…by Elena Kagan.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Well, That Explains It
Markos’ pollster was defrauding him.
Boo, hoo.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“I hope Kos’ book hasn’t gone to the printer.”
Hey, live by the lies, die by the lies.
[Update a few minutes later]
Geraghty is saying “I told you so.”
[Mid-afternoon update]
Some useful thoughts from Jonah’s readers:
One of the most tasty of several delicious ironies connected with this story is the way the bogus polls seem to damaged closely-contested leftist political campaigns. The nutroots wasted a couple of million dollars, by my count, on races that were probably not winnable.
And this:
Did you look at the cross tabs on that thing? Many of the questions are laugh out loud funny in a tin foil hat sort of way. I loved this one: Should women work outside the home? That’s kooky even by Kos standards. That’s just the thing. The Kos guys dreamed up these question thinking these are the sorts of things right-wing crazies discuss in their secret lair. Can you imagine getting asked this stuff by a pollster? 90% of Americans would hang up after three questions like this.
The R2000 guys may be crooks, but Kos was asking for it. He was willing to pay for “polling data’ that confirmed his only little brand of moonbattery. Now he’s pissed that the polling company was unable to supply it without resorting to deceit.
Well, a fool and his money. But I guess it does show that the left is at least honest in their delusory and fantasized caricatures of conservatives. I often wonder whether they’re liars or just nuts. Now I guess we know.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Why Kos should have suspected something fishy months ago:
1/18/10 Politico – Insider Advantage Brown 52 – Coakley 43
1/18/10 ARG – Brown 52 – Coakley 45
1/18/10 PJM – Brown 52 – Coakley 42
1/18/10 Daily KOS – Brown 48 – Coakley 48
1/17/10 InsideMedford-MRG – Brown 51 – Coakley 41
1/17/10 PPP – Brown 51 – Coakley 46
1/16/10 ARG – Brown 48 – Coakley 45
1/15/10 PJM/CrossTarget – Brown 54 – Coakley 39
1/14/10 Suffolk University – Brown 50 – Coakley 46
1/14/10 R2000 – Brown 41 – Coakley 49
He was paying them to tell him what he wanted to hear.
An Offer Someone Can’t Refuse
Last time Andrew Breitbart put up a hundred grand for something, he had no takers, almost certainly because it didn’t exist. I’m referring, of course, to evidence that Tea Partiers used racial epithets at Queen Nancy and John Lewis’ giant-gavel trolling through the crowd on the mall when they passed health-care deform.
But this time, I suspect he’ll bag his quarry, because we know that the Journolist exists. Even if Ezra shut it down, every member of it (or at least many, if they kept them) has an archive. And a hundred Gs is a lot of money. Particularly to reporters in these parlous times for the reporting business:
The fact that 400 journalists did not recognize how wrong their collusion, however informal, was shows an enormous ethical blind spot toward the pretense of impartiality. As journalists actively participated in an online brainstorming session on how best to spin stories in favor of one party against another, they continued to cash their paychecks from their employers under the impression that they would report, not spin the agreed-upon “news” on behalf of their “JournoList” peers.
The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised.
We want the list of journalists that comprised the 400 members of the “JournoList” and we want the contents of the listserv. Why should Weigel be the only person exposed and humiliated?
Why indeed? And when we see it, we’re also going to have a view inside the creation of the media echo chamber. It will be very interesting to correlate the discussions with the lock-step media narrative of the time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Breitbart as The Joker:
This is like the Ferry Scene in The Dark Knight.
Heh. Except the criminals in the ferry were much more respectable.
Did Global Warming Kill Feminism?
Feminism (at last the gender feminism that arose in the seventies) died during the Clinton administration, when Gloria Steinem gave Bill “one free grope,” and the feminists attacked women who were being sexually harassed by the most powerful man in the world, and defended the people who were trashing their reputations, tarring them as “nuts and sluts.” Not to mention when Nina Burleigh offered to given him a blow job, as thanks for maintaining her right to kill her children in the womb.
Jim Moron
The Virginia Congressman, just having beamed in from some other planet, says “the economy has recovered“:
In fact, in the last six months more jobs were created than Bush was able to generate in eight years, Chris. People don’t understand that, the economy has recovered.
Guess he picked a bad week to keep huffing glue.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, Rick Santelli goes off on another righteous rant, and says to “stop spending.”
Here’s to that. Hope it stirs the folks up again, though he should have waited until closer to November. Of course, I suspect there’s plenty more where that came from.
In Which Andrew Revkin Is Justifiably Mocked
After which, he is a good sport about it.
Like Treacher, I still think it’s a dumb song, though.
No Sex Please
We’re middle class. Thoughts from la Camille. I thought this relevant to the new movie production venture:
The elemental power of sexuality has also waned in American popular culture. Under the much-maligned studio production code, Hollywood made movies sizzling with flirtation and romance. But from the early ’70s on, nudity was in, and steamy build-up was out. A generation of filmmakers lost the skill of sophisticated innuendo. The situation worsened in the ’90s, when Hollywood pirated video games to turn women into cartoonishly pneumatic superheroines and sci-fi androids, fantasy figures without psychological complexity or the erotic needs of real women.
Maybe it’s not too late to change that.
Our War Crimes
Some thoughts:
I relate a story told by Judge Mukasey, George W. Bush’s last attorney general. He was down at Guantanamo in February 2008. He looked at “high-value” detainees — the worst of the worst — on video monitors. He did not see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, however. (Remember that “KSM” is the guy who “masterminded” the 9/11 attacks, which killed 3,000 people. He’s also the beauty who beheaded the Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl. Etc.) KSM was not in his cell; he was off having his Red Cross visit.
Mukasey did see the exercise room adjacent to KSM’s cell, however. And he remarked something: KSM had the same elliptical machine that he, the attorney general, did, back in Washington — at his apartment building, the Lansburgh. Only there was this difference: Mukasey had to share that elliptical machine with the other residents of the building; there was a scramble in the morning to get to it. KSM had an elliptical machine all to himself.
As I say in my column, how much more tenderly do America’s critics expect us to treat these people? Are we to administer abdominal massages, the kind that recently made ex-vice-presidential news? (Wouldn’t the “world community” call that “torture”?)
Of course not. It’s Obama now, not Bush.
East Germany
…on the Potomac. I think that the phrase for the Journolisters is “hoist by their own petard.”
[Update a few minutes later]
Dave Weigel comes clean:
I was talking, largely, to liberals who didn’t really know conservatives. So I assumed they thought Hugh Hewitt was “buffoonish.” I said Gingrich had a “screwed-up tenure” because Republicans I admired, like Sen. Tom Coburn (R, Ok.) and Dick Armey, had serious problems with how Gingrich ran the House.
But I was cocky, and I got worse. I treated the list like a dive bar, swaggering in and popping off about what was “really” happening out there, and snarking at conservatives. Why did I want these people to like me so much? Why did I assume that I needed to crack wise and rant about people who, usually for no more than five minutes were getting on my nerves? Because I was stupid and arrogant, and needlessly mean. Yes, I’d trash-talk liberals to Republicans sometimes. And I’d tell them which liberals “mattered,” who was a hack, who was coming after them. Did I suggest which strategies might and might not work for liberals, Democrats, and the president? Yes, although I do the same to conservatives — in February, for example, I told many of them that Scott Brown’s election hadn’t killed health care reform, and they needed to avoid dancing in the endzone, because I was aware of what liberals were saying about how to come back.
Still, this was hubris. It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade. It was also the hubris of someone who thought the best way to be annoyed about something was to do it publicly. This is the reason I’m surprised at commentary accusing me of misrepresenting myself.
I also found this interesting:
Nobody told me this in journalism school. Seriously, though, nobody did! The fact that one part of journalism in Washington was a give-and-take of gossip, and that sources learned to trust one another by bitching about people and projects they didn’t like, was a total mindfuck.
Do they teach anything useful in journalism school?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I wouldn’t hire someone with a journalism degree as a reporter (I actually have good friends, and even relatives, so encumbered), but I’d need to know a heck of a lot more about them, and it would be despite, not because of it.
[Update a while later]
Why do major media feel the need to have a “conservative” beat? And if they do, why not hire a conservative to do it, instead of someone else sent in like Diane Fosse to study “conservatives in the mist”?
In the past several years, newspapers have assigned reporters to specifically cover conservatives, but they haven’t done the same thing for liberals. It started in January 2004, when the New York times chose David Kirkpatrick to cover the conservative movement. The goal, as Times editor Bill Keller told then-ombudsman Byron Calame in 2006, was to identify “the [conservative] thinkers and the grass roots they organize” and explore “how the conservative movement works to be heard in Washington.”
“We wanted to understand them,” Keller said of conservatives.
If you were trying to craft the most concise statement of the distance between mainstream media figures and conservatism, it would be hard to do better than that.
Indeed.
The Lunar Contretemps
I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on the latest back and forth between Paul Spudis and Clark Lindsey.
I have a couple quick points. First, in his lead sentence:
The space community has fractured since the disastrous roll out of NASA’s “new direction.”
The community has been fractured since 2005, when Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz ignored all of the recommendations of the CE&I contractors, and foisted the Scotty rocket on it. It’s not something that happened in February. What happened in February was that people who wanted a more sane approach became ascendant, and there has been understandable resistance to it from those whose rice bowls are being broken.
Second, I was slightly astonished to read this in one of his follow-up comments:
As for propellant depots, I think that they make sense if we can supply them with propellant made from space resources, in this case, propellant derived from lunar water. If we end up launching all the propellant from Earth, then nothing is fundamentally changed, except to eliminate the need for a heavy lift launch vehicle.
Oh, really? Is that all it does? It merely eliminates the waste of tens of billions of dollars on an unnecessary vehicle that could instead be invested in a few dozen lander programs from the likes of Masten and Armadillo? Yeah, I guess that’s no big deal.
Look, I feel Paul’s pain, and as I’ve said, my biggest disagreement with the new policy direction is that it is so dismissive of the moon as a goal. But as I’ve also said, specific destinations, other than BEO, are irrelevant right now, and as the Augustine panel pointed out, descending into gravity wells wasn’t affordable any time soon with any of the plans on the table. Paul is concerned about the lack of an explicit goal (indeed, a seeming contempt of such a goal on the part of both the president and the administrator) of establishing any sort of lunar surface capability, but the reality is that it was never a realistic or affordable goal with the trajectory the agency was on. This president (at least given the trajectory he’s on) will no longer be president three years from now, and we’ll almost certainly have a new NASA administrator as well. There was no plan for serious money being put into a lander prior to 2013, so realistically, I don’t understand what Paul thinks that he has lost, at least in any irretrievable way. From the standpoint of getting back to the moon, we won’t even have slipped the schedule. And that point remains even if the nation is unfortunate enough to have to put up with this administration until 2017. He has plenty of time to persuade people in a new administration that the moon remains a worthy goal, and to identify more practical ways to make it happen. And at least with the new direction, we’ll be a lot closer to doing it affordably, having stopped wasting so many billions on vehicles that weren’t going to get us there, and started spending money on a more robust ETO infrastructure that will get us much closer to everywhere.