So I'll admit that my blog yesterday was more than a little snarky. Although the overall point I was making (that David Brooks and other dispassionate observers of politics are almost allergic to pragmatic ideas from liberals) was a fair one, my disdain for the arrogance of the Washington intelligensia poisoned my argument. That fact was on full display today during lunch... Read More »
As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I've been busily spreading the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why. Read More »
This morning, the New York Timesstory reporting the loss of 80,000 jobs is flanked by ads for Tiffany & Co.'s "celebration rings." According to Tiffany, "There are times to celebrate...Maybe just because."
Right. Americans lost far more jobs in March than economists had predicted, and I'm going to commemorate the event with a $7,500 diamond ring.
The New York Times' Health page has an interesting article up that discusses different studies done on binge drinking. Before heading out to a tropical destination for spring break, check it out.
In a series of studies in the 1970s and ’80s, psychologists at the University of Washington put more than 300 students into a study room outfitted like a bar with mirrors, music and a stretch of polished pine. The researchers served alcoholic drinks, most often icy vodka tonics, to some of the students and nonalcoholic ones, usually icy tonic water, to others. The drinks looked and tasted the same, and the students typically drank five in an hour or two.
The studies found that people who thought they were drinking alcohol behaved exactly as aggressively, or as affectionately, or as merrily as they expected to when drunk. “No significant difference between those who got alcohol and those who didn’t,” Alan Marlatt, the senior author, said. “Their behavior was totally determined by their expectations of how they would behave.”
First, Bill Kristol cites Michelle Malkin when he meant Michael Medved. Now we get this embarrassing (and still uncorrected, as of this writing) error from the latest David Brooks column:
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.
Ward Churchill? The Native-American Marxist "chickens-coming-home-to-roost" dude? I'm pretty sure he means Ward Connerly. Lesson for the fact-checkers here: you gotta check the name beyond the initials.
p.s. an alternative explanation: Could this be some kind of subversive act of neocon solidarity from Brooks?
I'll leave the dissection of the arguments in Bill Kristol's column today to those more qualified to discuss the myriad failings and instabilities of the war in Iraq.
I will, however, comment on the correction posted to his column last week--turns out that quote he attributed to Michelle Malkin really belonged to Michael Medved. What a relief! The thinking world was up in arms that Kristol would quote so reviled a source of mindless conservative rhetoric in his examination of Republican presidential nominees—turns out he was quoting a guy who thinks “Happy Feet” was part of the evil gay agenda that’s invading America. A big step up, I’d say.
The premiere of Bill Kristol’s New York Times column, unsurprisingly, leaves much to be desired. It seems that in the face of so much frothing anticipation, Kristol opted for the kind of ordinary primary season piece that’s dominated op-ed pages in recent weeks (ok, months). If you’re looking for the Kristol we all love to hate, look elsewhere.
Instead of doing anything interesting, Kristol, like many conservatives, bemoans the slim pickings in the Republican primary. Worried that a Democratic president would, among other things, "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq," Kristol tries to build up Huckabee as a looming threat that Democrats are too dumb to understand. But instead of selling the candidate, he offers up a very safe “maybe he is, maybe he isn’t” argument about Huckabee’s chances as the Republicans’ strongest nominee.
Despite its unoriginal thesis, it’s worth reading just to say you did. Check it out here.
Struggling with the egregiousness of Bill Kristol's appointment as a Times colulmnist, I turned in desperation to National Review, where a few years back editor Jay Nordlinger wrote up a serviceable little guide to "going Timesless." It's written from a right perspective, naturally, but makes some good points: the paper can be pompous and dull and pretentious; and why must Maureen Dowd or (the now deceased) R.W. Apple direct the day's conversation? We can add to that list the fact that, as Jesse pointed out, the paper is ridiculously elitist (my favorite recent headline in that regard:"Not Down and Out in Moscow"). Nordlinger writes:
The proliferation of media has lessened the importance of the Times; so have the newspaper's mistakes (which include too great a kinship with the Democratic National Committee). To be sure, there are some unmissable individuals in the paper, such as John F. Burns in Iraq. But, seemingly every day, journalists and others are discovering that they don't have to consume the whole deal.
Nordlinger also cites the good counsel--now freshly relevant--of George Seldes, the great investigative reporter of the last century. One of Seldes' books had a chapter titled "How to Read the Editorial Pages." There was just one word: "Don't."
I can't decide whether this passage, from a Patrick Healy/Adam Nagourney story on Hillary Clinton and the so-called gender card, is the result of shoddy editing or a laughable assumption on the part of the authors:
In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.
Right, as if the virtually total domination of presidential politics by white men for the past 200+ years suggests that race and sex have been absent from that domain. Rather than completely and overwhelmingly present. Unbelievable.
Condensation by editors often drains nuance from writers' copy, but this seems way beyond that. Thoughts?
CNN reports that 1,436 people have lost their homes in the fires. One person was killed in the fires, five died post-evacuation, and 78 people were injured, 36 of them firefighters. At the peak of the disaster, a million people were under evacuation orders. But, thanks to the Times, we can at least take comfort in the fact that, among Hollywood's millionaires and billionaires, "Reports of actual losses were few. Disruptions and inconveniences were easier to track."
There was a link to this story on the front page of nytimes.com.
I know it's not productive or original for me to get annoyed at the New York Times's ridiculously elitist tendencies, but, still, this article about the realities of women "dating down" (women in their 20s now make more than men of the same age, on average, in cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis) really took it too far.
Yes, the piece does make some good points about how men and women are expected to react to having money. But the interesting sociological observations are drowned out by stuff like this:
Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket.
“I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.”
That's rough. Good luck with that. I think my fundamental problem with the Times is that I forget that, despite the fact that it's considered a national paper, when it comes to lifestyle reporting it's still catering to New York City and Manhattan in particular -- a Never-Never Land where the average salary is over $75,500.
I got an exciting email in my inbox today from the New York Times. TimesSelect is no more. All NYT columns and op-eds, as well as News Tracker and Times File, will be available to everyone free of charge.
A few months ago, the Times started offering free subscriptions to TimesSelect to college students or folks with a .edu address. Today's announcement marks a shift towards an even more open environment. I'd say that's a pretty neat thing.
New York Times online science section posts psychologist Roy Baumeister's comments on gender, as a part of an ongoing online discussion on his new speech "Is There Anything Good About Men?" Baumeister's opinions are certainly valid, but lack in acknowledgment of the academic discourse already surrounding this issue, which leaves his post somewhat surface and disappointing.
The article focuses on how far we’ve come as a society, what with medical advances, walking on the moon, and over populating the earth. The author muses on what could be so wrong with such a tremendously successful civilization. And while I can appreciate that as a group, people have accomplished a lot, I find it shallow and unsatisfying to simply attempt to address the fact that men are continually put down and scolded for being oppressive, even if they’re perfectly nice people. Read More »
The New York Times Magazine is running a contest that may interest CP readers. All you have to do is read an essay by Rick Perlstein entitled "What's the Matter With College?" and write a response to it. What are you waiting for? Get to it.
It's open to all college students. More details here.
Glenn Greenwald posted this morning on something that should be receiving far more attention: the Bush administration’s borderline-desperate, last-minute attempts to link the Iraq war to the fight against Al Qaeda, and the media’s alarming pliability on this topic. Greenwald references an important column written by the New York Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt.
As far as I can tell, this is a new thing. The old system involved free access for students whose University was in a Times Readership program and required some kind of access code, and a 50% discount for other students.
They seem to now be offering completely free access for all university students and faculty. If anybody knows different, please comment. Until then, I'm waiting for my confirmation e-mail, and all the mind-shatteringly insightfuloverly-simplistic tripe Thomas Friedman can churn out.
Mass media’s mission is not providing quality information; it’s about winning a competition for your attention.
This hypothesis is made clear in this article which appeared on the front page of The New York Times last week. With the loss of several staple anchors in the last couple of years (one to lung cancer another to an Iraqi IED) there appears to be a substantial power vacuum in the world of evening news. No longer is NBC the head-hauncho of night time information, their ratings have slipped to rival company ABC and now the networks are shifting around lineups trying to figure out how to keep enough viewers to stay at the top.
What I find really interesting about this article is the way in which the New York Times describes the current situation of its contemporary news outlets. It’s interesting because as one mass media program evaluates the situation of another, we can witness a kind of psychological analysis of how mass media views itself.
What I am talking about is based off of George Lakoff’s work with conceptual metaphors. A detailed inspection of how language creates specific impressions, assumptions, and mental images when a certain word is used.
In this example, The New York Times is a news outlet reporting about another news outlet, and so their insight, as a contemporary of the mass media they are reporting about lends perspective as to how mass media conceptualizes itself. Let’s look at what words The New York Times uses to describe the current situation in evening news …
This language sounds appropriate for a commentator on ESPN or for the Super bowl, but this article is referring to the media which is supposed to provide millions of people with factual news, not quality entertainment. What the New York Times article shows us is that the priority of major news networks is beating out their competition. They conceptualize their existence as a competitive market and it would follow that they believe that their ratings are the most important thing at stake. In the background I can hear Ricky Bobby yell "If you're not first, your're last!"
At some point this mentality would be acceptable, if the focus of these news networks was to increase ratings by improving their ability to deliver accurate news, but the changes being made are aesthetic in nature. Undoubtedly changing the face of the anchor does not affect the accuracy of the reporting, but that is precisely the networks response.
What is at stake for news networks is $500 million dollars in advertising and the reason for the competitive mentality. They will do whatever is necessary, changing faces, flashy graphics, music, makeup and plastic surgery – anything to make you watch.
There needs to be a serious adjustment to the mission of mass media. It is not the entertainment industry. I say we need a mass media news market where advertisements are left for the Super bowl.
In a typical display of the utter vacuity of conervative punditry in general and his shtick in particular, David Brooks wastes his New York Timescolumn">Link on a cranky, silly rant today. Instead of addressing any real crises in the world, like the escalating civil war in Iraq, or even a substantial problem facing American families, Brooks indulges his narcissistic obsession with "Bobos'" parenting habits.
Brooks, who resides in a posh D.C. suburb, opens with a scurrilous attack on some supposed denizens of my native Park Slope, Brooklyn. Says Brooks:
Can we please see the end of Park Slope alternative Stepford Moms in their black-on-black materinty tunics who turn their babies into fashion-forward, anti-corporate indie-infants in order to stay one step ahead of the cool police.
Can we stop hearing about downtown parents who dress their babies in black skull slippers, Punky Monkey t-shirts and camo toddler ponchos until the little ones end up looking like sad parody clones of mom and dad?
And, of course, his description of the trend and what's wrong with it, like most conservative cultural moral panic attacks, is totally non-sensical and bereft of any empirical evidence. Stepford Moms don't have jobs, but in my 23 years of living in Park Slope the overwhelming majority of mothers I knew worked, and Brooks cites no evidence to prove otherwise. I also tutored the children of some of those hip downtown parents Brooks rails against. I saw no negative impact on their behavior, educational outcomes or psychological well-being from the trendy attire their parents purchased, and, of course, Brooks offers no evidence that there is any. He merely asserts that parents who dress their children like themselves are failing to respect "the dignity of youth." Who knew Oshkosh Bigosh overalls were so dignified?
More importantly, why is the Times indulging this pabulum? Their Sunday paper is widely read by the country's elite. They have Nicholas Kristof reporting from Ethiopa on one page and Brooks bloviating on fluffy topics on the other. OK, so it's good to balance Kristof's depressing dispatches with something lighter. That's why they have an acerbic politcal-cultural critic in Frank Rich on the Sunday op-ed page. And if they want a conservative they should find one who can offer something of value to the readers who shell out five dollars for a Sunday paper.
Cross-posted on TAPPED. Read the responses here, here and here.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
