Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Don’t Hold Your Breath

4 Comments

It’s nice to see the New Scientist holding the Obama administration’s feet to the fire on its war on science:

“The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions,” Obama stated. Scientific information used by the federal government in making policy should be published, he added, and political officials should not suppress or alter scientific findings. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was given 120 days to draft a new policy on scientific integrity in government.

We’re still waiting for that policy to see the light of day. The precise reasons for the lengthy delay remain unclear – the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has even sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to obtain documents that may explain the impasse. But it seems likely that the sticking point has been resistance from government officials who just don’t like the accountability that the new policy is supposed to usher in.

It’s less thrilling to see them perpetuate the myth that the Bush administration was worse:

Obama may be a friend of science, but many of the functionaries in his administration are rather less friendly. And if he fails to institute a sea change on the crucial issue of scientific integrity in government, there will be little to prevent a future President who sees little value in science from taking us back to the bad old days.

First, I’m unaware of any evidence that Barack Obama is a “friend of science,” except when the “science” fits his political agenda (e.g., AGW). And assuming that the “bad old days” is a reference to his predecessor, you’d think they might at least make the case that he was worse, but apparently they either can’t, or just think that we should accept it as an obvious given. I think that Obama’s record is much worse than George Bush’s, who, as far as I can tell, seemed to have acquired his “anti-science” creds based on little more than his policy to not provide government funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a decision that seems to have resulted in a flourishing of much more effective research in adult stem cells.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Dana Milbank

30 Comments

Historical ignoramus:

Cantor, Bishop and the other supporters of the amendment believe they are rebalancing the Constitution in a way the Framers would like. But it’s strange that the lawmakers would show their reverence for the Founding Fathers by redrafting their work.

Hey, Dana. The Founders put an amendment process into the Constitution for a reason. Though I suspect that one reason that hadn’t occurred to them would be that people like you would decide that it was a “living document,” subject to perverse interpretation that would eviscerate it of their original intent.

[Afternoon update]

More thoughts on Milbank’s ignorance, from La Althouse.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The President’s Comment About “Punishing Their Enemies”

2 Comments

…explained:

SK: This was all the strategy of a fellow named Greg Galluzzo, who was very much following Alinsky’s theory of community organizing. He was a mentor to Obama. He was the founder of this radical group, UNO of Chicago. Obama’s own community organization, the Developing Communities Project, was an offshoot of UNO of Chicago. Galluzzo’s idea was: If you could trap a public official into an immediate yes or no answer, you would win either way. If you’re asking this person for money, which is what they usually were doing, if he says “yes,” you get the money. But if he says “no” – a distinct “no” instead of “maybe,” or “let’s look into this” – then you can infuriate the organization.

GB: They become, in their words, “an enemy.” It’s much easier to say, “This is an enemy of the community.” Any opportunity for subtlety or a nuanced answer that went beyond one word, they would do everything that they could to avoid that…because that sort of answer makes it more difficult to agitate over.

SK: That’s right. These tactics were intentionally polarizing. Think about that word, enemy, and what Barack Obama just recently said so controversially to a mostly Hispanic audience about “punishing their enemies.” That was a slip, revealing what Obama had been taught for years. That was not some one-off coincidental word that he happened to be using. Galluzzo’s and Alinsky’s whole idea was that you identify targets or enemies…And what Galluzzo also said was, “Present yourself as a pragmatist. Present yourself as someone who is beyond ideology, but then use polarizing tactics”…When you really know what Galluzzo is all about, you can get the real story on what Obama did back then.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

That Was Then

49 Comments

…this is now. And what a difference a year…or…something…makes. A compare and contrast of the New York Times’ ever-flexible standards of what we need to know:

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”–New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009

“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.”–New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents

These are our principles, and if you don’t like them, we have others.