« Are vegetarians evil? | Main | A great business opportunity »

Reading is fundamental

08 Apr 2008 11:15 am

Sigh. Glenn Greenwald lashes back. Mr Greenwald's anger at the establishment power structure seems to be rapidly transmuting into anger at the non-Glenn-Greenwald power structure:


The "points" they make along the way are just painfully self-refuting and outright false (self-evidently so), so I'm only going briefly to address a couple of those points for illustrative purposes. I want to focus, instead, on some substantive, broader points which their mentality demonstrates.

McArdle's principal point is that "Americans care more about [Obama] than John Yoo because, well, John Yoo isn't running for president" and that "most people don't care about minor government functionaries." Just think about that for a moment. Megan McCardle thinks that John Yoo is basically the DOJ version of Lynndie England -- just some low-level guy who went off on his own and did some isolated, unauthorized bad things in the past that our political leaders have now corrected.

She quite obviously has no idea that the memoranda John Yoo wrote -- legalizing government torture, declaring presidential omnipotence, and suspending the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. -- are not merely his opinion, but became the official position of the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. She also quite obviously has no idea that he did all of that in close association with the most powerful political officials in the White House, including David Addington, Alberto Gonzales and ultimately Donald Rumsfeld, nor does she have the slightest awareness that the torture-authorizing memoranda were used to brief Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of Guantanamo who then went to Iraq to train the commanders of American prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, nor that the theories of presidential omnipotence underlying it all remain firmly in place.

This quite takes my breath away. Because the only reason that one could possibly disagree with Glenn Greenwald about anything is that WE JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!

Obviously, I know who John Yoo was, and what he did. From the point of view of the American public, however, he is a minor government functionary, much like--oh, say, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Please try this exercise: without using Google, name the US Trade Representative. The chair of the CEA. The head of OFHEO. The other members of the Federal Reserve's FOMC. The deputy secretary of the Treasury. The head of the White House Office of Management and Budget. The current commissioners of the SEC. The Chairman of the FDIC. The leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I know all of their names, because that's my job. I am willing to bet that Glenn Greenwald couldn't name all of them on the spot; he might well not be able to name any of them. That's no slur. Almost no one whose professional life does not depend on the knowledge has any idea who they are.

To the great American public, these are, yes, minor government functionaries--minor functionaries whose rounding errors probably result in more lives saved or lost than could ever plausibly be attributed to John Yoo. I do not like this fact, but I do acknowledge it. Nor do I think that yelling at journalists will much change it.

I do not mean to thereby conflate torture with economic development; the former has a moral horror, even in small numbers, that even very bad development policy lacks--which is why, yes, the Holocaust is worse than the Ukrainian famine. But if torture is important enough to be front page news, so is knowing who is responsible for guiding trade policy in the world's leader on liberalisation, who will be steering us through a financial crisis that could cause economic problems around the world, and who is working on fixing the globe's deepest and broadest capital markets.

I would dearly love to see those names splashed across every front page every day--not because I write about them, but because I think Americans should know these things. But only someone delusional would claim that they are outranked by Obama's photo ops merely because journalists just aren't trying hard enough. Nor, I think, does Glenn Greenwald really believe that vital topics like mark-to-market accounting are being left out of the nation's A sections because the editors think pictures of Hillary's new hairdo have greater metaphysical importance.

And that's the point. Because we have an establishment media that completely ignores these matters in favor of chattering endlessly about how Obama bowls and the cleavage that Hillary shows, the U.S. Government, at its highest levels, can literally create a torture regime -- war crimes by any measure -- and explicitly seize lawbreaking powers. And when they do, even people like Megan McArdle -- who writes on political matters for the The Atlantic -- will remain completely ignorant of even the most basic facts about what the Government did, ignorance which won't stop her from defending it all and dismissing its significance.

And she wants it that way, as she argues that the media should tell her more about Obama's bowling score than about these dreary, boring stories about DOJ memos. That's why the Government can and does continue to do what it does -- because our elite establishment opinion-makers aren't just profoundly ignorant, but happy about it, grateful for it even.

Greenwald error number two: I don't cover politics; I cover economic policy. These are not the same thing, which seems like the kind of thing that people who set themselves up as media critics should be aware of.

And given that I write about something that roughly 99% of the population considers less interesting than the newest diet fad, it's clearly ridiculous to assert that I am happy about the American public's raving disinterest in complicated policy stories. I spend much of my life whining to editors that the eight paragraphs on financial math are really interesting, dammit!

Now, is the problem that all of you really do want to know about how to calculate bond duration, and my mean stupid editors are misguided? Or is it more likely that you would skip to the next article--hey, did you realize you can lose twelve pounds in two weeks?

I am not defending John Yoo, or his memos, or the government's behavior. I am simply pointing out that when it comes to the journalistic coverage of same, Mr Greenwald has the correlation running the wrong way: the public doesn't know because it doesn't care, not because the journalists don't want to tell them. If the public did care, Mr Greenwald would have more readers.

Frankly, his assertions sound bizarre, even lunatic, to anyone who has ever met a journalist or a newspaper editor. And the later part of his rant, during which he accuses me and Dan of supporting the media establishment because it is helping us cover up our war crimes, ranges into the kind of frenzied conspiracy-theorizing that I generally associate with Ron Paul's more wild-eyed supporters. You know, the ones who tell you that when the rEVOLution comes, you'll be the first one with your back against the wall. The ones who aren't really arguing with you, but rather using you as a stand-in for everyone they've ever disagreed with, including the kids who made fun of them for wetting their pants in first grade. The ones who are filing their bizarrely capitalized missives from atop the massive stockpiles of canned goods and ammunition they have stored in an abandoned copper mine.

Now, some of my readers are arguing that we journalists have a duty to give the public what they don't particularly want. Okay, well, you really should know how to calculate a bond duration; if you have fixed income investments, as you should when you're near retirement, you'll want to know the weighted average maturity in order to balance your income across time. The mathematics for simple instruments is fairly easy; I can explain it in perhaps ten minutes of moderately involved reading, then you'll want to spend perhaps an hour or so doing excercises at home to make sure you've really nailed it. Ready?

That's ridiculous. You didn't come here to be bored by some formula you can look up if you need it; you're here to talk about foreign policy!

. . . oh hear that hollow laugh. That, my friends, is the sound of an eager young journalist's soul dying just a little bit every day.

Comments (213)

Glenn Greenwald gets around 500 comments daily. Where do you think your ramblings figure into the scheme of things? (May your constant role as the butt of so many jokes be a comfort....)

Am I missing something when I think that the President is entirely accountable for the actions of his political appointees, like Yoo, and as such, we *should* care more about who our future President, like Obama, are then we do about past political appointees?

In other words, if Yoo's legal theories are wrong then Bush has broken the law, and therefore Bush can and should be impeached. Isn't the howling over Yoo just frusration over the inability to impeach Bush?

I cover economic policy.

. . . in between posts about your diet and liveblogging Democratic presidential debates, I guess.

"I do not mean to thereby conflate torture with economic development; the former has a moral horror, even in small numbers, that even very bad development policy lacks--which is why, yes, the Holocaust is worse than the Ukrainian famine. But if torture is important enough to be front page news, so is knowing who is responsible for guiding trade policy in the world's leader on liberalisation, who will be steering us through a financial crisis that could cause economic problems around the world, and who is working on fixing the globe's deepest and broadest capital markets."

Somebody has been shopping at Non Sequiturs R Us.

Will you teach us about Macaulay duration or modified duration or both?

I get all my retirement planning advice and vegan recipes from this site, so please don't hold back!

More seriously, Greenwald seems, uh, unhinged even if you excise his rants about a journalistic conspiracy. It very much reminds me of the '90s folks who would earnestly explain how Pres. Clinton murdered Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

You can believe that the Iraq War was wrong and that the president has claimed too much authority without falling into the cuckoo idea that we live in a "torture regime".

Am I missing something when I think that the President is entirely accountable for the actions of his political appointees, like Yoo, and as such, we *should* care more about who our future President, like Obama, will be then we do about past political appointees?

In other words, if Yoo's legal theories are wrong then Bush has broken the law, and therefore Bush can and should be impeached. Isn't the howling over Yoo just frusration over the inability to impeach Bush?

Why did you pick this fight with Greenwald in the first place, Megan? Did you think his thesis was so crazy as to deserve ridicule? Bet you're starting to regret that.

You're so wrong you should be fired for sullying the webpages of the Atlantic.

I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight. But I don't see why Megan thinks the story is so dry.

What you have in John Yoo, roughly, is the mastermind of a criminal system of torture and murder--one that operated under the authority of the United States government. Maybe that's not "ZOMG! Spitzer & Hookers!" but it isn't exactly a detailed explication of bond math.

Hundreds of likely innocent people died because of what John Yoo authorized as an officer of the United States. More were kidnapped, flown to Cuba, and tortured. Others were tortured in Iraq. John Yoo is behind all that death and violence. And now John Yoo, who is likely a criminal, holds an honored position teach law at Berkeley.

Is Megan really saying that story has no legs?

At the risk of thread-jacking, I have to disagree that the Holocaust was worse than Stalin's engineered famines, except perhaps because Stalin's kulak-killing was maybe a bit more coldly rational than Hitler's Jew-hatred. I can only quantify horrors by the degree of suffering they produced, and whether they were deliberately planned. Somehow, I don't think the starving farmer and his wife, as they gnawed the tissue off their dead child's femur, felt any less horror than the typical Holocaust victim. Of course, trying to put forth a hierarchy of horror in this realm is a bit revolting. I'd rather just say that once it reaches a certain level, there is no point in further fine judgements regarding degrees of moral depravity.

Jay:

If they fired all the wrong-headed pundits, who would be left at this website?

Reading is fundamental

You know, reading this headline, it occurs to me how often we get the "my critics don't understand what I wrote" defense from you, Megan.

Could the problem be that you just don't have the requisite skills to write a clear, concise and informative post in the first place?

>>> That, my friends, is the sound of an eager young journalist's soul dying just a little bit every day.

I wish Professor Slughorn had never taught you the secrets of Horcruxes.

megan,

you should stop before you dig a deeper hole.
you're out of your league, and the more you write, the more you try to argue and engage with greenwald - someone who can obviously run circles around you, intellectually - the DUMBER you appear.
this image comes to mind: a baby seal lying on the ice and a club raised over its bloody head.
move on. for your own sake.

Are vegetarians evil?

08 Apr 2008 11:11 am

This site says yes. You might think hard about my secret army of PETA ninjas before you make rash remarks about my tax policy ideas.

Truly, a question of national significance and broad appeal.

Glenn Greenwald is trying to get you to see that journalists have a responsibility as citizens, let alone as journalists, to highlight issues of national import. Abuse of power and subversion of the Constitution are certainly more important than the question of whether vegetarians are evil.

It may be true in your mind that you only write about economics and are forced to dumb yourself down because economics is inherently boring. That says more about your inability to make boring economics interesting than it does about our desire to know about economics. The fact is that you write about a wide range of subjects, not just economics, and you write for a major publication with a national (maybe even global) readership. You DO write on political topics, even if that's not your primary "beat;" and if you are going to write about it AT ALL you have some responsibility to do so in a critical, informative manner. To the extent that you write about political issues, Glenn is criticizing your tendency to write about the frivolous; and it's not just your tendency, it's Drezner and many many others throughout the profession. You are just a convenient example.

For example: your recent post about John Yoo. You didn't approach the memo revelation from the perspective of its political significance; your post was on the matter of whether his tenure should be negated and the nature of tenure in general. Questioning the tenure system is a valid discussion to have; but in the context of John Yoo, it is impossible to separate the question of his tenure from the political facts of his actions in writing those memos. You cannot avoid it by airily proclaiming to "have no qualifications to weigh in on the legal merits of Yoo's arguments, so I won't;" the legal merits are part and parcel of the objections to Yoo and calls for his revocation of tenure. You simply MUST weigh in on them. I have no legal qualifications either, but as a somewhat intelligent person with a college education and as a citizen of the United States I have the ability to give my opinion. So do you. And as a journalist, Glenn Greenwald is asserting that you not only have the ability but the DUTY to weigh in; if you're going to talk about Yoo, you simply must address the criticisms levied against him. But you don't do that because it's too boring, and besides, the public doesn't care; why should you take the trouble to MAKE them care?

That's what Greenwald's upset about.

I can explain it in perhaps ten minutes of moderately involved reading, then you'll want to spend perhaps an hour or so doing excercises at home to make sure you've really nailed it.

You don't even know how to spell "exercises," and you're asking us if we're ready? Blogger, please.

Hell, every day in this country, people accused of crimes are intimidated with credible threats of torture, which will take place in the prisons they might be sent to, as a means of convincing the accused to either plea-bargain or otherwise cooperate. Some of our elected attorneys general and governors crack "jokes" about it. For the most part, our citizenry doesn't give a damn.

liberalrob:

No sense talking to an Objectivist about duty....might as well as your cat to take up calligraphy.

I tend to agree with Greenwald, despite his misplaced fight-picking with bloggers (wha?) and the weirdly immature form this discussion has taken on. There's got to be some sense in journalism that their editorial decisions inform and 'push' public dialogue in one direction or another. Granted, they need to cover the more celebrity-centric stories because they sell. But journalists/bloggers aren't really in it for the money - otherwise we'd just have TMZ 24/7. In other words, what's in the newspaper isn't inherently reactive to what people want to read. So why not guilt them to cover John Yoo--or at least the effect of Yoo--a little more than Barry's Big Day at Lucky Strike?

liberalrob:

No sense talking to an Objectivist about duty....might as well ask your cat to take up calligraphy.

frankie d wrote:

"you're out of your league, and the more you write, the more you try to argue and engage with greenwald - someone who can obviously run circles around you, intellectually - the DUMBER you appear."

==

liberalrob wrote:

"...Glenn Greenwald is asserting that you not only have the ability but the DUTY to weigh in; if you're going to talk about Yoo, you simply must address the criticisms levied against him."

==

Poor Megan.

Megan: master of terrible analogies. In both this post and the previous one she leans very heavily on awful analogies and false equivalencies. She can't refute the argument being made so instead she substitutes in a different argument entirely.

I do not mean to thereby conflate torture with economic development; ... But if torture is important enough to be front page news, so is knowing who is responsible for guiding trade policy in the world's leader on liberalisation...

She does mean to conflate torture with economic development -- that's the primary point of her post, that torture is merely trivia of exactly the same importance as the name of minor government functionaries. Their names -- not what they've done, not any policy they've enacted, simply their names alone are exactly as important as torture.



I spend much of my life whining to editors that the eight paragraphs on financial math are really interesting, dammit!
Now, is the problem that all of you really do want to know about how to calculate bond duration, and my mean stupid editors are misguided? Or is it more likely that you would skip to the next article--hey, did you realize you can lose twelve pounds in two weeks?

And here we have another total non-sequitor. Megan didn't want to conflate torture with economic policies (cue laughter) and now she's (no doubt accidentally) conflating it with trivial formulas as well.

Why are we talking about how to calculate bond duration, a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic? Because Megan can't make her case using torture. The fact that she can't user torture in her arguments and instead has to rely on bond formulas is evidence that she does in fact see the vast difference between them.

Essentially her argument amounts to this: Americans don't care about torture, and as evidence of that I point to the fact that Americans don't care about what I ate for dinner last night either.

What?

A total reliance on strained analogies and non-sequitors is usually a great indication of a poor argument.

liberalisation

Did you all know that Megan used to write for The Economist? It's both highly regarded and British, you know!

"I tend to agree with Greenwald, despite his misplaced fight-picking with bloggers"

Greenwald's original piece was about the failings of the establishment media. It was the bloggers who ill-advisedly picked this fight.

Liberalrob, there are many, many, many important topics upon which I do not weigh in because I do not have the expertise to do so. I think it is very, very important to decide on optimal treatment protocols for diabetes, but that doesn't give me a moral obligation to make a judgement I have no basis for. The belief that one can have a "moral obligation" to make arguments unsupported by expertise or evidence is one of the reasons that economic policy is so dreadful.

I don't know anything about the law. I've already stated my position on torture: US policy should be "just say no". I have nothing to add there. But that's not a legal judgement; it's a pure moral one.

What I think policy should be and what it is are two different things; lawyers who say that the law supports a policy that I disagree with, or hell, that they disagree with, are not thereby automatically incompetent criminals. Nor do I have any way to assess how much of a role Yoo's memo actually played in various activities I strongly disapprove of.

I am willing to take other peoples' word that the memos are legal garbage. But there's no point in my repeating this, since I have no basis upon which to make this judgement other than a general trust in the people so saying.

I have an area of expertise that I think is pretty important. So I stick to that. I'm qualified to opine on the game theoretic aspects of torture, and possibly some of the cognitive science. But since I think that these are pretty much completely irrelevant, why bother? Torture=something we shouldn't do. So who cares what reward and sanction strategies might be most effective?

It's simple. This post answers the previous one.

Vegetarians aren't evil, they're just stupid.

Wow, are you kidding me?

Obviously, I know who John Yoo was, and what he did. From the point of view of the American public, however, he is a minor government functionary, much like--oh, say, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

DUH. THIS IS THE POINT. He's a nobody because the media doesn't cover him. If you think this story about an administration lawyer who teamed with big-timers in the administration to do all sorts of Really Bad Things should be ignored because "Hey, if you were to poll the public, would they know who 'John Yoo' was today?" is absolutely mind-boggling.

John Yoo is a war criminal because he wrote a couple of papers on what war crimes actually are? Wah?

Call me crazy, but how is that not ridiculous hyperbole? You eventually end up having to conflate opinions with "authorization" (As Glenn did) or weakly assert that Yoo influenced people.

Those are war crimes?

What this position of Glenn's inevitably ends up doing is treating anyone who disagrees with him about what war crimes are as a war criminal. That's really Yoo's "sin" here, and that's precisely why Glenn started in on Megan with his talk of war crimes.

Uh, no, Margalis. Greenwald asserted that McCardle wanted the media to focus on Obama's bowling score. McCardle responded that, no, she would prefer more technically-oriented economic reporting, reporting that editors forgo, judging it as being to obscure for general readership. Thus, the editors go with the bowling scores.

"so is knowing who is responsible for guiding trade policy in the world's leader on liberalisation, who will be steering us through a financial crisis that could cause economic problems around the world, and who is working on fixing the globe's deepest and broadest capital markets.

I would dearly love to see those names splashed across every front page every day--not because I write about them, but because I think Americans should know these things. But only someone delusional would claim that they are outranked by Obama's photo ops merely because journalists just aren't trying hard enough..."--MM

OMG and then you didn't even name the People and Places that you were referring to...

YHTBFK(M/U)

""so is knowing who is responsible for guiding trade policy in the world's leader on liberalisation, who will be steering us through a financial crisis that could cause economic problems around the world, and who is working on fixing the globe's deepest and broadest capital markets.

I would dearly love to see those names splashed across every front page every day..."--MM

Megan,

By all means, please, do lead, at least, set up One of the Strawmen that you, rhetorically, set up.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/rhetorically

Looks like this is what happens when outraged earnestness collides with cynical world-weariness.

Remember when Cronkite came back from Vietnam and called it "unwinnable"? That probably wasn't what his audience, or the advertisers, or the folks in CBS corporate wanted to hear that night. As the story goes, LBJ was watching and turned to aide to say "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."

I'm not saying put Glenn on the evening news, but I am looking for a drop or two of tough medicine from the mainstream media.

A couple more points:

1. The subtext of Megan's posts is that Americans are stupid and people like her cater to them. If that's her point I wish she'd just come out and say it directly.

2. Megan's argument is circular - the public doesn't know or care about something, the media doesn't inform them, therefore they don't know or care.

3. The argument that newspapers just give vapid people what they want because that is what sells doesn't seem compatible with the fact that newspaper circulation is plummeting. Clearly the formula for today isn't working.

Are vegetarians evil? 08 Apr 2008 11:11 am

This site says yes. You might think hard about my secret army of PETA ninjas before you make rash remarks about my tax policy ideas.

Truly, a question of national significance and broad appeal.

Posted by liberalrob | April 8, 2008 12:58 PM

Good point, because obviously no one -- certainly no journalist -- should post on their blog anything light or frivolous or humorous until we have ended the Bush reign of terror upon the world!

It is our DUTY to end this murderous and despotic regime and none should laugh, eat or sleep until it is accomplished.

And then we can start harranging people to not indulge in humor until the progressive utopia has been realized. In fact, there should be no focus on any of life's lighter or happier moments until we have realized the coming progressive utopia on Earth!

And of course in that blessed day when the perfect world is finally realized, there will be no need for individual joys like humour and frivolity: we shall all share in the unsurpassable joy of participating in the realization of the collective will!

Won't that be splendid.

Megan, you're trying to punch above your weight class. Even on economic issues, I've found you have little useful to say, and I suspect my academic training in the subject is equal to, or exceeds, your own.

To the great American public, these are, yes, minor government functionaries...

Thanks for reminding me why I don't have you bookmarked. You never pass up an opportunity to insult my intelligence.

You don't even know how to spell "exercises," and you're asking us if we're ready? Blogger, please.

Posted by Lido Shuffleworth | April 8, 2008 12:59 PM

Ah yes, the "you misspelled a word" argument.

Devastating.

Glorious, you might want to check out the judgements made in the war crimes trials after WW II.

Those who "just gave legal advice" which justified actions which were held to be war crimes were held to be among those responsible for said war crimes. And the tortures (or, if you prefer, "enhanced interrogation techniques") done following Yoo's legal analysis were among the actions held, there, to be war crimes.

Ergo, following legal precedent established by the United States, Yoo could be convicted of war crimes. You may not like it. You may think the judgements half a century ago were wrong, and the Nazi torturers should not have been convicted. But that's how it is.

Margalis, I suggest you go and try to round up some capital for the purpose of publishing a newspaper that prints the stories you think are important. Maybe Greenwald can help you. If you had 100 million lying around, would you truly employ it in that fashion?

Few things are more boring than people who don't have any skin in the game delivering lectures to people who are risking huge sums.

I'd like to call this one for Vegan Vacardle for showing the most wit in the comments. Really, I'd like to see some twelve-year-olds brought in to make this a little more competitive.

haha, you're such a whiny dork. Get a life.

I honestly marvel that any individual who considers their self a journalist in America does not understand why the Yoo memo is newsworthy; indeed, that it should front page in every newspaper in the country and a lead story in the tv news.

The press in this democracy is supposed to be a tool against tyrranny. It is supposed to be the people's watchdog. It is supposed to give citizens the information necessary to make informed decisions: democracy can not function properly otherwise.

To excuse the press on the grounds that people don't care about these matters is no excuse. It is an apology for the dereliction of a duty than in this nation should be viewed as something sacred.

This stuff is remedial. I would recommend obtaining and reading a copy of The Elements of Journalism

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.

...

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.

Rob:

Isn't the howling over Yoo just frusration over the inability to impeach Bush?

Well, that and the, you know, torture. That torture is almost certainly a factor here.

Liberalrob, there are many, many, many important topics upon which I do not weigh in because I do not have the expertise to do so. I think it is very, very important to decide on optimal treatment protocols for diabetes, but that doesn't give me a moral obligation to make a judgement I have no basis for. The belief that one can have a "moral obligation" to make arguments unsupported by expertise or evidence is one of the reasons that economic policy is so dreadful.

If only writing were fundamental too.

Actually, the key to being convicted of a war crime is to first be conquered by the party you were waging war against. For instance, if the Japanese had somehow conquered the United States, I suspect that the people Roosevelt appointed to instigate a propaganda campaign to convince American military personnel that Japanese were subhuman, on the moral level of insects, for the purpose of encouraging American military personnel to treat the Japanese soldiers they encountered with utter, and often lawless savagery, like using prisoners for target practice, or removing the gold teeth of live prisoners with a bayonet, would have been tried with war crimes. Nazi propagandists were, of course.

Superficial reporting of how the government wages war is as old as the republic.

Mmmm . . . I am in no way unhappy with the outcome of Nuremberg, but my understanding is that most international lawyers regard them basically as show trials. I'm not sure they're a great example to use.

"But only someone delusional would claim that they are outranked by Obama's photo ops merely because journalists just aren't trying hard enough."

You gotta be kidding. Clearly you haven't been paying attention to what's been going in the media over the past 20 years. You might want to read "Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian.

Your argument that John Yoo's torture memos don't deserve any more ink than the normal functions of the government bureaucrats you pay attention to is truly laughable. Do you have any idea of the concept of newsworthiness?
When your head of the OFHEO implements a policy that leads the government into massive lawbreaking and fundamental violations of the constitution -- then we can talk.

Really, you should avoid media criticism. You are very, very far out of your depth.

"But only someone delusional would claim that they are outranked by Obama's photo ops merely because journalists just aren't trying hard enough."

You gotta be kidding. Clearly you haven't been paying attention to what's been going in the media over the past 20 years. You might want to read "Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian.

Your argument that John Yoo's torture memos don't deserve any more ink than the normal functions of the government bureaucrats you pay attention to is truly laughable. Do you have any idea of the concept of newsworthiness?
When your head of the OFHEO implements a policy that leads the government into massive lawbreaking and fundamental violations of the constitution -- then we can talk.

Really, you should avoid media criticism. You are very, very far out of your depth.

A couple of quotes from someone who understood the sacred duty of the press

"Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations." - Joseph Pulitzer, The North American Review (May 1904)

"Every issue of the paper presents an opportunity and a duty to say something courageous and true; to rise above the mediocre and conventional; to say something that will command the respect of the intelligent, the educated, the independent part of the community; to rise above fear of partisanship and fear of popular prejudice." - Joseph Pulitzer, letter to the editor of New York World (1911)

Hume, please quote McArdle where she asserted that Yoo's memos are not newsworthy.

wj:

Which judgments and legal precedents established by the U.S. are you referring to? This is not an attempt to score points. I'd really like to know.

margalis:

1. "The subtext of Megan's posts is that Americans are stupid and people like her cater to them. If that's her point I wish she'd just come out and say it directly."

You are so concerned with the subtext that you missed the text. She did say this, albeit with more tact.

2. Megan's argument is not circular. Ignorant people that are not thereafter informed remain ignorant. Entirely linear.

others:

For your apoplexy at her statement that "To the great American public, these are, yes, minor government functionaries...," why is this so controversial? Would any of you know who John Yoo is if he hadn't written the memo?

Which judgments and legal precedents established by the U.S. are you referring to?

I was wondering this to. Who are the lawyers who wrote careful legal memos to Hitler assuring him that the German Constitution lacked extraterritorial authority, or whatever?

It's possible, and I'm certianly in no position to say it's not true. But there is sooooo much crap flying around on this particular subject that I'm hesitant to take it at your word.

The belief that one can have a "moral obligation" to make arguments unsupported by expertise or evidence is one of the reasons that economic policy is so dreadful.

We're talking about the principles on which the nation (and by extension civil society) is founded. If you feel you have no moral obligation to discuss (and hopefully defend) those regardless of expertise or evidence then I guess that's that. But I reiterate, as a journalist for a national publication you are expected to present useful information in a critical and thoughtful manner. What could be more useful and important to discuss than allegations of abuse of power and subversion of our political system?

If you don't want to write about political topics because you feel unqualified or disinterested, there's nothing illegal about that; but in the opinion of some, as a writer for The Atlantic you are abdicating responsibility as an educator of "thought leaders" and facilitator of the national discourse by not doing so when political implications are intimately involved with the topics on which you DO write. Not only that, you are an exemplar of similar abdication of responsibility throughout the journalistic profession. What would the founders of The Atlantic have had to say about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Monthly

The Atlantic Monthly (also known as The Atlantic) is an American magazine founded in Boston in 1857. Originally created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine, its current format is of a general editorial magazine. With content focusing on "foreign affairs, politics, and the economy [as well as] cultural trends", it is primarily aimed at a target audience of "thought leaders".[1][2]

The magazine's founders were a group of writers that included Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and James Russell Lowell (who would become its first editor). The current CEO and group publisher is John Fox Sullivan.[3]

Glenn is not ordering you to make a legal analysis of the Yoo memos (he and other lawyers have already done that). He's asking that you and other journalists not paper over the issues Yoo's memos bring up by focusing on tenure or endless stories about Obama's bowling scores and similar trivia (evil vegetarians? libertarian movie night?), to the exclusion of a national dialogue on the important issues surrounding Yoo. He's also trying to get you to change your attitude; if you feel unqualified, educate yourself. If you think the public is bored by the subject, educate them in an entertaining way. These are important issues; be a good journalist, and report on them.

That's apologetics, Will. She said they're newsworthy except that they're not since the public doesn't care about it. Her definition of "newsworthy" seems to have the qualification that something newsworthy only gets covered if their is an advance perception from the publisher that the public wants to see it. She is defending not making a big deal out of a memo giving the president the pseudo-legal justification to suspend the 4th amendment for all US citizens on the grounds that the public doesn't want to hear it.

I am sorry but I take it as axiomatic that the press in American must inform the American public when the rule of law and hence democracy as we know it is in danger.

Megan, I think you are mistaken in believing that it's just that Yoo is a minor functionary that stops people from wanting to read about the torture memo. I think the real reason is that the substance of the problem is actually quite complicated. Greenberg and all the other screaming voices here notwithstanding. To wit:
1. It's clear, constitutionally, that the President assumes certain extraordinary powers during wars. It's not clear, legally, how far those power go; hence, this is a matter of continued legal debate.
2. The Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ has had a tradition of trying not to be "too" political, knowing that it's always impossible for such an office, giving advice to the President and the AG, to bee totally apolitical. Did Cheney push OLC too far? Did Yoo aid and abet too willingly in politicizing what should be a more neutral office? There's quite a debate on that one too. Bush is not the first to politicize the DOJ -- remember Janet Reno of Waco and FBI list fame? -- but he may have gone further than anyone should. Let's debate that rather than the latest famous bimbo's excursions into sexual misconduct, please.
3. If the P can authorize harsh interrogation techniques short of torture, what's allowable and what's torture? That's a pretty little discussion that lawyers must grapple with, and it can get pretty technical, and a lot less interesting than Obama's silly attempts at bowling. Greenberg can rant on this all he wants, from an emotional and preconceived basis, but that does not alter the legal substance. So be wary of his rage, it's not serious analysis of a difficult issue, however entertaining.
4. On whom can harsher interrogation techniques be afflicted? The Yoo memo says it cannot be done on US citizens or on US soil. But it can be done on terrorists, i.e., criminals on the battle field who pretend to be soldiers, but aren't under the Geneva convention. Is that a valid legal conclusion? It's worthy of a debate, don't you think? We have rules, but we also need to know the limits of the rules, otherwise the rules aren't really defined. But it gets pretty boring, after a while, right?
5. There's no doubt that there is a point at which harsher interrogation techniques become torture. It may not be torture to deprive someone of sleep for a couple of days, but for weeks on end? It may not be torture to make someone freeze for a few hours, but to ice them down for a couple of days so they die of hypothermia? It may not be torture to force someone to stand up for twelve hours of interrogation, but to tie their hands behind their backs and lift them up? Here's the point: where's the point where each coercive technique becomes torture? There is such a point, but the Bush people never defined it. Yoo didn't. Rumsfeld didn't. They left it to lower level goons to find the limit without guidance. For that, both the politicals and the goons are responsible. I think they are criminally responsible, and should be prosecuted accordingly. That is, I can accept all that Yoo wrote, as perhaps stretched legal reasoning -- inappropriate for OLC in DOJ, but certainly not criminal. The horrors inflicted on terrorist prisoners are inexcusable, but, in my opinion, are due to lax implementation of a policy that in itself may have been defensible. Excessive application of harsh techniques that may be legal under "reasonable" limits cannot be defensible even under American law. If these interrogators have been in uniform, as was the case at Abu Ghraib, they are and should be liable under the UCMJ; if civilian, under federal statutes that prohibit torture. Bush himself says he has not authorized torture, yet torture has occurred, so people have criminally broken a lawful command from the Commander in Chief.

So why did they authorize these techniques? That has its root in Type I and Type II errors. Don't squeeze out the truth from a terrorist, and civilians and soldiers are highly likely to die. Squeeze it out with harsh techniques, and you may become a torturer. What's better? Being complicit in the death of innocents because you refused to step up or compromise your own integrity and basic values by stepping too far? Would you rather be known as a complicit murderer, having committed the sin of omission, or to be called a torturer, having committed the sin of commission? Is the line between the two so close to each other that it's impossible to find middle ground between the two? That's a more interesting discussion than whether Hillary's trade advisor was talking out of two sides of his mouth, but it's just too hard for most people to decide on, so they don't want to hear of it.

Anyway, the point is this. The emotional rants on this horrid issue notwithstanding, there are some tricky legal issues involved in every step of the way from Yoo's memo to people dying in US custody. No wonder the American people don't want to read about all this. It combines two terrible features of American culture: legalism, and public displays of crude emotion. Greenberg is so bursting of the latter that he cannot face up to the former, yet that's where we should try to have a sensible discussion.

Would I know who Yoo was if he didn't write the memo?

1. Yes.

2. He did write the memo, so your question is irrelevant.

3. When insignificant people do significant things they become significant.

Would you know who Obama was if instead of running for President he was the manager of a local Dairy Queen?

Your argument appears to be that only people with important titles are newsworthy, which is certainly a curious position.

Hume's ghost, we're not arguing about whether it was newsworthy--it's not like the story was buried. In the last month, the Washington Post has run twelve pieces on him, the New York Times six, the LA Times 3, and so forth. We're arguing which outlets should cover him how much. The question for editors is "how many pieces can I run on this story before it starts costing me readers?" My argument is that on the John Yoo story, for most papers--and remember that Glenn's results are driven in large part by a couple of stories each in a ton of regional papers, not the New York Times running eighty stories on Barack Obama bowling--the answer is "not many".

It's Greenwald, not Greenberg.

I think it's funny that some people are claiming that Megan is "out of her league" in arguing with Glenn Greenwald.

Surely you jest. Greenwald is the very definition of an intellectual lightweight, and he's quite possibly the worst writer I've ever encountered. Using big words and lots of em dashes doesn't make you smart. Can we please get a moratorium on his use of the word "vapid"?

"Hundreds of likely innocent people died because of what John Yoo authorized as an officer of the United States."

If you're going for "why Yoo is important" it might be better to start with something that would be at least reasonably agreed with. "Hundreds died in US custody" is a fairly big accusation to start with.

Margalis:

1. You're a rarity.
2. My question was relevant in the context of righteous indignation over the fact that the American public doesn't generally concern itself with middling government functionaries.
3. Thanks for that.

"Your argument appears to be that only people with important titles are newsworthy..."

Yes, it is, and this includes presumptive Democratic party nominees. Insignificant people are irrelevant newswise until, as you helpfully pointed out, they do something newsworthy. Your argument (that what Yoo did should have more play in the press) assumes its premise, which is that what Yoo did is newsworthy. I don't disagree with that premise, but the public does.

Well, a 2005 [sic!] report estimated 108 deaths in U.S. custody since GWOT began.

Report here

Now can we start talking about something besides vegetarians?

You could limit the consideration to tv - where most people get their news and the criticism would hold.

But I disagree that a paper that writes an informative and relevant story about the significance of the Yoo memo and Mukasey apparently fabricating an incident (while concomitantly lying) in order to gain more executive power will lose readers versus one that runs all the trivial stuff that was included in the Nexis search of Greenwald.

Even if the paper were not to increase its amount of coverage of those particular stories (Yoo/Mukasey) it could maintain their proportional significance by covering instead of the trivial stuff all kinds of other relevant information and actual news.

Again, I would recommend reading a copy of The Elements of Journalism. If that sounds a bit insulting, I make that recommendation to everyone I know whenever a dispute or discussion about the press arises.

You left out the real rhetorical jewel from that piece:

I didn't expect that anyone would actually defend the media's conduct here because it's so self-evidently indefensible -- so ludicrous -- and because defending it would, by definition, require someone to spout rationale that is just inane.

I used this same reasoning in arguments about my bedtime.

Glenn Greenwald is trying to get you to see that journalists have a responsibility as citizens, let alone as journalists, to highlight issues of national import.

Yes, indeed, Gleen Greenwald will require you to work! He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack, ummm, I mean Glenn Greenwald, will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Glenn Greenwald gets around 500 comments daily. Where do you think your ramblings figure into the scheme of things?

Much like the credibility gap between Popular Science and Science.

Michael B:

2. My question was relevant in the context of righteous indignation over the fact that the American public doesn't generally concern itself with middling government functionaries.

That "righteous indignation" is purely your invention and a convenient red-herring. I haven't seen anyone argue that the public should concern itself with middling government functionaries, certainly not Glenn. What I have seen is people arguing that the media should cover those functionaries and their actions when they are extraordinary.

I don't disagree with that premise, but the public does.

You asked them?

I think it's funny that some people are claiming that Megan is "out of her league" in arguing with Glenn Greenwald.

I read the repetition of that assertion and close variants by nominally different commenters, and inexplicably I find myself thinking of sock puppets.

ted said:

I think it's funny that some people are claiming that Megan is "out of her league" in arguing with Glenn Greenwald.

Surely you jest. Greenwald is the very definition of an intellectual lightweight, and he's quite possibly the worst writer I've ever encountered. Using big words and lots of em dashes doesn't make you smart. Can we please get a moratorium on his use of the word "vapid"?

anyone who cannot tell the difference between the quality of thought that goes into greenwald's work and the lack of said quality in megan's posts deserves to keep reading this garbage on a regular basis.
greenwald has his faults - i do have to gear myself to read one of his tolstoy-length posts - but clarity of thought and using "big words" to communicate simple ideas are not among them.
he is simply one of the most thorough, courageous bloggers in the entire sphere.
on the other hand, megan has sadly distinguished herself as a truly "vapid" online presence, whose main claim to fame is the fact that she could probably post up matt y in a game of pickup basketball.

Well, strictly speaking I imagine Glenn Greenwald _still_ wets his pants....

You and he both seem to me to be wrong on something, though, to continue with the example of John Yoo. You hit the point that Americans don't care because, well, he was a minor government functionary, and Greenwald says, well, they'd care if you asked 'em to, and you both agree that they _should_ care and John Yoo and his memo should be all over everything. Well, BS. Because Yoo's memo was so egregious that if he'd submitted it to a different administration -- Clinton or Bush I -- it'd probably have been blown off. Or, more to the point, a different administration wouldn't have asked him to write it. So there might be a lot of sense, actually, in the public basically focusing on the top players here -- Yoo's important if you're a UCB prof, or a law scholar, or a politics junkie who likes to follow the inside baseball of who's with what think tank and what Senator's advisory committee -- dude, it's the guy who wrote _that memo?_ -- but it's not really a burnin' public issue.

All it really does is add to a consensus about what they guys at the top think bout torture and the rights of the President. And I don't actually think Yoo's memo changes that picture much from what we already knew, and I think we already had a lot of evidence what the attitude was/is. So, OK, this particular execrable memo is no big deal, the public, probably intelligently, just lumps it into a general impression about Bush which it does little to alter. And I think that's going to hold for a lot of your examples. Look, the President has a mess of advisors who actually do all the stuff. He's President because it largely sticks to him, and not so much to them. That's more or less as it should be.

Milk for Free:

Holy hat-rack! Did you just compare this train-wreck of a blog to a peer-reviewed journal!?

You owe me a new monitor! Mine's got coffee on it.

"What I have seen is people arguing that the media should cover those functionaries and their actions when they are extraordinary."

Agreed. I'd also like it if Yoo's significant actions were covered more than they are/were. But our definition of "extraordinary" isn't widely shared. Thus, Yoo remains middling.

"You asked them?"

Nope. I'm deferring to the individual judgments of hundreds of media editors on this one.

Nope. I'm deferring to the individual judgments of hundreds of media editors on this one.

One of the major criticisms of the the media is that editors are out of touch with what the public wants and assume the public is interested in the same things they are interested in. Relying on their judgement and pretending it definitively establishes the facts about public interest is silly.

This is a bit tangential, but many political stories are written in a way to foster disinterest. You are no doubt familiar with the "fair" and "objective" he-said/he-said formula that is employed in nearly every hard political story that appears in major venues.

I have no doubt that most people would find that sort of story on Yoo boring. But that doesn't mean the subject matter itself is boring, or that interesting articles that engage the public couldn't be written.

Hume's Ghost bolded an important section from the Elements of Journalism above about making important stories compelling. When it comes to political reporting most writers do essentially the opposite.

On my blog I have an example of story Michael Scherer wrote about McCain, I made it twice as compelling simply by moving sentences around and putting the most dramatic stuff first.

A lot of it is simple craft. Political reporters are used to relying on a tired bland formula that makes their reporting as inoffensive and uninteresting as possible.

"I am willing to bet that Glenn Greenwald couldn't name all of them on the spot; he might well not be able to name any of them."
Did you seriously write that? Are you in third grade?

Thank you for catering to my base needs and, yes, please tell me more about John Edward's haircut -- you "reporter," you.

The issue here is, you are missing that right wing controversies - say what Obama's domestic policy advisor said in a not for attribution meeting up in Canada - get a heck of a lot more coverage, than does Yoo.

In no universe, even one run by the gossip elves, is Goolsbee getting more coverage than Yoo, make sense, when Yoo is enabling torture, and Goolsbee (am I misspelling that?) is musing.

Surely you jest. Greenwald is the very definition of an intellectual lightweight, and he's quite possibly the worst writer I've ever encountered. Using big words and lots of em dashes doesn't make you smart. Can we please get a moratorium on his use of the word "vapid"?

anyone who cannot tell the difference between the quality of thought that goes into greenwald's work and the lack of said quality in megan's posts deserves to keep reading this garbage on a regular basis.
greenwald has his faults - i do have to gear myself to read one of his tolstoy-length posts - but clarity of thought and using "big words" to communicate simple ideas are not among them.
he is simply one of the most thorough, courageous bloggers in the entire sphere.
on the other hand, megan has sadly distinguished herself as a truly "vapid" online presence, whose main claim to fame is the fact that she could probably post up matt y in a game of pickup basketball.

Posted by frankie d | April 8, 2008 3:14 PM


Do you bid us good day sir!?

Someone had to say it.

frankie d: "Clarity of thought" and "Greenwald"? Excuse my while I vomit.

I understand Greenwald's arguments perfectly well; he's not always wrong, but he obviously lacks the intellectual capacity to see the world in anything other than black-and-white terms. His thinking reminds me of the way I used to think when I was an eager young law student. Greenwald has clearly not progressed beyond that point. And given his putrid writing, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his time in law school didn't include a stint on Law Review.

I'll take Megan over Greenwald every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Megan, you are digging yourself deeper by arguing that journalists don't cover subjects the public doesn't want to hear. Nonsense. An influential slice of the public (e.g. inside the Beltway) will pay attention