adherents. It has always had editors who have edited its pages to reflect a certain set of views. Please don't be shocked to learn that there has been gambling in this casino.