« Taxes revolt | Main | More signs of the coming climate apocalypse » Make dialog, not war15 Apr 2008 11:37 am Long, long Bloggingheads between me and Glenn Greenwald. I'll be blogging more about this later, but I've got an enormous backlog of posts I want to get up . . . sigh. Update Chris Shea of Bloggingheads sends along a shorter clip, which is a decent summary of our dispute: Comments (72)
I think the whole discussion was side tracked by the debate over whether journalists have some constitional obligation to cover certain topics. Glenn's whole argument boils down to this: The press covers Obama's bowling score, but never covers anything about government wrong doings. Anyone who actually reads a newspaper knows that is not true. Glenn is just upset that the public doesn't hyperventilate the way he does and that the press isn't doing enough to convince the public to hyperventilate. 
dave, if what he argues is not true, then why do polls consistently indicate that the public is ignorant and has been ignorant of, or is misled about, important issues, such as the kind of wrongdoing that GG refers to.
How do you get kids to eat their spinach? Does Mom have a moral obligation to get Johnny to eat his spinach? Didn't Dad, as Father, imbue Mom (as primary caregiver) with certain ethical obligations to get Johnny to eat his spinach? According to Glenn, Johnny really, really wants to eat his spinach, but Mom's just not giving him any. Instead, Mom's giving Johnny poptarts and he really doesn't like them anyway.
"the best example is the iraq war and the confusion over saddam's supposed participation." Are you saying Saddam did not participate in the Iraq war? I know what you really mean is that Saddam did not participate in 9/11, but it is exactly this kind of sloppy argument that Glenn is making. Megal demolished Glenn's research metholodology in the first seven minutes of the divolog. "even empirically, what you maintain is easily refuted.
http://search2.foxnews.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=story&getfields=*&filter=0&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&q=yoo+memo http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?q=yoo+memo&search=search+site&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=MSNBC&os=0&gs=1&p=1&adunitid=&propertyid=
Well I think Reverend Wright is a real story and in no way like haircuts and bowling. MSNBC gives me no results for: obama bowling Although foxnews has quite a few, so you would be correct if you considered fox news to be representative of the entire MSM. http://search2.foxnews.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=my_frontend&proxystylesheet=my_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=story&getfields=*&filter=0&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&q=%2Bobama+%2Bbowling Anyway the point is, as Megan stated, the methodology used to get the data is extremely poor and certainly looking at just Fox, MSN and CNN is a poor sample.
Well, there is a lot to comment on, but I will just choose two. Mr. Greenwald appears to be among those who thinks that the fact that Olbermann can drive his viewership from 350k to 750k, in a nation of 300 million, is indicative of some major failing to satisfy demand. This would indicate that Mr. Greenwald is either being a bit disingenuous, or has numeracy issues. Secondly, Mr. Greenwald, like a lot of people, is really, really, really loose with money that he did not labor for. He blithely suggested that the Washington Post should be willing to cut it's operating profit by about 25% to print the stories Mr. Greenwald would prefer. I wonder if he would adopt that stance if his 401k, or, if he has a child, his child's college fund, which Greenwald had labored hard and long to produce, was tied up in ownership of the Washingtonn Post. A lot of people have glib notions regarding what the sweat of somebody else's brow should be devoted to.
PS Some of those links aren't working and are giving full web search results not MSNBC search results.
Cute -- ending the clip immediately after you state that Glenn's position is "fundamentally wrong." Glenn was clearly chomping at the bit. I chuckled at his two dismissive, can-I-speak-now "right"s. You lecturing Glenn on the limits of lexisnexis and attempting to use that as a feeble explanation for why a trivial and senationalized story like Obama and bowling receives so much more coverage than John Yoo . . . and then later stating the obvious that silly sites like lolcats get a lot more traffic than Glenn's site. Sheesh. And you know, personally, political reporters on all the major US papers? Really? What, you've chatted with Dana Milbank or Nedra Pickler over cocktail weinees at an AEI function?
this was good show. and megan was good.
Bragan, I could be wrong, but I doubt Megan had input as to where the clip ended. Cute paranoia.
So, Will, you would have no objection to the Washington Post and New York Times dumbing down their news coverage, becoming even more like USA Today? For the sake of FREE MARKETS and the pursuit of the (once) mighty dollar, TV news should replaced by even more infotainment? The Fourth Estate is just another industry, and the bottom line is its bottom line? An informed public? Screw it! Democracy, likewise.
Well, Will, Megan certainly had input over whether or not to post the clip on her blog.
Yes, Brgan, Megan shold have refrained from posting the clip, because of the fundamental unfairness of what sentence it ended on. Sigh. Bragan, I don't care what the Post or Times does, particularly. I don't read them, or USA Today, and can get all the news I desire from other sources, sources I choose frequently because they have a differing viewpoint than mine. I think the owners of those publications should do as they wish, in terms of story selection and depth, and then should simply endeavor to avoid falsehoods, because everyone should endeavor to avoid falsehoods. I think presuming to lecture people, who have labored hard and risked much to obtain the capital they then invest, regarding how they should employ that capital, beyond following the ehtical and legal demands that apply to all citizens equally, is an exceedingly, exceedingly, arrogant and lazy thing to do, which is always a less than charming combination of human qualities. I thnk such lecturers should instead endeavor to get their damned shoulder to the wheel, and employ their own blood, sweat, and tears, to conglomerate enough capital to produce what they are so keen on lecturing on how other people's blood, sweat, and tears are employed.
i thought you handled yourself very well, megan. glenn made some excellent points as well. and megan, why are you so gorgeous?? no really, why? you're totally hot. i just keep watching this diavlog over and over. you are literally smoldering onscreen. there is just no way greenwald can win in this situation. bless you.
Let me be more clear. If Grenwald restricted himself to criticism, I'd have little reaction; everybody has an opinion, and that's fine. It's when he presumes to instruct the owners of the Washington Post to accept about a 25% decline in operating profit, so more stories that Greenwald prefers would be printed, that I conclude he is arrogant and lazy.
dave, i certainly should have qualified my statement so that it was not so categorical. i should have stated that it was hardly mentioned, especially relative to the attention given trivial BS like the bowling story.
tony, what have you been smoking?
I watched the entire dialogue between Glenn Greenwald and Megan McArdle on "Bloggingheads" Although Megan McArdle intimated that Glenn Greenwald wants to force journalists to cover more serious news stories, he explicitly stated that he did not think it would be wise or effective to do so. Gleen Greenwald also stated that he does not expect all journalists to cover serious news stories (the sportswriters and fashion reporters are safe), but he thinks that journalists who write about political issues (including related issues such as economics) have a moral obligation and a professional obligation (not a legal obligation) to try to pursue stories involving government officials that are misleading the public and/or withholding information from the public. Many people (myself included) think that, with rights, come obligations that are not necessarily legal obligations. Megan McArdle stated several different times during her discussion with Glenn Greenwald that she thinks journalists have no more obligation than other citizens to pursue stories about government corruption (despite the fact that, to borrow an argument from Megan McArdle, ordinary citizens are too tired after they get home from work to conduct investigative journalism). Glenn Greenwald raised the issue of the Constitution because the grant of freedom of the press confers an obligation (again, not a legal obligation) on the press to exercise this freedom to inform the public about government malfeasance and nonfeasance. Inclusion of the provision, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, to prohibit Congress from making any laws to abridge the freedom of the press established a right that could be exercised by all citizens, but his provision was directed toward the protection of the independence of the press (not to protect the business interests of printers). Television and radio stations agree to act in the public interest as one condition of receiving access to to the airwaves to broadcast their product. Megan McArdle is correct to note that the public shares much of the blame for the general ignorance among the public about government policy, she is correct that the public shares much of the blame for the exaltation of trivia in the media, she is correct that you cannot force people to read or watch that which they do not want to read or watch, and she is correct that the drive for profits adversely affects the quality of the information we receive from the media. However, I think Megan McArdle is incorrect to think that journalists do not also have a large measure of culpability for the shallowness of the mainstream media. Perhaps she did not adequately articulate her thoughts, but in this debate, Megan McArdle demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge of the reason freedom of the press is in the Bill of Rights, and it is obvious that she is not familiar with Benjamin Franklin's endeavors as a journalist (which is germane because he was both a businessman and an opinionated journalist). If I were a journalist, I would not want Megan McArdle as a spokesperson for my profession.
frankie d, what exactly in my comment are you disagreeing with??
Blaine you revel a profound lack of knowledge when you imply that the Constitution "grants" rights. As a citizen, I would not want people like you as a spokesperson for what the relationship between the state and the citizen is.
At least I can spell reveal. I can also spell semantics. Some of the original critics of the Bill of Rights, including some advocates (such as Alexander Hamilton) for ratification of the original Constitution, opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that these amendments to the Constitution would be interpreted as a limitation on the inalienable rights of the people, but wiser politicians and statesmen recognized the value of adding an enumeration of the most important aspects of the most important rights that they were trying to protect within the framework of their new Constitution. The Constitution grants many rights by restricting the infringement of those rights, but some of the rights delineated in the Constitution are formulated directly (such as the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury).
Yes, Blaine, I can't spell reveal. This is fundamentally about typing skill, after all. "Grant" is not synonymous with "enumerate", and it is not merely a semantic difference.
It's when he presumes to instruct the owners of the Washington Post to accept about a 25% decline in operating profit, so more stories that Greenwald prefers would be printed, that I conclude he is arrogant and lazy. Will Allen is correct. If Glenn had the courage to arm himself with an iPod and do a fandango for freedom some midnight at the Jefferson Memorial, we'd all be better off.
LWM, I don't know if it is the case, but if the people dancing in Jefferson's moonshadow were telling other people, who worked really hard to accumulate capital, what they should do with the capital, besides what any citizen is obligated to do, then the frolickers oughta' stop dancin' and get their damned shoulder to the wheel as well. Cheap talk regarding what other people are obliged to do with the byproduct of their labor is just that; really, really, cheap.
I think both Megan and Glenn are overly confident in the quality of the media in the 1930s and 40s. They should each spend some time in the microfiche room. I will say, to their credit, that the media was different then. The New York Times, for example, used to contain many more details, including articles on the social scene and just who disembarked on the arriving steam ships. More to the point. During WWII Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942. The earliest -- and only contemporary -- story on the topic in the New York Times is from Feb. 1943, a year later. link. It was not until the 1970s that it started covering the order.
Will Allen, you interpret the word "grant" too narrowly. Based on your understanding of the word "grant", I will grant you that, from a philosophical standpoint and a linguistic standpoint, "grant" is not synonymous with "enumerate". Based on other proper connotations of the word "grant", and from a practical standpoint, this is an issue of semantics.
Uh, no Blaine, and it isn't even close. An entity, be it a group of people, a state, or a legal document, which has the power to grant things has the inherent power to create obligations in return. A document which simply enumerates some, and certainly not all, rights individuals are inherently embued with, has no such power. The people who wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independendence would have been astounded by the notion that the document(s) was "granting rights".
LWM, I don't know if it is the case, but if the people dancing in Jefferson's moonshadow were telling other people, who worked really hard to accumulate capital, what they should do with the capital, besides what any citizen is obligated to do, then the frolickers oughta' stop dancin' and get their damned shoulder to the wheel as well. Cheap talk regarding what other people are obliged to do with the byproduct of their labor is just that; really, really, cheap. Posted by Will Allen Well, gee, Will. The natural wage of labor is the product (B. Tucker). By that standard they are underpaid, I'd say. Working for peanuts and should ask for a raise. They, like you, probably just don't know any better. I'm here to help and I'm not even from the gummint!
The people who wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independendence would have been astounded by the notion that the document(s) was "granting rights". I just love pseudo-libertarian arguments. On the one hand the framers were a contentious lot who rarely agreed on anything but the minute they should all be in agreement to make a point, voila! Which one is it, Will? Make up your mind. The rest of us have better things to do than engage in a battle of wits with a witless ideologue whose understanding of history is about as broad as the gap between Megan's two front teeth. They might just as well have been astounded by some of your notions on capital, property in land and community.
Megan, you're a much better person than I am. I think I'd have shouted in anger and frustration at Mr. Greenwald's dunderheadedness at least five times.
The Constitution itself states that it is not an enumeration of all of the rights to which people are entitled, and I will concede that the people who wrote the Constitution would not have used the term "grant" to indicate granting permission, but they realized that the inherent rights of people were not likely to be accorded proper respect by the Federal government unless such rights were acknowledged in the Constitution, and "to grant" can be used as a synonym for "to acknowledge". Just as my reference to your misspelling was a cheap trick, your use of semantics is a cheap trick to avoid logical discussion of the issues in my prior post, which I will repeat here: I watched the entire dialogue between Glenn Greenwald and Megan McArdle on "Bloggingheads" Although Megan McArdle intimated that Glenn Greenwald wants to force journalists to cover more serious news stories, he explicitly stated that he did not think it would be wise or effective to do so. Gleen Greenwald also stated that he does not expect all journalists to cover serious news stories (the sportswriters and fashion reporters are safe), but he thinks that journalists who write about political issues (including related issues such as economics) have a moral obligation and a professional obligation (not a legal obligation) to try to pursue stories involving government officials that are misleading the public and/or withholding information from the public. Many people (myself included) think that, with rights, come obligations that are not necessarily legal obligations. Megan McArdle stated several different times during her discussion with Glenn Greenwald that she thinks journalists have no more obligation than other citizens to pursue stories about government corruption (despite the fact that, to borrow an argument from Megan McArdle, ordinary citizens are too tired after they get home from work to conduct investigative journalism). Glenn Greenwald raised the issue of the Constitution because the grant of freedom of the press confers an obligation (again, not a legal obligation) on the press to exercise this freedom to inform the public about government malfeasance and nonfeasance. Inclusion of the provision, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, to prohibit Congress from making any laws to abridge the freedom of the press established a right that could be exercised by all citizens, but his provision was directed toward the protection of the independence of the press (not to protect the business interests of printers). Television and radio stations agree to act in the public interest as one condition of receiving access to to the airwaves to broadcast their product. Megan McArdle is correct to note that the public shares much of the blame for the general ignorance among the public about government policy, she is correct that the public shares much of the blame for the exaltation of trivia in the media, she is correct that you cannot force people to read or watch that which they do not want to read or watch, and she is correct that the drive for profits adversely affects the quality of the information we receive from the media. However, I think Megan McArdle is incorrect to think that journalists do not also have a large measure of culpability for the shallowness of the mainstream media. Perhaps she did not adequately articulate her thoughts, but in this debate, Megan McArdle demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge of the reason freedom of the press is in the Bill of Rights, and it is obvious that she is not familiar with Benjamin Franklin's endeavors as a journalist (which is germane because he was both a businessman and an opinionated journalist). If I were a journalist, I would not want Megan McArdle as a spokesperson for my profession.
LWM, when you have something to write besides the typical witless nonsense, let me know. I wasn't the one who first posited unanimity among the people who wrote the Constutution. That was Greenwald. Now, I presume even you have other things to do than lecture people regarding what they should do with their capital, so as to satisfy your preferences, instead of the greater number of people who have differing preferences, but it is all about you, isn't it?
tony, gorgeous? smoldering?
journalists who write about political issues (including related issues such as economics) have a moral obligation and a professional obligation (not a legal obligation) to try to pursue stories involving government officials that are misleading the public and/or withholding information from the public. *All* such journalists have this obligation? No matter their intended audience? No matter their area of expertise? Does it make sense for every single national politics bureau of every single media outlet to "pursue" the same stories? Seems pretty inefficient to me. And what exactly do you mean by "pursue stories" -- I still get the impression that GG is upset that the media are not grabbing people by the collar and shouting at them about these stories, not that they're not presenting them at all.
I watched the entirety also and my take is that Megan and Glenn are talking to different purposes and are really not in much disagreement. Glenn is talking about "should" and a moral imperative, pushing for a professional standard. Megan is trying to explain "why's", specifically that you can lead readers to stories, but you cannot make them comprehend. They are both right. Journalists should cover these stories to the best of their ability yet relatively few people will read these stories, so reporters' ability to cover them will be limited. Glenn even fails to call for real change, acknowledging that he does not want new laws to force coverage. So, Glenn is offering a moral push and Megan is saying why she thinks it will fail, but that she agrees with the ethics behind the push. There is really no debate here when you boil it all down. They also hit on something more core: the difference between newspapers and magazines. Glenn notes that the Atlantic has space for coverage and Megan notes that the Atlantic is not a hard news organization. Both are dead on. Newspapers try to cover "news" -- it is in their name after all. There was little in the 2003 Yoo memo that was "news" in March of 2008. Even the Bush people had ceased taking Yoo seriously nearly a half decade ago. Yoo and the fourth amendment is really fodder for a magazine or a book at this point in time and I believe Glenn is writing the book and that the book will even be published and carried on Amazon.
Blaine it is utter nonsense to claim that the term "grant" in the context of "The Constitution grants rights" is synonymous with the term "grant" in "I grant you the logic of your argument".
LWM, when you have something to write besides the typical witless nonsense, let me know. I wasn't the one who first posited unanimity among the people who wrote the Constutution. That was Greenwald. Now, I presume even you have other things to do than lecture people regarding what they should do with their capital, so as to satisfy your preferences, instead of the greater number of people who have differing preferences, but it is all about you, isn't it? You'd like that, wouldn't you, for me to go away. I make you nervous and for good reason. You don't want to go down this road, boyo. I'm a little more knowledgeable on the subject of the press, politics and government in this period of American history than you are. And you mischaracterize Glenn's point. As a constitutional lawyer, Glenn has never suggested any such thing. He knows better. What are you, an IT professional? You can sing one note all day long, sonny. You will never convince anyone it is a song. It's just a scream, and it's shrill and it only demonstrates how upset you are that someone is finally pointing out that you don't what you are talking about. Welcome to the intertubes, sonny. Now it's time for my nap. I suggest you take one too. You are the one who sounds like a cranky baby.
One bit of nastiness that this has uncovered in Glenn (And in some of his supporters: i.e. Blaine) is the idea that the Freedom of the Press is somehow conditioned on journalists doing "important" work. Glenn suggests at one point in the conversation that if journalists aren't doing a good job (defined, apparently, by Glenn) then we ought to revoke that freedom. This is a truly pernicious conception of the First Amendment, on par with the "Responsible speech" qualification that some Europeans are trying to impose (Unfortunately for the Euros, they have no Bill of Rights to protect them). In a free society, this freedom is not, and cannot be, conditioned on anything but accuracy. The moment we give the government the means to restrict that freedom, it may as well not exist.
To Will Allen: I will grant that Alexander Hamilton would have agreed with you, but I will also grant that, from a practical standpoint, you are incorrect even if you use the phrase "utter nonsense" on multiple occasions, and I will grant that you are still evading the issues.
Straw Man alert from a nasty commenter: Glenn Greenwald never suggested or implied that freedom of the press should be restricted, and he explicitly stated that it would be ineffective and unwise to force any obligations on journalists.
*All* such journalists have this obligation? No matter their intended audience? No matter their area of expertise? Does it make sense for every single national politics bureau of every single media outlet to "pursue" the same stories? Seems pretty inefficient to me. Inefficient. Heh. You all seem to think this is about economics. It isn't. It hasn't a damn thing to do with economics. It is completely and totally political. Period. The only point at which economics comes into it is when you consider A.J. Leibling's famous observation: Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. You could definitley add radio and TV stations to that now, but things are changing. There is a revolution going on right now and we are all a part of it and yet most of us are blissfully unaware of it, even though we spend far too much time at it -- here on the web at blogs. Start with John Peter Zenger. Google him. That's where it all began and surely you have all heard of him, right, and are familiar with the implications of that case? The pen is the sword in political warfare and all politics is war carried on by other means. I'm with I.F. Stone and he was just presaging Glenn's point. The difference between burlesque and the newspapers is that the former never pretended to be performing a public service by exposure. -I.F. Stone, 1952 Now it's really time for my nap.
Straw Man alert from a nasty commenter: Glenn Greenwald never suggested or implied that freedom of the press should be restricted, and he explicitly stated that it would be ineffective and unwise to force any obligations on journalists. Posted by Blaine Kinsey That's all they've got. They are going to lose this war. They already lost it. No one expects the Interquisition! Nap, really.
Pre-emptive strike by a nasty commenter: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Glenn Greenwald was employing debating rhetoric to question Megan McArdle about why the Constitution specifically prohibits the infringement of the freedom of the press if, according to Ms. McArdle, the press has no more obligation than other citizens to pursue stories involving illegal and/or unethical activities by government officials. He did not argue that freedom of the press should be restricted in any way.
Blaine, Check the segment "Do journalists have a special duy to the public" Start about 3:40 in. Key line: "Some of what I identified as special privileges are legal and constitutional, others are administrative and discretionary. Regardless, they are all special privileges that government bestows on journalists as a class that other industries don't necessarily recieve. Do you think those should all be abolished? Or do you think that there is an expectation that journalists will do more than just think about how they can make as much money as possible, meaning serve the public interest by being a watchdog?" My italics.
Blaine, The problem isn't that Glenn wants to impose restrictions on the freedom the press. The problem is that he fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of that freedom. He believes that it is in place because journalists perform a special function (or at least that they should), and that they recieve special privileges as a result. I disagree. The freedom of the press is the freedom to publish (libel and slander excepted). It doesn't impose a responsibility on you or I to actually go out and do so, but it protects us from government interference if we do.
Also, I've done you the courtesy of addressing you by your handle, please offer me the same in return.
LWM, in your 5:43 pots, you managed to write about a couple hundred words, without saying a single solitary thing, other than what superior qualities you have, compared to me. Who, exactly, is nervous here? Sheesh, increase the thorazine dosage, boyo. I didn't mischaracterize Greenwald at all. He suggested that the people who worked like hell to supply the capital to operate the Washington Post should take about a 25% cut in in their operating margin, to satisfy Greenwald's story preferences, instead of the preferences of the much greater number of people who are reading the paper in it's current form. When a 15 year old talks this way he is ignored. I guess it takes a law degree to elevate self centered, lazy, arrogant bitching to the level of punditry. Maybe if we just give ol' Glenn the keys to the car, and let him stay out 'til midnight, he'll shut up. It ain't the most effective way to parent, but I didn't volunteer for the role.
Will, So you are an IT professional, or an economist. No wonder I everything I said went over your head.
Oh, And Will, I went to school with Pinch Sulzberger and knew Willy Hearst quite well, thank you, before you were born and any of us had shed our knee pants and school blazers. Neither of them ever worked "like hell" a day in their lives and neither did their fathers or their father's fathers. I could drop some more names but I can just imagine the warmn piss running down your your cold and trembling leg now. Stop shaking. They're just words. Megan said she went to school on the west side, eh? That eliminates Spence, Brearley, Chapin and Miss Hewitt's. Did she go to Nightingale-Bamford or isn't she a real blueblood?
Yeah, that post of yours was regular Lawrence Tribe or John Rawls masterpiece, LWM. Harvard is calling! Give that man tenure!
Apparently, LWM, you think the capital appeared in ol' Pinch's trust fund by a Divine act. Look, if you want to have a 100% eatate tax, go ahead and advocate it, but as long as people are allowed to transfer assets to others, then Greenwald's opinion about how the capital should be employed should be given as much weight as a bucket of whatever warm bodily fluid springs up in your mind. Just remember, LWM, 100% pure grain alcohol and distilled water is the only way to go, ya' ol' loon you!
Clicks? You've counted clicks, Ms. McArdle? Or, you have data to back up that claim? I'd really like to see that data. I'd especially like to see the missing data. What's that you ask? Oh, that might be the clicks that a story not printed might have garnered, had the story been available. Oh, quite right. You can't count those, can you? Can't count something not there. But, then how do you make this claim about clicks? Guess, I have to go listen to the whole discussion to find out. Have you explained it there?
Oh Glenn, you're such an unwashed nuisance to these "journalists." And in the discussion of journalism and the press, is Megan McArdle's point really that the press has no greater moral or ethical obligations than the citizenry at large? More to the point, is she really trying to say that the fact that freedom of the press was made so strong that anyone could be a member of the press is itself proof that people who do become members of the press have no moral or ethical obligations in the practice of that freedom? Logically speaking, her argument allows the great privilege of freedom itself to inherently engulf any obligations attendant to it. This would, in essence, utterly eviscerate the adage of "with great power comes great responsibility." It also renders completely meaningless the Founders' very intentional and pointed use of the words "the Press" when they could have simply repeated "the People" or "speech" instead in pronouncements such as this: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.... Or this: "The art of printing secures us against the retrogradation of reason and information." --Thomas Jefferson (Gee, if there is no moral obligation for the media to advance "reason and information," why would he ever mention it? Curious.) And this: "This [the press] formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must otherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being." --Thomas Jefferson (My goodness, what a bunch of excess and meaningless verbiage about checking the government by creating a "tribunal public opinion," and "enlightening the mind of man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being." That Thomas Jefferson sure was prone to nonsensical babbling!) In fact, McArdle's comparison of today's media with that of the 18th Century - massive, wealthy, multi-outlet conglomerates versus mere individuals with pens and printing presses - only further weakens her argument that the availability of journalism as an occupation to the population at large means that it entails no special obligations. In other words, she's a mess. A mess that sounds like a series of Socratic "points," but still a mess.
At 20 minutes in it's clear that if Megan needs an attorney to defend her right to publish what she understands to be the truth, she could do worse than to have Glenn Greenwald represent her. I'm still waiting for clarification on clicks? Again, cable companies can't count clicks for stories which don't exist. Still listening...
Hmmm. So, media outlets aren't obligated to publish stories readers won't read... then, it follows logically (in McArdle's world) that doctors have no obligation to tell their patients things the patient isn't likely to want to hear. At 30 " in I'm still waiting to hear more about how the media figures out the story they didn't print clearly carries less interest than the story they did.
One of Megan's most, um, interesting arguments was that the media is forced, in practice, not to publish less sensational stories that are nevertheless "good for us," because the public will refuse to read them anyway and therefore the stories, and their points, will be lost. In other words, don't bother saying something people don't want to hear, because they might not be willing to listen, and therefore won't hear what you're saying. So don't say it at all. Makes perfect sense.
Certainly, you could have a days long discussion about whether the "media" (and even a weeks long discussion defining what you mean by the word) favor pap to core and important stories. I think most discerning people would agree that the issue is not black and white, and that "media" do in fact carry almost every story that we often complain they don't; they just don't pay the close and contextualized attention that they deserve. Those stories are obviously underpriveledged, our democracy has suffered for it, and its not revolutionary to say so. But Mcardle, rather than have a reasoned argument, squirreled her way through this blogging heads, making herself seem like someone who was more interested in winning, than in cultivating a thoughtful opinion. Her argument about Americans believing Hitler had something to do with Pearl Harbor paralleling the fact that most Americans believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11 was facile in the extreme. Americans of the 1940's could be forgiven for thinking that the allies of their attakcers were involved in Pearl Harbor. With 9-11/Saddam, there is no such connection. Likewise, her argument that journalists had no special responsibility to the public was so absurd it made me wonder how she had actually gotten a job at a leading magazine. Anyway.
Okay. At 40+" in I'm exhausted listening to Ms. McArdle argue that there is no such profession as journalism. At least there is nothing to distinguish a journalist from a regular citizen. Ie; if citizenship isn't a profession, journalism isn't either since we all have free speech. Ms. McArdle ought to be exhausted too with all of these back-to-back half gainers as she tries to evade the central issue. Opps. Now we're back to traffic. No obligation to write stories people won't read. I'm still waiting to hear how you measure readership (or, importance) on a story that wasn't written?
Public interest = Gain from trade? Really? Ms. McArdle you need to go back and read the Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Given the cost of incarceration, your readers don't care about incarceration rates, Ms. McArdle? Given the insanity of sentencing guidelines, your readers don't care about incarceration rates? I thought this was a libertarian-type blog.
Heedless: My failure to address you directly was not intentional, and I agree that it could be misinterpreted as discourteous, and I apologize. I have no handle other than my name because I personally dislike pseudonyms, but I recognize that many great men such as Samuel Clemens and Eric Arthur Blair used pseudonyms. I do not disrespect your pseudonym. I am assuming that my pre-emptive strike at 6:25 P.M. was in response to your post at 6:32 P.M., but let me know if I am mistaken and you are still waiting for a response to your post at 6:32 P.M. With respect to your follow-up post, I do not think that the press has any legal obligation to do a better job of reporting the news, and journalists should not presume that all of the information disseminated by our government is false, but journalists who cover political issues (including related issues such as economics) as a profession do have a professional and moral responsibility to question the information that comes from any government, and they have a professional and moral responsibility to understand that all governments try to withhold information that is embarrassing to these governments. Many journalists (e.g., most FOXNEWS journalists) act as propaganda organs for the current Bush Administration, and any journalist who would be as deferential to a Democratic President would be just as irresponsible. If journalism should be considered just another business for which the bottom line is the only significant responsibility (and I do not agree that this should be the case), journalism is entitled to no more privileges than the privileges already enjoyed by any other business interests. There will always be people such as Rupert Murdoch who give journalism a bad reputation, but I will not agree that journalist have no professional or moral obligation to elevate the level of their reporting. I also think that it is possible to report more substantive issues and less fluff in a manner that is also fiscally responsible for the media. Nevertheless, we are probably talking past each other. There is a quote to which I am unable to give proper credit: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
(TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR) Heedless: My failure to address you directly was not intentional, and I agree that it could be misinterpreted as discourteous, and I apologize. I have no handle other than my name because I personally dislike pseudonyms, but I recognize that many great men such as Samuel Clemens and Eric Arthur Blair used pseudonyms. I do not disrespect your pseudonym. I am assuming that my pre-emptive strike at 6:25 P.M. was in response to your post at 6:32 P.M., but let me know if I am mistaken and you are still waiting for a response to your post at 6:32 P.M. With respect to your follow-up post, I do not think that the press has any legal obligation to do a better job of reporting the news, and journalists should not presume that all of the information disseminated by our government is false, but journalists who cover political issues (including related issues such as economics) as a profession do have a professional and moral responsibility to question the information that comes from any government, and they have a professional and moral responsibility to understand that all governments try to withhold information that is embarrassing to these governments. Many journalists (e.g., most FOXNEWS journalists) act as propaganda organs for the current Bush Administration, and any journalist who would be as deferential to a Democratic President would be just as irresponsible. If journalism should be considered just another business for which the bottom line is the only significant responsibility (and I do not agree that this should be the case), journalism is entitled to no more privileges than the privileges already enjoyed by any other business interests. There will always be people such as Rupert Murdoch who give journalism a bad reputation, but I will not agree that journalists have no professional or moral obligation to elevate the level of their reporting. I also think that it is possible to report more substantive issues and less fluff in a manner that is also fiscally responsible for the media. Nevertheless, we are probably talking past each other. There is a quote to which I am unable to give proper credit: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
Jesus. "We were killing people who needed killing." Okay. I'm done. At 70" I can't cope any longer with someone who argues at the level of a college freshman. You're right Ms. McArdle. You can talk about media. And, as you have so forcefully argued, so can any other citizen since we're all equally qualified to do so. The consumer and the producer and indistinguishable from each other. Maybe I should give The Economist another look now that you're no longer there.
At least I don't have to resort to straw man arguments. I don't mind the name calling but calling you a cultist isn't an ad hominem, it's a statement of fact. I often forget, since Megan has been sidling away from the Randianism - hoping no one will notice or remember - that's what I am dealing with here, cultists. So your invocation of Divine acts is particuarly ironic. You are the one who's attempting the post-modern deification of "The Market". In your case, The Deity in question is a Disembodied Hand. I think I prefer the All Seeing Eye. It may not be able to do anything but gaze upon all it surveys, yet one without the other, and a little eye-hand coordination, won't accomplish much either. Apparently, LWM, you think the capital appeared in ol' Pinch's trust fund by a Divine act. Look, if you want to have a 100% eatate tax, go ahead and advocate it, but as long as people are allowed to transfer assets to others, then Greenwald's opinion about how the capital should be employed should be given as much weight as a bucket of whatever warm bodily fluid springs up in your mind. Just remember, LWM, 100% pure grain alcohol and distilled water is the only way to go, ya' ol' loon you! Posted by Will Allen
Will, Do come up with some factual basis for your argument that the estate tax should be abolished outright. Adam Smith, John Locke, any of the founders, etc. Or do stop celebrating Jefferson's birthday. I'm beginning to think his All Seeing Eye called the police and their visible hand of gummint to remove you people from his gaze as he most certainly finds you as offensive to it today as he would have back then. Just a tip, I've looked. You won't find it, but good luck.
Abstract: The taxation power was a major part of their analysis. The leading members of that generation agreed with Adam Smith that proportional taxation was permissible, even desirable. Thomas Jefferson thought the silent tool of progressive taxation would stabilize the republic by preventing the wealthy from becoming a tyrannical aristocracy. Jefferson and Madison led the movement to eliminate primogeniture and entail, because those two doctrines of wealth transfer at death kept property in too few hands. Madison, however, foresaw that these reforms, combined with widespread education and protection from religious persecution,would not maintain a "happy mediocrity." Commerce and manufacturing were creating new forms of wealth that would not be affected by Jefferson's agrarian policies. Once the frontier disappeared, the poor would flock to corrupt cities where they would be manipulated by wealthy demagogues. Overall, this intellectual history supports the constitutional argument that we should not abolish estate and gift taxes because huge wealth transfers create many "haughty hiers" who will have the undesirable, dangerous traits of decadence and overweening ambition that accompany any hereditary aristocracy. Quite simply, the allocation of money and influence, a process invariably influenced by tax policy, is the most important constitutional issue of our time. While some may argue that conceptions of constitutionality should be limited to Supreme Court jurisprudence, this article replies that constitutionalizing these issues puts them in a richer historical context and dramatizes how central they are to the well-being of the republic. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=239887
Bystander, What a trooper! ;-)
Megan, you did well, except you never got Glenn to even understand the question. An economic approach might have gotten through. A market in news allows accomodation between writers and readers, and allows adaptation to changing circs. Non-market media, whether state-run or private entities with a Greenwaldian code of journalistic behavior, tend to fossilize and/or get ignored by nearly all. Company newsletters are the closest example I can think of.
LWM, I must conclude you are illiterate, or have taken my advice regarding the 100% pure grain alacohol too seriously. I never wrote or implied that the estate tax should be that abolished. I simply wrote that short of a 100% estate tax, which you are perfectly free to advocate, people were going to be able to transfer assets to the people they prefer to transfer them to, which would mean, for instance, that Pinch Sulzberger and the rest of the NYT shareholders, and not Glenn Greenwald, gets to decide how large a profit margin is acceptable, for the simple reason that Glenn Greenwald hasn't done anything, nor has anyone else who has done something, voluntarily conferred to Greenwald anything, which would make Geenwald's opinion of the matter relevant. I'm quite serious, LWM. There is something wrong with your brain, as it is obvious that you are hallucinating.
I watched this and was appalled at Megan's lack of knowledge about the most basic elements of journalism. Where I studied journalism, (Columbia) it was not possible to get past the first year of graduate study without knowing about the very special obligation of the press in our democracy, and that the writings outlining this obligation are voluminous and clear. The Founders enshrined these expectations into our Constitution and from their writings apparently never imagined a day would come when so many members of the press would be so ignorant of their obligations. To see a young journalist contend that there are no special obligations conferred upon the press by the Constitution leaves me worried more than I already was about the future of our democracy. If one of my young writers exhibited such a stunning lack of knowledge about the history and conventions of journalism I'd have to take them aside for a serious chat. Perhaps someone at Atlantic will do this for Megan before she embarrasses herself again in this way.
i agree with you mr. moss megan, please read the following and get back to us asap.
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles 5. IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER
i agree with you mr. moss megan, please read the following and get back to us asap.
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles 5. IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER
Greenwald's tiresome, humorless demeanor was annoying. He needs to hang out with Eric Alterman. They can share their joyless disappointment with the world. I'm sure there is some abstract obligation of journalists to monitor power. But I'm weary of journalists who apoint themselves protectors of the public good. Because somewhere deep in their souls, they believe it's wrong to report good news- even if it happens to be true.
Glenn may not think that the Reverend Wright story is important, but many people do. Glenn may think it's really important to talk about John Yoo... but not everyone does. The government's policy on torture is important, but the guy who wrote the legal brief isn't so important, per se. If he wants to complain about trivial news, he should be complaining about celebrity news... that's even more trivial than Obama's bowling score.
|
Megan,
Could you please just have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you, instead of inartfully avoiding said discussion?
The entire diavlog went like this: GG would propose discussing an issue. You would avoid discussing that issue by raising 10 other issues that might in some oblique fashion be related to the issue GG wanted to discuss.
If you are not going to, in an honest and forthright fashion, talk about those issues, why bother?
You can certainly state that you just don't give a hoot about discussing anything with GG. That is your perogative.
But if you do consent to sit down and supposedly talk about the issues that have arisen in your little fire-fight with GG, then why don't you have the courage and integrity to actually talk about those issues?
Trust me, your attempt to avoid a discussion on those issues is extremely obvious.
Posted by frankie d | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM