So you think your know the Killian memo controversy. You followed Powerline’s post before it was picked up by Drudge. You viewed LGF’s recreation of the memo in MS Word and followed Kos’ attempt to discredit the match. You know the arguments over the superscript, the kerning, the proportional spacing. You now know more about 70’s era Selectric typewriters than you do about your own computer. You follow Hugh and Glenn for the latest updates; you’ve bookmarked RatherGate. You think you know just about everything there is to know about this story, don’t you?
But do you know what the memo actually says?
Of course, you know what it’s about. You might have even read it once, though you likely can't recall any of the actual content. If pressed you could give a vague summary that is based more on what you have read from other people than from the actual copy of the memo itself. But for all the controversy, intrigue, and interest, you probably don’t really even know what the memo says, do you?
No. But that’s okay. Because the memo isn’t about the message. The memo is the message.
I realize that cribbing from Marshall McCluhan went out of fashion before I was out of diapers. But the Canadian professor’s overused clichés are looking more and more prophetic:
Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message.
The message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure. This happened whether the railway functioned in a tropical or northern environment, and is quite independent of the freight or content of the railway medium. (Understanding Media, p. 8)
There is nothing particularly unique about the memo, certainly nothing we haven’t seen before. Suspicious documents from anonymous sources have long been a staple of journalism. What has changed -- and changed radically -- is our credulity and willingness to accept the authority of journalists.
Now I’ve never met Dan Rather in person. I’ve never even met anyone who has met him. My only contact with him for the past thirty years has been mediated through the electronic medium of television. He and I share a connection, as does every viewer of television news, that is based on the bonds of social trust. We rely on Rather and others in his profession in order to become informed about the current events around us.
At times I’ve wondered if I was being mislead. Whether the breach of trust was intentional or a result of an unexamined bias, I’ve questioned the information being conveyed and wished I had more proof than the word of a reporter. Yet for most of my life I was forced to accept the presentation of the news given by the media monopoly.
I’ve also never met John Hinderaker in person. And while I know people who have met him I haven’t actually met them either. My only contact with John over the past year has been mediated through the electronic medium of the blogosphere. I share a connection with John, as does everyone else who has read his posts on the memo controversy, that also relies on the bonds of social trust. This collective trust allows us to reap the fruits of shared information. Occasionally we are duped or lied to and the trust is broken. But the blogosphere is a big place and sources of information can be easily replaced. When the medium of exchange is credibility, you learn to guard that resource jealously.
The advent of the blogosphere has reduced my dependency on the media as a source of truth. If I question the information I receive I know it will be examined by hundreds, possibly thousands of other bloggers who will filter it through their own biases, experiences, and knowledge in order to sift out the facts that can be considered trustworthy. This scandal over a questionable memo has been a prime example of the process in action. Within hours arguments were made, theories were proposed, and hypotheses were tested as we fumbled toward the truth. These elements, of course, have always existed. What has changed is the the speed and depth this new medium has brought to this process.
If the memo had only been a rehash of the National Guard story our collective interest would have quickly faded. Instead, it was an opportunity for us to not only be passive receivers of news product but discerners of true knowledge. That is why what the memo represents is far more important than its content. The memo is the message. And the message it's sending to the media is that blogs are now a part of the medium.
Blogs are a big piece of evidence as to why some aspects of America still work...
But more than that, it shows the duality that ever increasing technology represents. George Orwell and contemporaries like C.S. Lewis feared the tyranny that technology could bring. And yet we see that, like the teeter-totter relationship of defensive and offensive weapons in warfare, that technology maintains a rough parity between tools that can facilitate tyranny (increaisngly small cameras, cheap IR sensors, off-the-shelf spy-mics) and tools that can facilitate freedom (off-the-shelf counter-measures to all the above, blogs, the internet, etc.).
And yet the media monopoly represents a tyranny that inronically, doesn't come from any government, but from our own laziness. The worst violators of privacy laws have been private businesses and the feared monopolies have arisen due to our own lack of demand for some variation and quality; the homogenity of Backstreet Boys and Brittany Spears, instead of new Bachs and Mozarts.
Well said.
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm
Edit to Add: Or lack of demand to quit violating privacy.
This was well said, and the blogosphere will be great at getting to FACTS.
And, also, it will offer a wide range of interpretations of the facts, as to the MEANING of the 'same' facts.
Finally, however, it will come down to morals, and values. And the tough questions. Like, which is the morally superior US action in 1971?
1) leave Vietanam (and let evil commiess commit genocide), or
2) stay, fight, kill, die, kill some innocents.
Rather, like Kerry, concluded that Peace (AND genocide) are the morally superior position -- therefore the "facts" should show this. Today, Rather thinks Kerry is a morally superior candidate, and therefore the "facts" should show this. No matter what the real facts are.
Tom,
The notion that Bush stayed, fought, or killed in Vietnam (as Kerry did) is absurd, as is the idea that Vietnam (like Iraq) was somehow winnable without permanently committing five or ten times the number of troops we had.
The American public refused to support a full-blown occupation in Vietnam, which was necessary in order to win. And the public refuses again now in Iraq.
The result has been daily chaos, atrocities and gross mismanagement in both wars. The Bush administration has already abandoned much of Iraq to the warlords and Islamic terrorists.
Frankly, I think both major 2004 presidential candidates are immoral -- but not half as immoral as a general public that "supports" the war but refuses to enlist and move to Iraq.
And besides, what both candidates individually failed to do during Vietnam is a very low-priority issue. There are grave issues facing the nation, and this is not one of them. People who use the memo issue for/against Bush make it appear that they can't win on the REAL issues.
Dear Mike A,
You couldn't be more wrong. The reason we lost in Vietnam is that we had a bunch of lefties telling us that we were losing. The media told us we lost at Tet (which the North Vietnamese later admitted that they lost). They told us that it was a civil war, not an invasion of the North. They told us that just a few thousand Vietnames (2,000 to 3,000 per John Kerry) would leave the country if it fell. The media helped the protestors get their word out and people started to believe them, because they still believed the media. The left has been wrong time and time again.
You are blinded by reading things that only justify your current point of view. You are not reading the stories about what is really happening in Iraq, the areas where things are going well. This war is not being fought on camera. There are things in place now that will give you a much different picture in the months ahead. Yet you and others like you have been saying that we lost the war before it ever started.
The left is much better at winning their wars in the media. They always pretend that they support our troops, but, as always, they hate their guts and hope that many more of them die. If that's the sort of world view you like, more power to you. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that your right thinking would not protect you from what the Islamists would do to you. You worry about the "religious right" in this country, but feel that the religious fanatics in the Middle East can be reasoned with. What a fantasy.
"The left is much better at winning their wars in the media."
Har. Whitewater? Earth tones? Katherine Willey?
Maybe that was true 20 years ago but it ain't true now. Not in the age of millionaire pundits.
Please, try again.
Teri:
Back that allegation up with some evidence, please. What's that? You can't? Oh, that's right, it's just a typical anti-leftist rant, the parroting of a talking point, with no basis in reality. Yeah, we leftists hate our troops' guts so much, we would have never sent them into Iraq to die in the first place, at least not without an actual, you know, plan for winning the peace... What bastards we leftists must be!The only "fantasy" here is the straw man you're concocting as to how leftists think. No, you can't really reason with Islamist terrorists, but then, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to invade a country where they ain't, either, now does it?tgirsch,
For evidence backing up the allegation that the leftists don't support the troops would both be the MoveOn add depicting the "surrendering" soldier and the mockery and attacks at the cemetary vigil recently.
and Larry, If you don't think that most of the media is liberal... wake up and take off the tinted glasses. MSM depicts Whitewater as a waste of money (ignoring the convictions) and pretty much ignored/dismissed K. Willey completely. I'm sorry but I don't get the Earth tones reference.
Mike A.,
You said those that support the war but don't enlist are immoral. By the same token would you desribe all the supporters of WWII who didn't actually serve immoral? What if your 10 year old kid supports the war, is he/she immoral cause they don't "go to Iraq". Get real.
I think the point Joe made that the net allows one to finally verify the news in print is important. Children are taught to read "news" and "history" with a skeptical eye. But before the web and search engines it was a lot of damn work to verify any reasonable percentage of what you read.
Besides, all news is biased. It is just that we pretend it isn't.
Teri is afraid, just like Rove wants her to be.
"There are things in place now that will give you a much different picture in the months ahead. "
Like the attack on Fallujah which the White House has planned for the week following the election?
Yeah, I'm sure that will give me a much different picture.
Teri wants us to believe she has the REAL story but she won't tell us what that story is.
She should share her sunshine stories with these guys
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."
Mark writes
"MSM depicts Whitewater as a waste of money (ignoring the convictions) and pretty much ignored/dismissed K. Willey completely. I'm sorry but I don't get the Earth tones reference."
Okay, so you were born in 2001. I don't have time to clue you in.
Rest assured: the media is simply incompetent. There is no "liberal bias". The alleged "liberal bias" of the media, like the "activist judges" meme, is just a Republican/conservative talking point intended to undermine reporting of events (or cases) which run contrary to Republican positions.
Just one event to consider: compare treatment in the MSM of the Swift Boat Liars book to Kitty Kelly's book. Let me know where you detect a "liberal bias" in the way those two books and their authors were treated. Thanks.
UPI is running a blockbuster in the Breaking News section!!
UPI-In what is surely going to substantially add to Kerry's already commanding lead in the polls, UPI has unearthed documents from 1962, showing that a very below-age George W. Bush bought beer at a 7-11 in Kennebunkport, Maine, using his father's ID card.
Documents faxed to news offices yesterday shows what purports to be a signed credit card receipt from the younger Bush. A video camera captured the event, and we are also in possession of THAT tape. Though very scratchy, the tape seems to show George W. Bush buying beer from Osama bin Laden, using his then-oil-executive father's driver's license.
The documents appear that they might be genuine, and the tape sure looks like him!!
CBS news will run a full story tonight.
"Just one event to consider: compare treatment in the MSM of the Swift Boat Liars book to Kitty Kelly's book. Let me know where you detect a "liberal bias" in the way those two books and their authors were treated. Thanks."
Well, Kitty Kelley was on the Today Show for multiple segments, and she's a proven liar and sleaze artist. Have any of the SwiftVets been on the Today Show? And where is there any evidence that they are motivated by anything besides a personal dislike for Kerry?
You are right that the media is incompetent. But part of the reason they are incompetent is that they are blind to any alternative viewpoints besides the liberal one. I think it's funny that you think the media is easily controlled by the VRWC, when they hold most of the same views you do. Namely, that conservatives are ignorant, that conservatives are hateful, that conservatives are greedy, that conservatives are motivated solely by the desire for political and economic power, etc., etc., etc. I guess they just aren't clear and upfront enough about their prejudices for you, so you think they're not biased. Now, if Dan Rather said on air that Bush was the "worst president ever", then you'd agree he's biased, right?
"You are right that the media is incompetent. But part of the reason they are incompetent is that they are blind to any alternative viewpoints besides the liberal one."
So you're suggesting that if I search major media archives, I will find only "liberal" viewpoints presented? Is that what you mean by "blind to any alternative viewpoints"?
Larry,
Go ahead, search the archives. But note, Mike isn't claiming you will find *only* liberal viewpoints, but you will find a decided liberal bias. Liberal viewpoints and stories get more coverage in the MSM. Polls of journalists show a strong left lean. Recall the quote from Pauline Kael, "How could have Reagan gotten elected, I don't know anyone who voted for him?" after his landslide victory.
And regarding "Earth Tones", ignoring the ad hominem attack, I googled it and came up with drek. What scandal was that?
Back on topic, Do you suppose the existance of comments (feedback) in the 'sphere helps make it a more "reliable" medium.
"The American public refused to support a full-blown occupation in Vietnam, which was necessary in order to win. And the public refuses again now in Iraq."
Careful who you include in that word "public." I'd also like a cite for that because I haven't seen evidence to support your statement.
"Rest assured: the media is simply incompetent. There is no 'liberal bias'. The alleged 'liberal bias of the media, like the 'activist judges' meme, is just a Republican/conservative talking point intended to undermine reporting of events (or cases) which run contrary to Republican positions."
Why don't we say the media is biased and just leave it at that? Both sides see it as being a tool of the other side.
"Teri is afraid, just like Rove wants her to be.
'There are things in place now that will give you a much different picture in the months ahead.'
Like the attack on Fallujah which the White House has planned for the week following the election?
Yeah, I'm sure that will give me a much different picture.
Teri wants us to believe she has the REAL story but she won't tell us what that story is."
I'm sorry, Mr. Lord, but attacking Teri doesn't help your argument at all. You may attack ME all you want for this post, but it's still not gonna change the fact that it isn't much of a rebuttal worth reading to Teri's comment.
Furthermore, the article you provided was written by Sidney Blumenthal, who I don't trust anymore than I do Seymour Hersh or Dan Rather, for that matter. In any case, the best thing about your link is that it made me think again of a comment Joe included in his post above: "The advent of the blogosphere has reduced my dependency on the media as a source of truth."
And for the record, I'm not a fan of Fox News.
Mark:
Yes, because the vast majority of leftists agree that MoveOn speaks for them; and of course everyone on the left hailed those knuckeleads at the vigil as heroes, I'm sure. I suppose that I could find some moonbatty crap that Falwell spouted out, and you would have no trouble with me generalizing that into something that all rightists believe. And of course, since McVeigh was a rightist, you wouldn't mind me making claims that all rightists are violent extremists who hate America. Or the white supremacist knucklehead who's running as a Republican. Sounds like you're letting your prejudices get in the way of your critical thinking.For the record, I'm not even aware of the ad you're talking about. Don't suppose you can be bothered to provide a link?
As to the media being "liberal," hardly. If the media were truly liberal, they would have been kicking Bush's ass over the Iraq fiasco since before we even went in. Instead they just rolled over and played dead until it was too late. If there's a problem with most media outlets, it isn't that they're "liberal" or "conservative," but that they aren't doing their friggin' job. They can't be bothered to fact check. They think that parrotting what people say counts as journalism, rather than attempting to verify what they say, or questioning what they say.
Just to add on to my last comment: Blumenthal's article cites no military experts who disagree with the positions of the sources he quotes. That would have added balance to the article and made it sound less biased.
"And regarding "Earth Tones", ignoring the ad hominem attack, I googled it and came up with drek. What scandal was that?"
Try "dog vitamins" and "invented the internet" and you'll find even more of that darn "liberal bias."
"Do you suppose the existance of comments (feedback) in the 'sphere helps make it a more "reliable" medium."
At blogs where commenters are intelligent and resourceful, it certainly adds to the credibility. It provides instant fact-checking.
"Recall the quote from Pauline Kael, "How could have Reagan gotten elected, I don't know anyone who voted for him?" after his landslide victory."
Pauline Kael the New York film critic? This is the "liberal bias" which is undermining our democracy? You've got to be kidding me.
"Liberal viewpoints and stories get more coverage in the MSM."
And your claim is that the public wants more "conservative" stories than the media is willing to give it? Is that it? What sort of "conservative" stories are you thinking of? The plight of the rich white male? The rising costs of yachts? The shortage of twenty-five year old virgins?
Seriously. YOU are the one who is making this claim of "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. The burden is on you to show me the evidence. All I know is that so-called liberal papers like the NYT and so-called liberal TV programs like MacNeil Lehrer have behaved in a decidedly unliberal manner at least since 9/11, if by "liberal" you mean openly critical of President Bush or even openly asking President Bush or Dick Cheney or Condi Rice or Rumsfeld the sorts of questions that they ask of people who dare to challenge the competency of the Bush Administration. Not only that, but they have ADMITTED that they did not do so because they felt intimidated by BushCo. What in hell is so liberal about that?
Our press corp.: bumbling incompetent chickens. That's the deal.
Liberal bias? That is nothing but Republican whining.
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
I would say to this, Larry, that this is one man and one man's opinion. Dragging this comment out is like saying that Richard Clarke thinks the war in Iraq is going badly. It just has no credibility on it's own. Who is this guy? What makes him an authority on the subject? What are his political leanings, and, could they be lending to a particular bias?
On it's own merits, this statment really means nothing, and adds nothing.
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."
What "information"? Kind of a hollow remark on its own. What are these alledged "signs"?
like the "activist judges" meme, is just a Republican/conservative talking point intended to undermine reporting of events (or cases) which run contrary to Republican positions.
When judges are creating law from the bench, creating precedent from thin air, I don't think you can call it anything else but activism. This isn't a talking point, its a reality.
"If there's a problem with most media outlets, it isn't that they're "liberal" or "conservative," but that they aren't doing their friggin' job."
Like I said to Larry, I agree that the media is lazy and largely doesn't do its job. There are two questions, though: which political side does their laziness usually benefit, and why are they so lazy in the first place?
Here's a though experiment: imagine that the Swiftboat veterans group had, instead of writing a book outlining their case and making themselves available to be questioned on radio, TV, and the internet, had instead faxed a poorly forged set of memos purporting to show that Kerry did not earn his purple hearts or bronze or silver stars. What are the chances Dan Rather would have done a 60 Minutes story on them, based upon the assumption the documents were authentic? It's far easier to imagine CBS would have ignored them completely, or they would have looked for signs the docs were forged (and immediately found them), and then done a story about how this group was trying to smear Kerry (and insinuate that Republicans were probably behind the forged documents).
Liberal bias? That is nothing but Republican whining.
Let me ask you a question, Larry. When did the Swift Vets first make known their objections to a Kerry candidacy?
"And your claim is that the public wants more "conservative" stories than the media is willing to give it? Is that it? What sort of "conservative" stories are you thinking of? The plight of the rich white male? The rising costs of yachts? The shortage of twenty-five year old virgins?"
LOL! Because there are no legitimate conservative stories (or viewpoints on stories), right Larry? In fact, there's not really anything such as a "conservative" position, is there, since conservative is in scare quotes. And yet you don't see any bias in the media. We'll have to start calling you "Fair and balanced" Larry from now on... ; )
"Dragging this comment out is like saying that Richard Clarke thinks the war in Iraq is going badly. It just has no credibility on it's own."
Well, folks, here we go. Emma has chimed in and so the sky is yellow and the sun is blue. Of course, Emma is absolutely correct that the General's statement has no credibility on its own.
But of course, the White House's own advisors have been telling the White House much of the same. I am willing to accept the argument that very little of what goes on in the White House is credible, but I doubt that Emma is going to make that argument.
I don't have to read any of Emma's posts to anticipate where she'd like to take the conversation. If we take the discussion with Emma further, I'm sure we'll get to hear some wonderful stories about all of the new pencils that little Abdul is privileged to own, a dream he never thought he'd realize. Emma will never mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis who continue to die or suffer crippling injuries as a direct result of our invasion and occupation of their country. They don't seem to matter to Emma. Nope, all that matters is that Emma can sleep at night knowing that Big Bad Saddam isn't going to nuke her.
"When judges are creating law from the bench, creating precedent from thin air, I don't think you can call it anything else but activism."
Sure. But it's the kind of activism that conservatives benefit from all the time, just as much as "liberals" do. You're just too busy reading your script to pay attention to trivial facts like that.
But of course, the White House's own advisors have been telling the White House much of the same. I am willing to accept the argument that very little of what goes on in the White House is credible, but I doubt that Emma is going to make that argument.
And you proof is?
But it's the kind of activism that conservatives benefit from all the time
Such as?
By the way, Larry, Emmaus is a city to which Jesus walked with two of his followers after he was resurrected.
And, on that note, Emmaus is not for Emma. Emmaus is representative of my walk with Christ.
Beyond that, I'm a man, and not a woman.
I am willing to accept the argument that very little of what goes on in the White House is credible
That just flat-out makes no sense Larry. I don't even know how to respond to that?
Sorry, Emma, I'm not going to cite you to widely available news stories. What difference would it make? You'll just find the quote from the Bush Administration at the end and say, "See, the [news source] agrees that everything is fine and it's all because of Bush!" Or are you claiming now that you don't play that game?
Now that CBS News has been exposed for the right-wing extremists that they are, it's time to move on to NBC and ABC and the NYT and the Washington Post.
I will not rest until the right-wing bias in these organizations has been replaced with something that resembles objective journalism.
Maybe we could run a series of stories that would expose how wealthy people have benefited from the tax cut? THAT would be an interesting piece, what a novel concept! Or, maybe that Bush's policies are harming the environment? Or maybe a feature on Bush's friends in the oil industry? How about some articles about "outsourcing"--I'm telling you--nobody hears anything about that stuff!! In fact, I just invented the term, just now--it means the trend of American firms moving their production facilities overseas to benefit from lower-cost labor--where is the news media here?!?!?
I'm not giving up on those right-wingers in these places!! They can still go back to their roots, and report the news, and let us decide.
Sorry, Emma, I'm not going to cite you to widely available news stories. What difference would it make? You'll just find the quote from the Bush Administration at the end and say, "See, the [news source] agrees that everything is fine and it's all because of Bush!" Or are you claiming now that you don't play that game?
So, I have to back up everything I say to you, and what you're saying here is that you don't have to reciprocate?
"So, I have to back up everything I say to you, and what you're saying here is that you don't have to reciprocate?"
Emma, I'm just saying you're full of crap.
As for your walk with Christ: News Flash! Pennsylvania wasn't even a state when Jesus is alleged to have died and "resurrected" himself. You might want to reconsider your sources.
Larry, I don't know what you're talking about.
Luke 24:12-15
12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. Bending down and looking in, he saw only the cloth that Jesus' body had been wrapped in. Peter went away to his home, wondering about what had happened.
13 That same day two of Jesus' followers were going to a town named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking about everything that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and began walking with them
Larry, you specifically said:
Sorry, Emma, I'm not going to cite you to widely available news stories.
Now, are you going to backup what you said here, or, should I read from this statement that you don't have any sources to back this up?
After all Larry:
The burden is on you to show me the evidence.
Did you mean it when you said this?
Oh, it's the OTHER Emmaus you were talking about. Sorry. My bad.
Fyi, Emma, here's some of that official baloney about Iraq you've been so successfully ignoring. There was another report earlier today on CNN, but that damn "liberal" site dumped it so it could tell us about poor Laura "Stool Pigeon" Bush being heckled during her recitation of some RNC spin points.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/sprj.irq.cia/
Please, why not say something intelligent in response, Emma, so I can pretend that I'm not wasting my time talking to a person who'd rather brag about their "walk with Christ" than address the bloody reality of the war she so gleefully cheers.
Did you read this, Larry?
By the way, Larry, Emmaus is a city to which Jesus walked with two of his followers after he was resurrected.
And, on that note, Emmaus is not for Emma. Emmaus is representative of my walk with Christ.
Beyond that, I'm a man, and not a woman.
"The burden is on you to show me the evidence."
Yeah, Emma. It's the old chestnut about outrageous claims. You know, if I say that our soldiers haven't killed any innocent children in Iraq, you are supposed to say, "That's baloney. How could that possibly be?" And I have to explain myself. Why? Because the claim is stupid and unbelievable.
Believe it or not, Emma, that's how it works.
Actually, Larry, I don't think that I've ever posted an opinion about the war in Iraq, so, it's suprising that you'd be able to know what my opinion is about it?
Larry, the article you posted is dated: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Posted: 4:57 AM EST (0957 GMT)
That's nearly a year ago. What does that have to do with the situation there now?
Larry,
I think the reason you don't think the NYTimes and the News Hour have a liberal bias is that they might be less liberal than youself, which it seems is how you define the bias. Poke around "http://www.mediaresearch.org/" for more measureable data.
I mentioned the Pauline Kael quote not because she was a political commentator or journalist but, she was a NYTimes staffer who presumambly included the people she worked beside as "people she knew". I'll let you attempt to fill in the blanks from there. Dig up some polls on the voting habits and registration of journalists. You'll find them left of center, but again, perhaps not left of yourself.
Your comment about Emmaus, Jesus, and Pennsylvania shows either a poor attempt at humor, or just cluelessness about Christianity in general.
"The burden is on you to show me the evidence."
Yeah, Emma. It's the old chestnut about outrageous claims. You know, if I say that our soldiers haven't killed any innocent children in Iraq, you are supposed to say, "That's baloney. How could that possibly be?" And I have to explain myself. Why? Because the claim is stupid and unbelievable.
What are some such claims that I have made?
Gee, I wonder what key conservatives think about our liberal media?
Larry:Be willing to back up what you say, or don't say it. Ten yard penalty, loss of down.
Emmaus:
Start here. Any questions?Give me one example -- just one -- of a case where a judge put a law on the books that was not previously there. You can't, because judges can't do that. Only the legislature can make laws. The best a judge can do is strike down all or part of a law. That's not "creating law" at all, it's abolishing certain laws, or at worst, parts of certain laws.And if a judge makes a poor ruling, other judges will/should overturn him/her. If they don't overturn it, then the law was probably written badly and needs to be reformed -- a job for the legislature. And if the law is at odds with the constitution, and the higher courts agree, then either live with that or change the constitution.
Tgirsch advises me thusly:
"Be willing to back up what you say, or don't say it. Ten yard penalty, loss of down."
But dude, I'm already in the bar at Disneyland with my trophy and naked chicks everywhere! It's a little late for the penalties.
If I got the sense from Emma that there was an honest attempt to *engage*, I'd be happy to offer up. Sadly, that's not the case.
Frankly, I've been wondering where you've been hiding out lately. My fingers are sore.
Mark:
Sorry, Mark, but liberals are about as likely to like MRC as conservatives are to like FAIR. Better sites include FactCheck.org and Spinsanity, although they tend to cover the campaigns themselves more closely than the media coverage of those campaigns. The Daily Howler, despite it's decided leftist tilt, is probably one of the best media criticism sites out there. And lest you think the Howler only calls out conservative media lies, go to their 9/15 archives and search for "THE PERFECT TSURUMI" for a counterexample.Give me one example -- just one -- of a case where a judge put a law on the books that was not previously there. You can't, because judges can't do that. Only the legislature can make laws. The best a judge can do is strike down all or part of a law. That's not "creating law" at all, it's abolishing certain laws, or at worst, parts of certain laws.
tgirsch - we first need to lay down some understanding about how the judicial system in this country works.
Judges, as you've noted above, cannot make law. This is something on which both you and I agree. However, with that said, our legal system works on the theory of precedent. What precedent means is that, when a judge finds a certain way on a case, and it becomes "case law," then, that case can be used as a citation in future cases to build a case for something related, and, sometimes unrelated.
When judges rule on a case using nothing but their own opinions about the subject matter, this is judical activism. They are not using the precedent standard to decide the case.
This is the meaning of judicial activism. That term does not mean, literally, creating a law from the bench, as the legislature would. What this means is creating case law from the bench where none previously exists, or, in direct conflict with previous case law.
tgirsch - re: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Looks like the assessment of how things are going in Iraq from an intelligence standpoint is faily pessimistic. I think, though, that knowing where you stand is half the battle to making better decisions to head yourself in the right direction. If things in Iraq aren't going too well, then, it looks like the Pentagon and the administration need to assess the situation, and make some decisions about where to go from here.
"If things in Iraq aren't going too well, then, it looks like the Pentagon and the administration need to assess the situation, and make some decisions about where to go from here."
Emmaus, you do realize of course that this same Administration and Pentagon has been assessing the situation in Iraq and making decision about where to go for several years now, right? And that none of what has happened is particularly surprising to a whole lot of people, right?
Could you explain to us, Emmaus, why people who screw up big time should be continually given more opportunities to play with people's lives?
Give this a shot. We know how the government and the judiciary work. Spare us the lectures.
Larry:
I disagree. Nothing about Emmaus' tone suggests to me that he is not interested in honest debate. And your continued insistence on calling him "Emma" just makes you look juvenile. Even if you were right, and Emmaus weren't interested in honest debate, the correct approach would be to simply ignore him, rather than to continually insult him. Doing so just makes you look like a troll.
Emmaus:
I tend to agree. But nothing this administration has done leads me to believe that they're willing to make such adjustments. In fact, our President is still in denial about the intelligence reports he's getting. You would think that the "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside U.S." memo would have taught him a lesson about downplaying intelligence reports that make bleak predictions...tgirsch - thanks.
Larry: Give this a shot. We know how the government and the judiciary work. Spare us the lectures.
I was actually not trying to lecture anyone. I was really simply attempting to set a baseline from which we can discuss this issue. I wanted to let tgirsch know what my understanding of how things work in the judiciary is. This is actually something that I know a bit about, as I wrote a lengthy research paper about it a few years ago.
I'm really simply trying to make sure that we're on the same page. In other words, I wanted to let tgirsch see the direction that I was coming at this from. He (or she) doesn't have to agree with me.
our President is still in denial about the intelligence reports he's getting
I can see how that is one way of looking at it. Being that I'm a Reagan Republican, I guess I see it differently. I see that as a man who is trying to set a positive tone on a complex and ugly situation. I guess I just see it as his way of cheering on the nation, and trying to keep up morale and support for, what can be described as no less than a very difficult situation.
However, I can see how that can be taken in a different light.
Perhaps the problem is that liberal and conservative journalists are all biased, and getting arguably further apart. But journalists, unlike commentators, and most bloggers, insist that they are doing "unbiased" reporting, which is basically impossible. Whatever one reports is colored by bias.
Our journalists should drop the pretense and let us know whether they are biased or not. For example, (dit dit dah) And now Dan Rather (and flash on-screen "Democrat from Texas") reporting from Washington, ".... on with his report".
And tgirsh, as for evidence of bias, just watch the news. Liberals and conservatives are treated differently, not identically, e.g., experts from the right are introduced as "conservative experts" and from the left as "experts". This isn't blatant or harmfull mis-reporting, just bias.
And anyhow, are you really trying to say the NYTimes doesn't have a leftward lean? Or just all media as an aggregate?
Emmaus:
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you here. Because if it were, you would have two problems: First, judges could not rule on cases for which there was no existing precedent or case law, for fear of being labeled "activist." Second, judges could not attempt to rectify previously established -- but bad -- precedent or case law without being labeled "activist." There are plenty of legitimate cases where they ought to do just that.And frankly, that's their job. They are supposed to interpret the law -- as written, not as its authors "intended" -- and weigh it against constitutional concerns.
In some cases, charges of "judicial activism" may be warranted, but charges of "legislating from the bench" are always BS. It's just a catchy but meaningless rhetorical term that people (mostly conservatives, but not always) use whenever a judge rules in a way they don't like.
For all the ink that's spilled over it, it's rare that a judge makes a ruling that is clearly at odds with the constitution and existing precedent, where that ruling is allowed to stand. Interestingly enough, Bush v. Gore is exactly one such case, but nobody really bothered to cry "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" in that case; one wonders why not? (For that matter, Republicans -- the party of "States' Rights" -- had no problem with the Feds overruling Florida's right to conduct its election as its highest court saw fit, something the federal constitution gives them the power to do.)
Oh, and I'm a "he," thanks for asking. Tom, specifically.
tgirsch - I will actually agree with you on most of your previous post. And, I just want to go on the record as saying that I did, in fact, call it "judicial activism" in my post to LL.
I would like to break out a few of your previous comments, and discuss them:
For all the ink that's spilled over it, it's rare that a judge makes a ruling that is clearly at odds with the constitution and existing precedent, where that ruling is allowed to stand.
I will agree with you here. I would note, though, that there are some whoppers that have gone against this, and I think that is where I have a problem. We can discuss the cases, if you'd like.
Interestingly enough, Bush v. Gore is exactly one such case, but nobody really bothered to cry "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" in that case; one wonders why not?
It's notable that case Bush v. Gore was actually brought by Gore, and not Bush. They found against Gore in this case, not for Bush. What I'm trying to say here is that they found that Gore's "evidence" (I use this term broadly) was not strong enough to find for him, so, they ruled against him (that the ballots should be recounted in certain counties, and only certain counties). I'm not 100% sure I fully understand your argument, here, so, clarification would be excellent. I'd like to discuss this further.
For that matter, Republicans -- the party of "States' Rights" -- had no problem with the Feds overruling Florida's right to conduct its election as its highest court saw fit, something the federal constitution gives them the power to do.
I would argue here that, when a state court makes a bad decision, the Supreme Court has the ability to step in and here the case. I think that here, it was a matter of juristiction, too. Since this was a federal electon, that gave the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to step in. Again, though, remember that Gore was actually the one who brought this case to the Supreme Court, and not Bush.
Emmaus:
Fair enough, but rather than just playing the role of cheerleader, I suspect Reagan (or even Bush Sr.) would have also made adjustments. This would have included firing those most responsible for the erroneous estimates (e.g., the expectation that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms and throw flowers instead of bombs), and spelling out a clear plan for improving things moving forward. As far as I can see, Bush has done neither of those things, so that's why I classify it as "denial."Mark:
Competent journalists and, more importantly, their editors, should know how to recognize biases and minimize their appearance, but it seems as though no effort is even made at this any more. Plus, they seem to be operating from a different meaning of "unbiased" than you and I are. They seem to favor balance instead.If I report on something that makes a Republican look bad, I have to go find something that makes a Democrat look bad to balance the picture. If side A makes one claim, and side B makes another, I report both claims without bothering to check the relative merits of the claims. That's what passes as journalistic objectivity these days, and it's sad.
If someone (and I don't care if it's a Democrat, a Republican, or neither) makes a claim, it's the responsibility of the press to check the veracity of the claim before they report on it. Instead, they're just parrots, repeating the talking points that are given to them, with little regard for what's true, what's misleading, and what's demonstrably false.
That's hardly an indication of bias, particularly because conservative experts tend to self-identify as such, whereas liberal experts don't tend to self identify as "liberal," in large part because the conservative movement has succeeded in turning "liberal" into something of a dirty word. At best, they may identify as "progressive."But a more telling statistic than how they're identified is how frequently they appear. On most of the national TV news media, conservative guests significantly outnumber liberal/progressive guests, in some cases as much as by a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio.
And recognizing that it is FAIR and must be viewed through that lens, they did a survey of journalists and found that on eight of nine measured issues, the journalists held positions which were to the right of the general public (about half way down the link).
And I think Wikipedia's entry on media bias makes an excellent point:
No, I've concluded that the media (Fox News excluded) is nowhere near as biased as people make it out to be. It's more about incompetence, and a willingness to simply parrot what they're told.In general, I'm talking about the media as an aggregate. But the NY Times, from what I've seen, is more New York-centric than leftist biased, although I can see how a dyed-in-the-wool conservative could easily confuse the two (or even argue that they're similar).here the case
Faux Pas! It should read: hear the case.
Emmaus:
True, but you also talked about judges "creating law from the bench," and I don't think it's a far stretch to get from "creating law" to "legislating" -- that's what "legislating" means.I would like to discuss this, actually, although we're already pretty far off topic here. Perhaps we could do that in e-mail. tgirsch{at}yahoo.comI really don't think that's accurate. The standard is to list the plaintiff first. And indeed, Bush and Cheney filed the petition, not Gore:It may be that Gore brought the lower court case (in Florida), but Gore won that case.And as for what I'm getting at here, the Supreme Court essentially ruled against Gore's contention that every vote should be counted. You can argue that a statewide recount would have been preferable, and that would be a valid argument; but to argue, as the SC did, that recounts should be halted completely to meet certification by a mostly arbitrary date is, in my estimation, a miscarriage of justice.
And it seems that at least some of the majority justices agree with me, because they took great pains to explicitly state that the ruling should not be in any way construed as establishing precedent (although the three-judge panel of the 9th circuit that originally ruled to halt the California recall tried to use Bush v. Gore as precedent.
I actually agree with you here. But throughout their history, self-proclaimed "States' Rights" advocates rarely do. Except when it's convenient for them. Call me cynical, but my impression of the "States' Rights" movement is that states ought to be able to override the federal government where we don't agree with the federal government, but when we don't agree with the state, then the feds can override them. Witness medical marijuana in California, assisted suicide in Oregon, and Florida 2000 for examples.Actually, if I read Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution correctly (I'm no lawyer), the manner of appointing the electors is explicitly a state issue, not a federal one.Again, you're wrong. Why would Gore bring this to the Supreme Court, when Florida's court had ruled in his favor? "Hooray, I won! Can I appeal now?" If that were the case, then he really doesn't deserve to be president. ;)Well, every date is arbitrary, isn't it? Whether it's set by the legislature, or by the court, using your standard you can always say: what's the hurry?
Let's walk through Al Gore's perfect world--the Supreme Court holds that SCOFLA was correct. Every ballot is counted in every precinct.
In the end, GWB wins the Presidency by over 800 votes.
tgirsch,
You make some good points. In my recollection however, (admittedly it's been a while since I had time to watch any broadcast news), that the "conservative" label was not placed by the guest but the moderator.
Since no effort is being made on un-biasing reporting (whether or not that is feasible in the first case), a call for self-labeling of the reporter's bias might be a step in the right direction.
And what's missing from the polling you cited, is how did they vote in previous elections?
Besides, alas, I don't believe polls are worth spit....
tgirsch - I stand corrected:
No. 00-949.
Dec. 12, 2000.
Democratic candidates for President and Vice President of the United States filed complaint contesting certification of state results in presidential election. The Circuit Court, Leon County, N. Sanders Sauls, J., entered judgment denying all relief, and candidates appealed. The District Court of Appeal certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. On review, the Florida Supreme Court, 772 So.2d 1243, ordered manual recounts of ballots on which machines had failed to detect vote for President. Republican candidates filed emergency application for stay of Florida Supreme Court's mandate. The United States Supreme Court, 531 U.S. 1046, 121 S.Ct. 512, 148 L.Ed.2d 553, granted application, treating it as petition for writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: (1) manual recounts ordered by Florida Supreme Court, without specific standards to implement its order to discern "intent of the voter," did not satisfy minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary, under Equal Protection Clause, to secure fundamental right to vote for President, and (2) remand of case to Florida Supreme Court for it to order constitutionally proper contest would not be appropriate remedy.
Reversed and remanded.
I would note (1).. here lies the crux of the ruling. Also, it was remanded back to the Florida Supreme Court.
Since no effort is being made on un-biasing reporting (whether or not that is feasible in the first case), a call for self-labeling of the reporter's bias might be a step in the right direction.
And what's missing from the polling you cited, is how did they vote in previous elections?
I'd have to agree with Mark on these points. I know that for me, personally, I definitely take into account the political bent of the person I'm listening to (or reading). Call it "filtering," but, I think that unbiased reporting is impossible. It would just be better if all news organizations and reporters came out and let their personal biases be known.
Emmaus:
I consulted my "judicial ruling geek" for more details about Bush v. Gore, and he informs me that the original suit in Florida was filed by Bush, requesting that the recounts (which were already underway) be stopped. Further, he tells me that the conservatives on the US Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, went against both established precedent and their own past writing and decisions in making the ruling. That has to be construed as "judicial activism" if the term is to have any meaning. (And, indeed, disregard for precedent is judicial activism by your definition).
That has to be construed as "judicial activism" if the term is to have any meaning. (And, indeed, disregard for precedent is judicial activism by your definition).
Agreed. I would consider that "judical activism" to a certain extent. I would agree that this was, most likely, going against precedent.
After reading much of the opinion for Bush v. Gore, I would argue that the issue was not so much a purely legal one, as it was a constitutional question. I would encourage you to read the opinion:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=SupremeCourt&STEMMER=en&WORDS=00+949+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match
Emmaus:
Again, I guess it depends what your definition of "bias" is. I'd agree that it's virtually impossible to strip all traces of personal bias from a story, but the question becomes whether that bias is substantial enough to sway the viewer's/reader's/listener's opinion. The way I define bias, as it pertains to reporting in the media, is "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Emphasis added, because the latter clause is crucial. To my mind, media bias is not significant unless it interfere's with the audience's ability to make impartial decisions. Selective reporting of facts would constitute this sort of bias (e.g., leaving out certain facts that make party X look bad). Also, inappropriate use of incendiary terms "murder," "terrorist," could also be indiciative of such biases.Some time back, I challenged readers to come up with specific examples of the supposedly pervasive liberal bias on NPR's Morning Edition or All Things Considered, and nobody was able to come up with any significant examples. In fact, I was even able to list a couple of examples of mild conservative bias. The best anyone could do was find several-year-old examples of perceived anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian bias (which NPR has acknowledged and worked to rectify), but that can hardly be considered a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, unless you think New York jews are "conservatives." :) (One troll did copy and paste a list of several dozen "examples," but after working through the first half-dozen entries, not one constituted a legitimate example of liberal bias.) More details on this here.