1

Well written. A book I'm sure many are familiar with is "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. In short, he makes the point that news is often just entertainment with the flair of self-importance. Yes, I am interested in what is happening in Southeast Asia, Ukraine, and Lebanon. Personally, I'd love to have more news channels on TV (Newschannel Asia, BBC, CBC, and DW come to mind), but that's in large part because CNN/FOX/MSNBC are an inch deep internationally. I can't speak for our President, but the idea of people being paid to give me the news that's important to my job seems tempting.

Besides, if the President doesn't read the newspaper, how will he know how the Michael Jackson or Robert Blake trials are going? Will he be able to keep up on Paris Hilton? Will he realize how much Paul Krugman and Molly Ivins hate him? What about the Bridge column? It may be a strech, but isn't this akin to being upset the Principal isn't reading the scrawl on the bathroom stalls?

You wonder how people 60 years ago lived without instant information. Maybe other things were deemed more important to them.

2

Hi Joe--

Hope all is well Chicago -- one of my favourite cities . . .

After thirteen or so years as a political, party activist, I don't read the newspapers or watch tne newscasts for information so much as to see what stories are being reported and how . . .

3

Brainberg has a valid point on Bush. While Joe doesn't read the newspaper every day I'm sure he does read a lot. He probably reads plenty of blogs as well as various web sites devoted to the topics that interest him. A while ago he posted a list of current books he's reading, which while being understandably heavy on religion were also quite diverse and somewhat ecelectic.

Bush, though, is the type of guy who is not only proud of not reading the newspaper but also proud for not reading anything at all. Reagan was an intellectual (despite his homespun style and his PR image of being a little dotty (an image that worked for him as much if not more than for his critics)). Especially when Reagan 'came of age' as a voice for Conservatisim in the 70's you can read his speechs and writings and find a real interest in ideas. You don't see that in Bush period.

4

That Bush is man of the people is not a virtue. Our leaders should be better people than the average member of society. More intelligent, more educated, more moral, you get the idea. We might as well get any schmuck off the street if being a "man of the people" is considered a good thing since it's more "democratic."

5

The comments seem to be a referendum on Bush's intellectuality rather than on the real topic, the meaninglessness of most information that passes as news.

Nevertheless, I'll just say that Bush is very much an intellectual along with being a "man of the people." He just happens to be more of an implementer of his intellectual pursuits--a leader--than a communicator of them. If I had to pick between a pointy-headed book-learning intellectual and a steady, visionary implementer, I'll take the latter.

Proverbs 4:7 - Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding. (NKJV)

Kevin Harper
www.gospelunion.com

6

Thank you for your article. The newspapers and most of the TV news is so liberal that I have turned to the Network news and the Blogsphere for my news. Thank you for letting me know that there are others that are doing the same. As often as possible I am pointing my friends toward the Internet for a better balance of the news.

7

Boonton,
You're wrong about Bush not reading anything at all. How he finds time to read as many books as he does with the hectic schedule of any president is beyond me. From what I'VE read in the NEWSPAPER, he reads mostly history. Has recently been reading everything from biographies of former presidents (I think Adams was his latest?) to the most recent Tom Wolfe book.
I read the newspaper a lot, but I do get the feeling that it's a waste of my time. My goal is to get away from the newspaper and more into the classic literature titles, biography, and history books. In a way, newspapers are like fast food joints, and books are healthier.
Another reason Bush, or any president, may not find it worth the time to read the newspaper every day is that he knows what happened before it ever hits the paper. Plus, the "news" has gone through a number of filters which may distort the truth, no matter how objective that paper seeks to be. I was once told by a retired Air Force intelligence officer not to believe 90% of what you see on the TV news or read in the paper. During the 90's with Somalia, Bosnia, Persian Gulf War, he said they'd go out on a mission, when they'd get back they'd watch the news report sometimes the opposite of what was really going on. This is not to assert media bias, just the difficulty of getting the whole story in an instant. Someone like me may not have much choice but to depend on 2nd-hand sources, but why should those who don't need to.

As far as hearing voices other than your subordinates, we'd do better to wish that our opposing leaders would spend more time together. Maybe we oughtta pass a law that says the President and an opposition leader must spend at least 1/2 day together each week. (I'm ignorant, maybe they meet together more than I know.) But I'd rather that Bush's ear is bent by Harry Reid, or John Kerry, or Lieberman, or even H. Clinton than Molly Ivins/Al Franken or any other Bush-bashing opinion writer whose job, first and foremost, is to sell papers to nimwits like me and get me all riled up in the process.

8

I see no evidence that Bush has any intellect, even if I was mistaken about him being not reading books (I wouldn't be surprised if his PR people make sure he is photographed carrying around an impressive book whenever he enters or exits his limo or aircraft).

9

Back in the early 70's I read that CS Lewis advised his students avoid newspapers. In addition, he advised them cut down on the reading of current books; at the very least they should read one older classic for each contemporary book. Sadly, I still don't take his advise. But I am struck by how few books I can even remember, let alone consider candidates for re-reading. Just remember, Sturgeon's Law applies here just as much as it does anywhere else.

10

Boonton -

"I see no evidence that Bush has any intellect..."

Okay, it is true that Bush is not as smart as, say, Stephen Hawking. But I think a BA from Yale and and MBA from Harvard counts for some evidence.

11

"Okay, it is true that Bush is not as smart as, say, Stephen Hawking. But I think a BA from Yale and and MBA from Harvard counts for some evidence. "

That it is possible to get into Yale and Harvard if your father is:

A: Wealthy
B: A former Senator and important politician
C: An allumni (of one of them at least)
D: All of the above

12

Obviously his Daddy's power, wealth, and influence got him in there. But he still had to do the work and complete the degrees, which causes me to consider him an educated man. Hence, I think it is too strong of a statement to say that he has no intellect.

13

OMG! You're right! Bush IS an idiot. I should read newspapers. Joe's post is wrong.

Oh, wait. What were we talking about?

14

Obviously his Daddy's power, wealth, and influence got him in there. But he still had to do the work and complete the degrees, which causes me to consider him an educated man. Hence, I think it is too strong of a statement to say that he has no intellect.

Perhaps no intellect is too over the top but I've read that Harvard and Yale are well known for being tough to get into but hard to flunk out of once you get in. Also consider how many Harvard & Yale Graduates there are out there. Shall we say at least 40,000? If we constructed a bell curve for their intellects do you seriously think Bush would end up on the top or bottom?

15

It may be overstating the case to say Bush has no intellect, but he is clearly not an intellectual. I suppose our president really needn't be an intellectual, but he should have a fine mind. I'm afraid our current leader is not particularly bright or well read. Well read people generally have a better grasp of the language than that evinced by our chief executive.

But, as someone mentioned, the post primarily deals with the value of the daily newspaper. I skim the entire paper every day, closely reading that which I find interesting or important. I find this approach very worthwhile in that I maintain a high degree of cultural literacy (vital to a teacher). Also, while the newspaper often provides only superficial coverage, it does raise awareness of events and issues that can then be more thoroughly investigated via sources or the internet. The bottom line is that a newspaper is cheap, entertaining, and often useful. Perhaps, though, it is not as essential as it once was.

16

Also has anyone noticed that the newspaper is excellent to keep up with local events?

17

That is an excellent point, Boonton. Keeping up with local events isn't, however, so much an intellectual activity as a practical activity, and it can be accomplished in a number of way--including the evening news. As a practice, though, checking out the local section of the paper is a community building experience, and I think it serves a very useful purpose (classified ads, marriage announcements, obits, activities, news about friends, etc.). Unfortunately a lot of folks like me (I live in Washington, D.C.) live in places where the newspapers are almost purely national or where the local sections don't seem to fulfill that community-building purpose. For me, newspapers are almost not worth the trouble (my up-to-date info comes from the internet).

18

There are diffeent kinds of smart. From all accounts, Bush is an excellent delegator, manager of people and executive. I'm sure if feels good to smugly sit behind the anonymity of the internet and state how much smarter than the president you are. Correct me if I am wrong, but do you have an MBA? Have you ever learned to fly a high performance fighter? Have you ever run a mojor leauge baseball team? Were you ever govorner of the second most populous state? I mean we could really go on and on. What is clear is that Bush is a man of big ideas and just because they aren;t the same as yours doesn't make them dumb.

19

What is clear is that Bush is a man of big ideas and just because they aren;t the same as yours doesn't make them dumb

Really? Dumb people don't end up with college degrees? don't end up running companies or sports teams? Really? Never Ever? The fact that the son of a political family who was groomed for office just as JFK was groomed by his father is not a factor in an impressive resume?

The evening news isn't that good for local coverage. By local I mean your town, maybe county. If you live in New York, NY then yea the local TV news is probably pretty good. But here in Northern NJ its the newspapers that do the best job of keeping you up to date on local news.

20

Boonton,

I wonder if you could step back for just a second from the underlying assumption that "Bush is an idiot" and actually examine evidence to the contrary and evaluate it on it's merits (or lack thereof).

If you think he gets things wrong, that's fine but it's a whole other thing than blanket assumptions about intelligence when there's evidence to be examined that says otherwise.

21

"But here in Northern NJ its the newspapers that do the best job of keeping you up to date on local news."

I have my own confession to make. I'm canceling my cable. I've already canceled my newspaper subscriptions.

But that doesn't mean I stop reading the news. Instead I read MORE news. On the Internet I now have the ability to scan and read a nearly limitless supply of articles from around the world.

What this does, (if you do it long enough) is it begins to give you the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. 90% of newspaper and TV stories are directly from or inspired from AP or Reuters Wire stories. You have to look for the gold in the other 10%. And the way you do this is by reading points of view you don't agree with. Regularly. It's the only way you can learn to think critically enough to have a fair confidence that something is "the Truth".

Join the revolution and turn off the babble box.

22

Joe,

Let me toss in an endorsement for the top half your post. Most of what passes as "news" has no relevance to the vast majority of people reading it.
Sincerely,
Richard
lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com

23

Liberals said the same things about President Reagan when he was in office. President Bush is very intelligent (he has a higher IQ than the liberals' precious Sen. Kerry), but if the liberal/leftists want to continue to 'Misunderestimate' him, more power to them. Liberal/Leftists have never let the facts get in their way; so why should anyone expect them to start now. They are bound and determined to follow their corrupt ideology straight to perdition, while scoffing at the only One who can Save them.

Yes, the MSM has a very narrow liberal worldview, but worse is their bias for sensational and/or shocking items. And yes, aside from the WSJ, journalists usually don't understand what they are writing about and don't take the time to get the facts. And yes, many times reading newspapers makes people more ignorant (by reinforcing common misunderstandings and by filling the readers' minds with blather).

24

an allumni. Am I the only one laughing at the irony?

25

Finlay,

A MBA is not a particularly hard degree to get. It is harder to get a degree in a science or typical art major than to get a MBA. Remember also, Bush was governor in a state where the governor is not particularly powerful. He wouldn't have to be as involved in running the state as would say, the governor of Virginia where I live who AFAIK is a much stronger governor than the position in Texas.

I'll never forget when the first standardized tests for public schools were being introduced into VA during Clinton's last years. I was a year away from graduating high school, and my AP US History teacher had gotten ahold of a few samples from Texas and a few other states. He put Texas' side by side with Virginia's and Texas was a joke compared to Virginia's tests, which were themselves quite easy. Almost every single person in my class passed our exams with very high scores. It's scary to think of how bad most students in Texas would have done.

26

Mike F,

What does the standardized tests a state gives its students have to do with becoming governor?

27

Why is dailiness a problem? Sommerville offers several reasons. First, the daily nature of the news (which means that publishers have to sell their product on a daily basis) encourages journalists to create a sense of crisis or tragedy.

No, that's not true, as anyone who's seen some of the foreign press knows; the real issue has to do with, ahem the profit motive.

There's more information pending to be transmitted when there's uncertainty compared to as when there's no uncertainty, and so news organizations' (generally conservative) editors want to make it appear there is a maximum degree of uncertainty before certain "predictable" events combined with generally "rare" events making headlines.

It's rare that someone, for example is a party or victim or is a close relative of a victim of a violent murder. But that's more of a motive for emphasizing this aspect of human existence.

28

From the "Social Security Conversation in Alabama" 3/10/05

...

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you something about the Thrift Savings Plan. This is a Thrift Savings Plan that has a mix of stocks and bonds?

MS. WEBSTER: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, how hard was that to learn how to do that?

MS. WEBSTER: And I chose the safe plan, government bonds. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit. But other than that -- (laughter). We're fixing the deficit. (Applause.)

...

How intelligent is it for the president of the United States, who oversaw the conversion of a budget surplus into a long-term deficit, and is watching the dollar slump against foreign currencies, to joke about Treasuries not being safe?

29

I only read this site so I can pretend I'm having a conversation with the girl trapped inside the "Conservative Match" image.

30

The arrogance of you guys claiming that Bush has no intelligence is incredible. As president's go, maybe he's not the most intelligent. But, YOU IDIOTS, HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.!!! You don't get there unless you're off the charts in at least one (maybe even two) of Howard Gardner's seven intelligences. For us ordinary folk--who have never met him--to question Bush's intelligence is meaningless. If he's so stupid, how has he outsmarted the Democrats for the last eight years? And if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?

31

Now, you all know that I'm fairly conservative. And, at one point, a staunch Republican. But this story is over the top. At this point I don't see any redeeming value of either major political party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?hp&ex=1110776400&en=c0b6bad84e5bf46a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

32

jd,

it is simple. the people behind bush are smart, cunning, and evil. bush himself is a puppet. case in point: he is pushing the world towards nuclear war, but can't himself pronounce the word.

33

it would be good if some of you other intellectuals who agree with Tommythecat responded to him. There's too much of a reality gap between him and me. Boonton? Rob Ryan?

34

"it is simple. the people behind bush are smart, cunning, and evil. bush himself is a puppet."

Ah yes, when the enemy outsmarts you time and time again, blame the vast right-wing conspiracy. I know enough guys with PhD's in math (I'm in the math dept at a major university) who have bad diction and poor speaking skills to know that speech delivery isn't necessarily the best indicator of intelligence.

We're still waiting for that concrete indication of Bush's stupidity. Kerry might be great at crafting "nuanced" statements (I have a plan!), but ultimately, Bush gets stuff done. Maybe some of you are fascinated by the artful games diplomats play over in Europe, but they've so far been unable to stop the tide of Islamism in their continent. I look at the way Bush has crushed the fanatical dreams of Middle Eastern sheiks and see a guy who knows how to get something done.

35

News doesn't do one much good if one lacks the background to understand it. News is history in rough draft, the wags say -- if one doesn't know history in refined from from previous times, one can't understand history in rough draft form, either.

Loose, unconnected reports from many U.S. cities saying gay men were dying didn't even merit large headlines. By the standards of "news isn't important," there is not yet any HIV/AIDS problem.

That many people are suckered in by celebrity factoids does not make all news unvaluable. But that their news buying habits tend to highlight such news over more useful stuff only suggests the depth of the problem we really have -- in a democracy, every person is a decision maker. Decision makers without information tend to make bad decisions over time.

36

Hi, Joe:

My God. The fact that Bush doesn't read the NY Times, Washington Post, etc., serves actually to increase my respect for the man, his intelligence, and his wise use of his valuable time. I applaud him even more if he does not listen to Peter, Dan and Tom (the latter two now, mercifully gone from the airwaves). It is, surely, possible to find out what his critics are saying about him without having to subject himself to an entire half-hour (Merciful Heavens!)listening to them spew forth their infuriatingly biased blather and spit. Mr. Bush could, for example, read summaries of these "news programs" with their innumerable, egregious and (I believe, oft intentional) errors, with far less tooth-gnashing, and less of a compulsion to deliver a good swift kick to his television screen.

I have heard on occasion that he does read such publications as the Washington Times and, I believe, The Weekly Standard (the former, I understand, on a daily basis).

If the Leader of the Free World is immersing himself in the thoughts of individuals such as Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Larry Kudlow, etc., then I anticipate having no difficulty whatsoever sleeping well at night--knowing that Mr. Bush is imbibing profitably from such founts of wisdom.

The day I hear/read that he has added to his daily intellectual intake the NY Times and The Wash. Post, I shall begin to worry a little. And if I start seeing the crackpot "ideology" of such journals appearing in his speeches and policies, panic will set in, accompanied by a deep and abiding depression.

I trust that this will not happen, which is, I fervently believe, good for the Republic, Bush's presidency, the Republican Party and all of those other things conservatives care about.