1

"The reluctance of bloggers to note the blogospheric take-down of Malkin's work while allowing her to join the post-Rather blogospheric self-congratulation is a story on its own, and you don't need to be an internment expert to see it."

The other point is that Rathergate involved a handful of documents that were a) badly forged, b) completely unresearched by CBS, and c) baldly used in a partisan attack on the president. If the documents had been forged more competently, it's likely that it would still be a T5-6 story, since the signal to noise ratio would have been lower. Likewise, if CBS had done a little more research and/or presented a more balanced piece, their stonewalling defense probably would have worked.

Malkin's book gets at more complex themes of national security policy, political correctness, and racial/ethnic profiling, which are harder to capture in a soundbite or news cycle. And Muller's so-called 'takedown' was not nearly as thorough or clear-cut as the takedown of Rather (well, I'm sure it was in his own mind). Actually, probably half of the blogosphere doesn't think it was a takedown at all. In fact, the reality resembles the reverse scenario: the academic view has been that the internment was always about racism, and nothing else, and we were just supposed to take their word for it because they are the 'experts'. Malkin, an outsider, comes in and demonstrates that at the very least, the case is not so clear-cut, and exposes the biased viewpoints of the 'official' historians. There was no outright fraud committed, as in the case with Rather, but there was a serious breach of intellectual honesty, which Malkin exposed.

I think people are correct who are saying that big media will not go away - it just has to adapt to having alternative sources of information, and not automatically trusting what they get from big media. We still need big media resources to investigate and produce news stories.

2

First, excellent post.

Second:

Malkin, an outsider, comes in and demonstrates that at the very least, the case is not so clear-cut, and exposes the biased viewpoints of the 'official' historians.

What is clear cut, however, is that Malkin has not demonstrated her thesis: That internment was ultimately justified (and ultimately justifiable) purely on grounds of nation security. That's the case Malkin's trying to make -- not that historians have over-emphasized the racism of the time in the decision, but that racism did not play a part in the decision (or, if racism did play a part, the internment was still justifiable on the merits).

Indeed, nearly every historian and researcher -- Muller among them -- gladly grants Malkin that there were justifiable fears of "hit-and-run" raids by the Japanese, or that the Japanese sought to develop a network of intelligence agents in the U.S. The fact that these justifiable fears existed, however, does not even come close to making Malkin's case. Rather, Malkin must show that these justifiable fears required the "evacuation" and/or internment of 100,000+ Japanese (some of whom had been living in this country for decades, if not longer) from the West Coast because they were Japanese. As Muller, Vox Day, and numerous others have shown, she hasn't even come close to doing that.

3

von,

I can't get into this debate very deeply with you, because I haven't read Malkin's book, or any other detailed research on the internment - all I know is what I've seen on the web. My general feeling is that you've got the situation backwards: the party line has been that national security played no role in the evacuation decision - that security was just used as an excuse for racism and paranoia. That the whole thing was a travesty of justice perpetrated by ignorant, racist, white Americans. My impression is that Malkin may be overly stark in her portrayal (e.g. she could argue that security concerns were the dominant motivation, but that the full-scale internment may have been a bad idea, or poorly executed), but her main point is to challenge this conventional wisdom, so a polemical aspect to her argument is understandable.

You're claiming the situation is reversed: that historians have always said that security issues were relevant, but that racism was the dominant motivation in the internment, and that it is up to Malkin to 'prove' that racism wasn't involved in the decision. This doesn't jiibe with anything I've heard or read, nor with my general impression of the academy.

Whether her case was made depends a lot upon how you frame the debate, and the liberal view of the academy has been the framework the debate has been carried out under. As in most things, the truth is probably somewhere in-between: there were real national security issues (which were the primary considerations for Roosevelt, et al.), but there was also a lot of anti-Japanese bias and racism prevalent at the time. But the conventional wisdom hasn't reflected that - it only reflected the negative arguments of "America wronged the poor, innocent Japanese".

4

Mike S.,

Go read Vox's posts refuting her cases. He has almost written a book himself that tears apart her thesis.

5

Mike S. --

I appreciate the response, but I'd encourage you to look more closely at the arguments of Malkin's critics (Muller and Vox Day in particular). It seems that you may be influenced by Malkin's "spin" of their arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.

As I understand it (and as relayed by Muller, Day, Robinson, and others), the "orthodox" view of the Japanese threat and Japanese internment has been:

(1) In 1942 and 1943, the Japanese posed a threat of (and indeed, carried out a few) minor raids on the West Coast. There was no risk of major invasion -- indeed, there was no recognized risk even of another strike on (much less an invasion of) Hawai'i. (Malkin sometimes refers to the potential for minor raids on the West coast as the threat of "spot raids" by the Japanese).

(2) The military planners at the time understood fact 1. (See Vox Day, in particular.)

(3) Fact 1 could not conceivably justify the internment/evacuation of 100,000+ Japanese; indeed, the risk of attack on the East coast was far greater, and virtually no German-Americans or Italian American were interned (and those that were interned were interned for reasons other than merely their race). FYI -- Malkin has made a lot of wrong-headed claims regarding Italian and German internment, which has prompted comdemnation from (at least) an Italian-American Internment Group.

(4) Military personnel, at the time, Fact 1 did not justify the internment/evacuation fo 100,000+ Japanese. Indeed, and very tellingly, the military did not order internment of the Japanese living in Hawaii, which had a proportionately larger Japanese population and was far more vulnerable to attack.

(5) There is substantial evidence -- in the form of contemporaneous notes, memos, etc. by the actors in this drama -- indicating that the decision to intern on the West coast was largely based on racist motivations, and not on national security concerns. (Cf., also, no internment in Hawai'i.)

________

So why did Malkin nonetheless write a book? Well, Malkin claims that she rediscovered certain "MAGIC" cables -- secret communications from Japanese agents in the U.S. to Japan, which were available to certain high-level policymakers in 1942 (or thereabouts). The MAGIC cables show that the Japanese wanted to recruit agents in the U.S. (frankly, it'd be shocking if they showed otherwise). Malkin claims that it was this fear of Japanese recruitment, expressed in the MAGIC decrypts, that was the basis for the internment decision, and that prior historians had not known about/or had intentionally omitted mention of the MAGIC decrypts.

There are several problems with this argument (see Muller primarily); I'll briefly sumamrize three:

1. No policymaker at the time cited the MAGIC decrypts to support the decision to intern. None. The link Malkin alleges between the decrypts and the decision to intern is, at best, pure speculation on her part.

2. Indeed, the MAGIC decrypts were likely not available to the policymakers who argued for internment. (Here, Malkin argues that the folks who actually gave the order to intern were not involved in the internment decision; see Muller and Robinson for a convincing explanation as to why this simply cannot be so.) Moreover, many policymakers who saw the MAGIC decrypts actually argued against internment. (J. Edgar Hoover, for instance.)

3. The MAGIC decrypts are not new, but have in fact been known to historians for decades. Indeed, a historian raised arguments almost identical to Malkin's in the 1970s; after much debate and argument, the claims were rejected.

Malkin's peddling a warmed-over, half-thought-through, intellectually dishonest argument, and hoping that her ideological compatriots won't study it too closely -- and discount any criticisms as mere liberal hysteria -- and pass it on with an endorsement (or, at least, a "for what it's worth). It should stop.

von

p.s. So you're clear on my motivations, I'm slightly-right-of-center in the grand scheme of things -- a Joe Lieberman Democrat or a Richard Lugar Republican (Lugar's in fact decidedly right-of-center, but in this day and age he qualifies as a moderate).

6

Per an earlier discussion here whether journalists should fact-check, here is ABC doing it right:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/683

7

As an individual that has watched the Malkin internment debate from the first salvo, I would have to agree with von that Malkin is using the lack of conservative criticism, in combination with the smear of academics as liberal, to get a free pass on her arguments.

The casual acceptance of this argument is I think indicative of how much some people are willing to go out on the un-PC branch just to do so. People flirt with the idea, or lend it a small amount of credence to it, simply because its a polemic against what they see as liberal revisionism, ignoring whether there is any basis of it in truth and fact.

Fact for fact, pound for pound, liberals, conservatives, and people who actually lived through the experience (lest we forget that we're not talking about some abstract policy;this was 120,000 peoples lives) have eviscerated Malkin's argument. Yet theres a distinct lack of acknowledgement to this point, and only some tacit admission that she maybe vaguely overstated the thesis of her argument.

She now has completely ignored any recent developments on her book, preferring to ignore the criticism and let her fellow conservatives echo her sentiments, lending them more credence then there worth. My hope is that she will take Vox Day's challenge and with no possibility of "blaming it on liberal bias" a clear, and concrete shattering of her thesis.

8

My hope is that she will take Vox Day's challenge and with no possibility of "blaming it on liberal bias" a clear, and concrete shattering of her thesis.

Alas, Ms. Malkin has apparently refused to debate Mr. Day. (See Vox Day's blog.)

Understand, in my view, conservatives should be among those most upset with Malkin -- she's essentially using their trust to promote a shoddly argument. (Just as liberals, in my view, should be most annoyed with Clinton, for abusing their trust to promote his disrespect for the law & disrespect for women.) Funny, however, how the betrayed always seems to come back for more.

9

I think this debate and issue is one that cuts across all ideological boundaries. The idea of the government singling out any segment of society on a tiny list of checkpoints and then interning them for a presumed threat against the country should make any person of liberal or conservative stripes shiver. What if Gore was in office, would conservatives be so eager to allow a Democrat to decide whose interned?

If we can intern people for there mere ethnicity, how long till we round up idelogically radical right/left groups, neo nazi/racialist groups, and eco terrorists, all indidviduals who use violent rhetoric and have arguable violent/criminal histories? When will the "Homeland" be safe from attack? Once everyone is in there segmented ghettos and camps?

10

"So why did Malkin nonetheless write a book? "

My understanding is that her primary motivation was that she thinks that the Japanese internment episode is being used as a blunt club to attack any efforts directed towards racial/ethnic profiling in the war on terror. In fact, Sean S. provides a pretty good example of this with his "how long till we round up..." spiel.

Like I said, I'm not going to rehash the debate with you here - all of your points have been made elsewhere, and various counter-arguments made by Malkin and others, and we aren't going to make any headway on the issue ourselves (I'll admit that if I had time to read more material, I might become more skeptical of her claims. But then again, I might be more inclined to support them - either way, I'm unlikely to change your mind, no?).

(One point I will dispute is that we were in danger of being invaded on the East Coast. That is preposterous - unless you are talking about after the fall of Great Britain. But I agree there was not threat of invasion on the West Coast.)

"in combination with the smear of academics as liberal"

That's pretty funny, Sean. The academy is one of the most liberal/leftist institutions in America. And a significant fraction of academics wear the label proudly, and would not consider it a smear. It is liberal politicians who eschew the label, because it tends to make them unelectable, unless they are running in a liberal district/city/state.

The very fact that you would make such a statement makes me instantly skeptical of your judgement on this issue. What do you and von make of the letter signed by Muller and others asking media outlets to not promote Malkin's book, because she's not a 'professional historian', among other reasons.

And do either of you think it is acceptable to racially/ethnically profile Middle Easterners in this country? Is racial or ethnic profiling ever warranted? If so, under what circumstances?

11

One other point - why is Malkin's view a 'spin', but Muller's isn't. He wrote a book with a very different take on the episode than Malkin, didn't he? Why does his opinion carry more weight with you, von?

12

Mike S. asks

"One other point - why is Malkin's view a 'spin', but Muller's isn't?"

In Mike's world, all views are entitled to equal consideration. Facts are made to be distorted to fit whatever view you are most comfortable with. If other people don't like your spin, then that's their problem. They just have different "views."

This is an illness in our society. Malkin is a festering sore whose existence is merely a symptom of the disease.

"What do you and von make of the letter signed by Muller and others asking media outlets to not promote Malkin's book, because she's not a 'professional historian', among other reasons."

I can tell you what I make of that. That is a reasonable request, especially when other have demonstrated that Malkin's book is more or less a pile of crud.

Of course, the real issue is whether we could legally create internment camps for Muslims in this country now that we are at "war" with Islamic terrorists. Isn't that Malkin is driving at? I suspect that's why Malkin's book intrigues people like Mike S., who are easily frightened when weak small-minded people like George Bush stand behind podiums and make us stories about mushroom clouds.

13

Mike S. --

My understanding is that [Malkin's] primary motivation [in writing "In Defense of Internment"] was that she thinks that the Japanese internment episode is being used as a blunt club to attack any efforts directed towards racial/ethnic profiling in the war on terror.

You've fallen into a logical fallacy that Malkin has herself offerred when the going gets tough. Once again: The book is entitled "In Defense of Interment." It should be unsurprising, then, that the book purports to defend Japanese internment. My criticisms, and the criticism of Muller, Day, etc., are of that defense.

I understand that Malkin may also "think[] that the Japanese internment episode is being used as a blunt club" in the modern profiling debate. But whether or not Japanese internment is being misused in the service of a modern slippery-slope argument (such as Sean S.'s) does not answer the question at hand: Is Malkin's "Defense of Internment" correct?

Like I said, I'm not going to rehash the debate with you here - all of your points have been made elsewhere, and various counter-arguments made by Malkin and others

This may surprise you, but I haven't seen a real counter-argument by Malkin against her critics. I have seen logical fallacies intended to misdirect or confuse (you just quoted one of them, above); I have seen quibbles with minor factual mistakes; I have seen attempts to explain away troublesome direct evidence against her case based on supposition and suspicion (and little else); I have seen her (amazingly!) claim that the (substantial) evidence of racism on the West Coast is immaterial to her "argument"; and I have seen sympathetic commentators -- many of whom should know better -- essentially give her a pass or criticize her with kid gloves (e.g., Clayton Cramer; Power Line Blog). But Malkin has never produced evidence that the MAGIC decrypts actually influenced policy (she can't; it doesn't exist) or that military planners at the time thought Japanese internment was necessary for national security (indeed, Malkin hasn't yet deigned to address Vox Day, who discusses this at length) -- the key elements of her claim. Rather, Malkin presents only a series of suppositions, most of which contradict the known facts or are contrary to common sense. She succeeds only so long as she keeps the paucity of her evidence hidden.*

One other point - why is Malkin's view a 'spin', but Muller's isn't. He wrote a book with a very different take on the episode than Malkin, didn't he? Why does his opinion carry more weight with you, von?

Because Muller bases his opinion on facts, Mike S. Malkin doesn't. Contrary to popular belief, (1) all viewpoints are not equal and (2) the fact that there are two sides does not mean that there is a legitimate "dispute".

von

*You also write: "One point I will dispute is that we were in danger of being invaded on the East Coast. That is preposterous - unless you are talking about after the fall of Great Britain." I never said we were in danger of being "invaded"; my term, if you look above, was "attacked." And indeed we were. Nazi submarines had mostly free reign in the Atlantic in the early 1940s and Nazi spies launched missions along the East coast. The threat of attack -- what Malkin would term a "spot raid" --was far greater on the East Coast than on the West Coast.

14

"And do either of you think it is acceptable to racially/ethnically profile Middle Easterners in this country? Is racial or ethnic profiling ever warranted? If so, under what circumstances?"

I'll take this one: YES.

I've flown over twenty times since 9/11. I've been pulled out of line and searched on all but two of those flights. And I always see the same gaggle of bemused, resigned looks on the peoples faces, like, here we go again, isn't this ridiculous. I was behind a girl, maybe 16 years old, ninety pounds if that, and the inspectors were going through her teddy bears--she was on her way to a missions trip in Panama. Another time a 90-year old woman was told to remove her prosthetic shoe for closer inspection. And I've flown with dozens and dozens of people, hailing from the same part of the world and sharing the same religious faith of slaughtering the infidels, and all the attention they got from the "security" people were, "Have a great flight, Ahmed." We will go to any lengths to show the world how non-discriminating we are when it comes to inconveniencing our fellow travelers.

Here's an idea: when 16 year old girls, or when 90-year old crippled women, start hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, then by all means, let's pull a few of them out of line for closer inspection, just to let everyone know we're serious. Until then, let's look at the ones who have done it most recently: Islamic males in their mid twenties through late thirties. When that happens, I'll know we're finally being serious.

15

"And I've flown with dozens and dozens of people, hailing from the same part of the world and sharing the same religious faith of slaughtering the infidels"

Funny, most of the Middle Easterners I know are are agnostic or atheist and all of them think the terrorists were nutcases.

Of course, they also think Bush is a retarded freak but that's neither here nor there.

Given that 99.99999% of Arabic-looking people in the US aren't suicidal a-holes, it seems kind of silly to treat them differently from non-Arabic looking people who (if what I read in the papers is true) seem to be at least as prone to going on senseless suicidal rampages and/or trying to sneak lethal weapons onto planes.

But hey, it's only the Constitution that's at issue here. And God knows if another plane goes down in the United States, we can just hang up the country's hat and call it a day. It'll be the United Muslim States from that moment on. Right, Kevin? Isn't that the likely outcome of another terrorist attack in the US? Or are you just worried about losing your job and getting your taxes raised?

16

Isn't that funny? I know probably 75 Middle Easterners, and not one agnostic or atheist among them. ZERO. I know Messianic Jews, Sunnis, Greek Orthodox (from Lebanon--he says he was pretty lonely), Jews, no Shiites I know of, but I'm still thinking, Druse, and Kurds. The only country I don't know anyone from is the UAE.

And, since you brought it up, how many non-Islamics have gone on suicidal rampages on passenger aircraft? How many non-Islamics strap on bombs, drive bombs, fly bombs, blow themselves up making bombs? Drudge Report, again, said that a suicide bomber attacked in Jerusalem, killing at least two. I didn't even click on the link--was the guy an Irishman this time? A Hindu from the Punjab? Maybe it was a distraught Japanese businessman, caught up in the moment? Maybe I'll go see--oh yes, I was right again--except it was another "Palestinian" girl this time. Give those Islamists credit for one thing--their predictability saves me a lot of reading. The only thing different is their . . .well, what do you know about that? I was about to say the only thing different is their name, but those are all the same too!!

Your US Constitution is a good point. In the event the traveler is a US citizen, he gets on the plane without even slowing down except at the x-ray machines. If you're a foreigner, the Constitution doesn't apply to you anyway--pull them out of line. All of them.

17

I just realized something I needed to correct--I don't know any Kurdish people. The family I'm thinking of is Turkish, who had some Kurdish friends they always spoke of. Apologies.

18

"But whether or not Japanese internment is being misused in the service of a modern slippery-slope argument (such as Sean S.'s) does not answer the question at hand: Is Malkin's "Defense of Internment" correct?"

Indeed this is fact that everyone involved has admitted to. Eric M., Dave Neiwart, Greg Robinson, all have admitted there is room for reasoned debate on very narrow and carefully used racial profiling. But defending internment in order to mute it as a counter argument against present day racial profiling is going out of your way and poisons your whole argument. Arguing for the past round up and evacuation of a whole ethnicity in order to advance your thesis of narrowing out certain ethnicities at airports is ludicrous.

"That's pretty funny, Sean. The academy is one of the most liberal/leftist institutions in America. And a significant fraction of academics wear the label proudly, and would not consider it a smear. It is liberal politicians who eschew the label, because it tends to make them unelectable, unless they are running in a liberal district/city/state."

The academy? I was unaware that colleges and universities were all under one banner, and in fact, reflect and espouse a similar view on everything. Last time I was browsing through academic journals on history, there was a significant amount of dissension on any number of issues, and despite the accusations of many, there is not a vast conspiracy to rewrite history into a purely racial blame game.

"The very fact that you would make such a statement makes me instantly skeptical of your judgement on this issue. "

The fact that my statement makes you question my judgement is because it outs me as what I am, which is politically liberal, which as we've seen, automatically discounts my opinion. My continued argument is futile and un-necessary since I do not subscribe to conservative political ideology. Anything I say is colored by my "liberal" bias.

19

"Isn't that funny? I know probably 75 Middle Easterners, and not one agnostic or atheist among them. ZERO. I know Messianic Jews, Sunnis, Greek Orthodox (from Lebanon--he says he was pretty lonely), Jews, no Shiites I know of, but I'm still thinking, Druse, and Kurds. The only country I don't know anyone from is the UAE."

It's good to know you have the statistical and survey breadth of a major polling organization, and that your composite of 75, represents the hundreds of thousands of people of Middle Eastern descent in this country.

"Here's an idea: when 16 year old girls, or when 90-year old crippled women, start hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, then by all means, let's pull a few of them out of line for closer inspection, just to let everyone know we're serious. Until then, let's look at the ones who have done it most recently: Islamic males in their mid twenties through late thirties. When that happens, I'll know we're finally being serious."

Well what do you know...16 year olds and 90 year old crippled women were just some of the individuals rounded up during the Japanese-American internment. Guess it was ludicrous then as its ludicrous now. No wait...admitting that would be giving credence to a liberal white washing of history, and would put into jeopardy political moves to institute racial profiling.

The best way to prevent terrorist attacks is through consistent and through weapon, luggage, and body scans. Anyone in the world, arabic or otherwise, can pass and look legit during a pull aside interview if there about to blow themselves sky high. Do you think there going to start looking nervous? Or there going to have anything remotely telling in there past? No way. Atta had nothing paticuarly suspicious going on with him, and in fact, dressed decidedly western.

Consistent and thorough checks applied to everyone will do more to safeguard our skies than any bit of racial profiling.

20

As to the 75 or so I know, I was only making an observation: I don't doubt that ALL of LL's acquaintances are atheists or agnostics--after all, we tend to hang around people who think the same as we do. I'm not saying that there aren't hundreds of millions of atheists or agnostics who happen to be Arab--who knows?

If you're looking to have me defend the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent during the war, you've come to the wrong place. You've read my post wrong. A US citizen should almost ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt.

As to non-US citizens, fine--give them all cavity searches, for all I care, 90-year-old grandmothers from Liverpool included. But don't make me go through two hours of security for a 45-minute plane ride. Damn, flying is a big hassle as it is.

But if you REALLY want friendly skies, do away with security checks entirely, except to screen for firearms and bombs. Knives? Bring 'em on. Machetes even. And every passenger at check-in is able to select a heavy nightstick, of his or her choice. Nothing will keep the peace better than 190 cranky passengers with blackjacks. Mohammad Atta and his death cult boys stand up with boxcutters, and my grandma and everyone else in Row 18 beats the hell out of him before he even finishes saying "Allah Akhbar!".

21

"If you're looking to have me defend the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent during the war, you've come to the wrong place. You've read my post wrong. A US citizen should almost ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt."

True, this is something I think we can all share. But as indicated by the enemy combatant idea, and the fact that American citizenship is NOT a gurantee against judicial and war time exceptions which as Eric M. has stated, you could drive a bus through, I'm a little worried about how much being an American citizen, born and raised, protects me from such egregious abuses of law.

"As to non-US citizens, fine--give them all cavity searches, for all I care, 90-year-old grandmothers from Liverpool included. But don't make me go through two hours of security for a 45-minute plane ride. Damn, flying is a big hassle as it is."

I wonder what the statistics are for those who are non-citizens flying within the US (not simply flying into it, into major metro cities, but who are actually hopping between American cities). The idea of checking foreign nationals seperately is not one that bothers me, as long as again, its consistent and through.

Racial profiling to me is a completely useless tool that tells you nothing. What of neo nazis and skinheads, many of whom admired the attack upon "Jew-dom" that 9/11 they felt, represented? What if they tried to engage in a similar plan, and were let free because they were white? I want consistency because I don't trust ANYONE. As far as I'm concerned everyone should get checked throughly.

22

This discussion is one of the reasons why the internet will replace MSM.

I complement all of you for your politeness and analysis. This has been very informative.

JoeS

23

See, Sean S., I'm as right-wing wacko as you will ever meet, and yet we've found some common ground.

If we ever fly together, look for me. I'm the guy with the Louisville Slugger across his lap, keeping a wary eye on those guys wearing sandals and robes in the middle seats.

Maybe they're al Queda? Maybe a bunch of losers on the way to a Star Trek convention? Maybe a UN delegation, on its way from a fact-finding mission to Nigeria? Trust no one. And if one of them spends more than twenty minutes in the men's john, or tries to set his shoe on fire, you'd think I was Sammy Sosa.

24

Um. Back to the original topic:

Joe's first tier:

"Tier 1 – Network and cable news (i.e., CBS, CNN, FOX); newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek); major daily newspapers (The New York Times, Washington Post); prominent columnists (David Brooks, Maureen Dowd)"

I think there are other entities that should be added to this list. Although they may form a sort of Tier 0. That would be the wire services, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.

When I first started surfing the net for news, I was amazed that there were so many sources of news stories. But now that I've been scanning them for the last few years I've noticed that I'm always reading the exact same story, no matter what newspaper or other media site I look at. And thats because they are almost alway off the news wires.

I've come to the conclusion that 90% of all news stories come directly from the wire services. And another 8% have been inspired by stories from the wire services. That leaves 2% for original news investigation and coverage by individual news organizations.

It's not too surprising actually, wire services are a more efficient and less costly way of covering news than sending a reporter out to every story. Also the major media consolidations that have take place over the last 15 years has led to fewer opportunities to generate "original" news stories.

Once you start to take a good look at the marketplace of ideas, you start realize that there isn't nearly as much of a variety on the shelf as advertised.

And Bloggers tend to repeat news rather than report it.

I would also argue that a lot of what gets called media bias is actually media sameness instead.

25

"Once you start to take a good look at the marketplace of ideas, you start realize that there isn't nearly as much of a variety on the shelf as advertised."

There really isn't. The cost of hard investigative journalism is prohibitive, paticuarly when hard news magazines don't have huge readerships to support them, atleast on the scale of light reading magazines such as Vanity Fair and US where the expense accounts of writers and staff is the stuff of legend.

Short of more people becoming more active readers of hard news magazines, I don't see where a solution can be found. Increased advertising and consolidated ownership has obviously proven out bunk, because despite deep pocket, most owners have little interest in indulging there news departments, and advertisments tend to skew or call into question some of the loyalties of the news network.

"And Bloggers tend to repeat news rather than report it."

A good point. Most bloggers are simply up to the minute commentators/aggregates for news, and don't actually generate that much news themselves. Even the Rather Memo situation is an example less of investigative journalism, than an issue of a story that can be discovered without getting your butt off the couch. I find it amusing that many bloggers talk about writing in there pj's, which to me, is the perfect image to replace the journalist who actually hits the pavement and finds the story. Even our media and so called "new media" has gotten lazy.

26

"And Bloggers tend to repeat news rather than report it."

Well, they need the original news stories as materiel, since they don't have the resources to produce their own news. But the benefit is their analysis, and often fact/cross-checking. Some bloggers mostly pass on news, but they tend to have a wider variety of sources (i.e. they don't just pass on CNN and AP reports).

"I would also argue that a lot of what gets called media bias is actually media sameness instead."

I don't think anybody argues that the MSM doesn't engage in groupthink - the bias comes in terms of what they report, and what they don't, and how they frame the news. For example, a liberal news report refers to a tax cut as "a tax cut for the rich", a conservative one would refer to is as an "economic stimulus", and a neutral one refers to it as a "tax cut". Or in Iraq - the MSM routinely reports bombings, killings, and deaths of US soldiers. These are all newsworthy, and should be reported. What you rarely see is stories about positive events in Iraq. Or how few Iraqi's support the terrorists. Etc., etc.

OK, Larry, rant away...

27

I understand that Malkin may also "think[] that the Japanese internment episode is being used as a blunt club" in the modern profiling debate. But whether or not Japanese internment is being misused in the service of a modern slippery-slope argument (such as Sean S.'s) does not answer the question at hand: Is Malkin's "Defense of Internment" correct?

Yes, von, I realize that her motivation and whether or not she is correct are two different matters. You said, "So why did Malkin nonetheless write a book? Well, Malkin claims that she rediscovered certain "MAGIC" cables...", which implies that she found out about the MAGIC cables, then determined, based upon them, that the WWII internment of Japanese was justified on national security grounds, and then decided to write a book. I don't know what her actual motivation is/was, or what the sequence of events was. My impression, from what I've read on the web, including Malkin's own statements, is that she saw that when people tried to bring up the prospect of racial/ethnic profiling in the current war with militant Islam, opponents would immediately bring up the Internment issue to shut down any debate. I imagine that she then went to look into the details to determine whether the internment was, in fact, mainly a racist response or not. Perhaps she had a pre-determined view, and was selective and/or biased in her research and presentation. Or perhaps she went in with an open mind and was convinced by what she saw. I don't know. But it is indisputable that many academic historians have delved into the subject with their own set of prejudices: that Americans are racist and unenlightened. Which is why I tend to be skeptical of the 'official' academic line, exemplified by the letter. If Malkin's argument is wrong, it will fail of its own accord - asking people not to interview her because you have already demonstrated that she's wrong is an argument from authority, not an argument against her claims.

The academy? I was unaware that colleges and universities were all under one banner, and in fact, reflect and espouse a similar view on everything. Last time I was browsing through academic journals on history, there was a significant amount of dissension on any number of issues, and despite the accusations of many, there is not a vast conspiracy to rewrite history into a purely racial blame game.

Dissension is not the same thing as political and philosophical diversity, Sean. The mere fact that people are arguing doesn't mean that they are in different ideological camps. And there doesn't have to be a 'vast conspiracy', just a strong tendency to favor racial blame explanations and discount alternative ones, for there to be a problem.

Please, count up the number of conservative tenured history professors at the top 200 universities, and contrast that with the number of liberal ones. If you can point to even one university where conservatives are equal to liberals, I'll grant your claim that they are not "all under one banner".

28

Kevin wrote

"If we ever fly together, look for me. I'm the guy with the Louisville Slugger across his lap, keeping a wary eye on those guys wearing sandals and robes in the middle seats."

Okay Kevin. You watch those guys, and I'll watch the fat sweaty white guy in the blue blazer to make sure he doesn't defecate on the food court when he's told he can't smoke in the plane.

29

Mike S. writes

"What you rarely see is stories about positive events in Iraq."

News generally tends to focus on the sensational and on crimes so even if the "bias" you claim exists was real, what would it mean? People are born in Iraq every day. People are born in Sudan. People are born in Florida. No one really cares. What people do want to know is how many people are dying of gunshot wounds to the face or bombs and why is that happening and when is it goint to stop. There are good reasons that people around the world want to know that. The fact that we have rebuilt some of the infrastructure we destroyed is nice but frankly I have to ASSUME that is happening or I'll get really pissed. The one excuse I have not heard yet for invading Iraq was to improve their school system and electricity grid so all that garbage is irrelevant. The question is whether people can cast a vote for the candidate of their choice without fear of getting their intestines blown out of their stomachs in the process. And the answer to that question right now is: NO THEY CANNOT. Please let me know if you have facts which show that I'm mistaken on this fundamental point.

30

Oops. That should be "food cart" not "food court" in my response to Kevin, above.

31

Re airport security

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/09/23/security.screeners.reut/index.html

32

Buy Cialis

33

More on so-called "liberal" bias in media (from Bob Somerby):

Barnes has told the same story for years. But so what? When Barnes spoke to Rather on September 8, the White House decided it would pretend that the varlet had suddenly changed his story. Result? All week long, MSNBC’s millionaire shills have lied in your faces about this matter. First Buchanan, then Chris Matthews. And then, last night, in Scarborough Country, Scarborough lied to you too.
Did Barnes help Bush get into the Guard? We don’t have the slightest idea. But his story hasn’t changed an inch since that widely-reported court appearance. On MSNBC, they don’t want you to know that. So each evening, they lie in your face.

We’ve shown you this process for years and years now, in which fake facts are created and spread, this process that defines the press corps’ fallen culture. And guess what? You’ll read about this matter here. And you’ll see it discussed nowhere else.

By the way, remember one more name in all this. Rick Kaplan is the fallen man who puts this cavalcade of lies on the air. Let’s put it plainly: Rick Kaplan stuffs his pockets with dough as his minions make a joke of your discourse. What’s the nature of the corps’ fallen culture? Kaplan is stuffing his pockets with dough as his minions make a joke of your lives. And flunkies in the mainstream “press corps” know not to notice or care.

34

Also in today's Howler, you can find the following, which I personally find awesomely inspiring. In fact, I would urge everyone to read today's Howler in its entirety to get a taste of just how psycho the people at the helm of the Swift Boat Liars are and how lost the media is when it comes to dealing with sick people like O'Neill and Corsi.