Thoughts on the ongoing JournoList story
— Contra some members of the defunct e-mail listserv, its contents aren’t boring and innocuous, though Jonathan Chait persuasively demonstrates that The Daily Caller is misleading in some of its characterizations (see the additional e-mails he posts).
— It’s telling that so far there haven’t been any journalists who claim to write with neutrality who’ve been caught in a lie. As yet, all the people urging different coverage on colleagues have been opinion folks. I think that it’s perfectly fine for openly opinionated journalists to argue that the merits of a situation demand different coverage, but objectionable to urge a certain kind of coverage for purely tactical reasons — stepping outside the world of “objective” reporting doesn’t absolve you of the journalistic imperative to put pursuit of truth and accurate renderings of reality above all else, no matter the ideological results. Leave information trickery to activists.
— Spencer Ackerman is a talented reporter whose work on the War on Terrorism and related issues I very much value and admire, even if I don’t much care for his least temperate outbursts.
It vexes and disappoints me that he wrote this:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes them sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
There’s a lot to object to in there. Let’s zero in on the worst of it. It is inexcusable to advocate targeting someone as a racist not because there is truth to the charge, but because it might improve the left’s chances in ideological battle. It isn’t merely that cynically using race as a political cudgel weakens the charge so that there is skepticism even when racism is actually happening. The worst thing about this — and other things are very bad indeed — is that Mr. Ackerman’s strategy inevitably involves persuading minorities that more people bear racially motivated animosity toward them than is in fact the case.
— Insofar as I know, neither Mr. Ackerman nor anyone else on Journolist actually followed through with cynical race-baiting, which is to their credit. Ironically, their staunchest critic, Andrew Breitbart, is engaged in that kind of behavior right now.
— Readers might recall that the Jeremiah Wright story was rather well covered during Election 2008. In other words, the most activist inclined members of JournoList weren’t very influential in shaping coverage even given a private forum to lobby a bunch of their colleagues.
— Here is the entirety of Kevin Drum’s role on The Daily Caller’s story:
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
Here is how Mark Levin characterizes Mr. Drum’s role: (drum roll) link.
— It’s also worth observing that the Spencer Ackerman approach to political discourse as articulated above (though not practiced in his published work that I’ve seen, which isn’t nearly all of it), and the Andrew Breitbart approach, contain a striking similarity: Does the truth or relevance of racism accusations matter? Actually, it’s just a propaganda tool to be used in the ideological battleground of public discourse, where my side is right, we must send the other guys a message, and the ends justify the means because this is war, blah blah blah.
But American journalism isn’t merely an arena where progressives and movement conservatives battle it out for rhetorical supremacy. And everyone who views it that way is part of the problem — they persuade themselves that any behavior is justified, because the other side started it. But that’s nonsense. This scorched earth, activist approach to public discourse began long before any of us were born, the guy who “started it” is a long forgotten member of an indeterminate side, and his approach hasn’t yet overwhelmed us only because most people who participate in America’s ongoing conversation aim higher.
— Finally, I can’t help but reflect that beyond being wrong, the race-baiting that Mr. Ackerman rants about once on a private list-serv, and that Mr. Breitbart ostentatiously engages in on public sites, is basically pointless even as political strategy. Why don’t more people realize this? Does it seem at all plausible that accusing Fred Barnes of racism would actually advance the long term prospects of progressivism? Is it really plausible that any insult Mr. Ackerman offers is going to leave hack conservatives “sputtering in fear”? Come on. Being attacked by strident progressives helps people like Karl Rove, just like a virulent, unfair attack by Karl Rove would be about the best thing that could happen to Spencer Ackerman.
Similarly, consider the output of Andrew Breitbart. Ultimately, is it a victory for conservatism to make the NAACP look bad, or to force ACORN to reorganize under a different name, or to force the resignation of Van Jones, or to target this poor woman at the USDA? Hardly. The short term tactical victory is a distraction that gives the feeling of victory without actually shrinking the size of government or accomplishing any other conservative end. As far as I can tell, this is how politics works in the United States.
And if conservatives want to actually improve the country, rather than satisfy a trumped up lust for inconsequential victories in the culture war’s most absurd corners, they’d do better to focus on stories like this one. As I’ve noted before, journalism is a profession overwhelmingly populated by liberals, so they can afford to have some of their talent spending energy targeting Fred Barnes and doing other inconsequential bullshit — meanwhile the New York Times still gets published every day and the New Yorker comes out every week. The right doesn’t have this luxury. Unfortunately, many folks on the right think that battling the most vitriolic folks on the left is productive, despite the absence of any evidence for that proposition. Now I am going to eat a delicious peach from Trader Joes.
It’s not entirely clear if Ackerman was suggesting that people make spurious allegations of racism against prominent conservatives. Maybe he thought that Rove, Barnes, and a bunch of other rightwingers really are racists. Then the idea would have been to put the rightwingers who are trying to make racialized attacks on the defensive by highlighting the racism behind those attacks, putting the focus on one racist individual to make the counterattack more effective. Still not an admirable suggestion, but not as bad as accusing a non-racist person of racism just for political advantage.
— Brad · Jul 21, 09:54 PM · #
Trader Joes is a socialist.
— Scrooge McDuck · Jul 22, 01:39 AM · #
“Being attacked by strident progressives helps people like Karl Rove, just like a virulent, unfair attack by Karl Rove would be about the best thing that could happen to Spencer Ackerman.”
I dunno about that.
I think what Ackerman is reacting against here is a media narrative that is constantly slanted in favor of the right. Rev. Wright yelling was the pretty much the only story the media covered for about 2 weeks. And recall the health care reform reporting— media regurgitation of Beck/Rove/Palin/Boehner fantasies about death panels drove support for the bill down, even though when people were polled on everything in the bill individually, they favored everything in there (except the mandate, which Republicans were for before they were against it). This post strikes me as a good example of the media’s tendency to assume that the Democrats should all be quaking in fear at whatever nonsense the right is about to throw at them.
Remember, even though everyone (minus one or two House Dems) voted to authorize the use of force, Karl Rove later claimed that liberals wanted to give Osama bin Laden therapy after 9/11. No negative consequences to Mr. Rove, just a bit of poison in the discourse. Andrew Breitbart has destroyed one organization and gotten someone fired. (And conservatives do take it as a win when fewer minorities are registered to vote, which is why they hated Acorn). All based on lies and selective editing, with no negative consequences to Mr. Breitbart.
As Josh Marshall put it, DC is wired for Republicans. I think Ackerman was reacting against that aspect of our discourse.
I could be completely wrong about it all, of course, but that was how it read to me, in the context of the media’s Wrightfest.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Jul 22, 02:52 AM · #
“The media’s tendency to assume that Democrats should all be quaking in fear of whatever the right throws at them.”
I find that movement liberals tend to attribute superpowers to The Right far more than does the mainstream media. They would rather not believe that the left-liberal agenda has simply alienated the median voter; rather, they ignore the agency of the median voter, and assume that he is merely acted on by an endless tug of war between right and left, and by such things as the state of the economy.
Elvis Elvisberg’s own take on the health care debate is typical of the genre; the Republicans, trusted far less than Democrats on health care and lacking the White House megaphne, nevertheless used jedi mindtricks to win the public opinion debate over health care.
There are other explanations available. For instance: as the extensively covered debate went on, people became better informed, and focused less on things like partisan identification and more on the changes in decision-making power that would result from the bill being considered. As these changes did not coincide with most voters’ preferences, most people turned against the bill.
— Aaron · Jul 22, 03:39 AM · #
Aaron is right. As the public became better informed, they began to turn against the health care bill.
I find that, inevitably, as people become better informed, they become more conservative.
— Osama Von McIntyre · Jul 22, 03:57 AM · #
“There are other explanations available. For instance: as the extensively covered debate went on, people became better informed, and focused less on things like partisan identification and more on the changes in decision-making power that would result from the bill being considered. As these changes did not coincide with most voters’ preferences, most people turned against the bill.”
Not to get off topic, but the above is ridiculous BS. Very few people have actually read that bill. In fact, very few americans have more than a super vauge idea of what is in the bill at all. WHat the vast majority do know of the bill is opinions that have been handed down to them from their favorite media source or from friends, family, or co-workers who got it from their favorite media source, including any view on “changes in decision-making power.”
That is how our political class (among others) uses the media (knowing that the average american hasn’t the time, education, or patientce to inform themselves about anything actual). They use it to project opinions, impressions, feelings about the actual onto the populace. If enough people have a certain opinion or feel a certain way, then this becomes power that can be wielded, and not just in the ballot box.
— cw · Jul 22, 04:01 AM · #
It’s fun watching the contortions people go through to justify the journolist behavior. Do it some more!
— The Reticulator · Jul 22, 05:44 AM · #
saggsdfg
— Coach Jewelry · Jul 22, 08:01 AM · #
Yes! Chet comes through for us. More!
(Oldie but goodie: “that some journalists emailed each other?” An oldie, but I still like that technique. Makes me nostalgic for the days of the Clinton coverup.)
— The Reticulator · Jul 22, 12:44 PM · #
“When you don’t call it liberal or Democratic, the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of…health care reform.” – Chet
Why would calling it Democratic hurt its chances? At the beginning of the debate, more Americans trusted Democrats on health care than did not:
“At 58%, Obama fares better than congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle; however, the Democratic leaders in Congress have more credibility on healthcare reform than do the Republican leaders: 42% vs. 34%,” (Gallup, June ’09: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/healthcare-americans-trust-physicians-politicians.aspx)
“WHat the vast majority do know of the bill is opinions that have been handed down to them from their favorite media source or from friends, family, or co-workers who got it from their favorite media source…That is how our political class (among others) uses the media.”
Did the Democratic wing of our political class suddenly become vastly better at using the media between 2004 and 2006, and vastly worse between 2008 and 2010? Did the median voter change his or her favorite media source twice during those time periods? Do the majority of Americans now exclusively watch the Fox News Channel?
During the health care debate, sources such as the Associated Press devoted what I thought was a great deal of effort to summarizing the issues. I will agree that the vast majority of people are not and cannot be policy wonks. It is a bit of a leap between that fact and the conclusion that they are less well-informed after a highly visible debate than before it.
Osama:
“As the public became better informed, they began to turn against the health care bill….Better informed about its Marxist nature.”
The possibilities I see are Jedi Mind Tricks and a better informed public. The better informed public explanation has the advantage of explaining the changes between 2008 and 2010, in light of changing circumstances: the massive coverage, by partisans and by neutral sources, of the issue, the numerous Presidential speeches and interviews on the issue, etc; whereas the Jedi abilities of either side have not obviously changed.
Does the median voter think the bill is Marxist? I haven’t seen polling, but I find this unlikely. The median voter and many left-of-center voters do believe that the bill will increase the deficit, according to all polls I’ve seen. I haven’t seen numbers on the rationing of care- when they’re being honest, progressives usually don’t deny that insurance companies and government ration care, but argue that it is preferable for government to do so than for the market to do so. If the health care debate encouraged people to think about whether they agree with this proposition, that does not mean that they were irrational.
***
If I’m wrong, then I suppose the only solution is to embrace the Ackerman rhetorical theory?
— Aaron · Jul 22, 02:10 PM · #
Aaron: you evidently have no nose for cheap sarcasm…
— Osama Von McIntyre · Jul 22, 02:30 PM · #
I understood that you were being sarcastic about the public being “well informed,” and I took your post in that spirit. If you agree with me that the median voter disagreed with the Right’s rhetoric about Marxism, while nevertheless opposing the bill, then you are well on your way to acknowledging that voters in the middle make distinctions on their own, rather than simply being acted upon by rhetoric from Left and Right.
— Aaron · Jul 22, 04:04 PM · #
“Did the Democratic wing of our political class suddenly become vastly better at using the media between 2004 and 2006, and vastly worse between 2008 and 2010?”
Aaron, either you are being disingenuous as a debate tactic or you do not have a sophisticated grasp of american politics (or any politics) to be commenting on this topic. Either way it’s painful.
— cw · Jul 22, 05:56 PM · #
Um, I recall the polling showed that, as the negotiations dragged on, the popularity of Health Care Reform fell because a) conservatives got more organized and negative (see death panels) and, b) liberals were disappointed that the changes did not go far enough.
I can’t master the html foo here, but there were CBS polls in January essentially showing 30% thought HCR went too far while 35% thought it didn’t go far enough with 20ish saying it was about right.
That is NOT the same as saying the majority opposed HCR because the public supported the status-quo or the very, very minor Republican tweaks.
— jehrler · Jul 22, 08:10 PM · #
cw: It’s the second, I assure you. But even debate tactics are better than tactics for avoiding debate.
Jehler: Nor is it the same thing as saying that a majority of people opposed the bill because they were tricked by Sarah Palin.
Chet: That’s an interesting theory about political moderates. I don’t know how you would square it with the financial regulation debate, or the fact that a majority of Americans trusted the Democratic Party and especially President Obama on the health care issue at the beginning of the HCR debate, or the way in which GWB turned Democratic opposition to his version of the Department of Homeland Security legislation against the Party, or the popularity of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in the face of Democratic opposition.
“The latest cognitive science…demonstrates that attempts at mythbusting typically only reinforce the myth in people’s minds.”
Better, but still a leap; this doesn’t explain the change in views throughout the course of the debate. What myths that people were already predisposed to were reinforced through the course of the debate?
— Aaron · Jul 23, 02:24 AM · #
“Why wouldn’t they trust them.” Exactly. If it’s just a matter of who you trust, as opposed to the information you have on the issues, it would have been Democrats all the way.
“What?”
What is it about that phrase that is not clear to you?
“Rationing, death panels, waiting times, the like.”
Bill James: “All discussions have bullshit dumps; we need them….Thus, in all discussions, the least precise areas become bullshit dumps, elements of the discussion which are used to reconcile our formal logic to our intuitive sense of right or wrong, justice or injustice, accuracy or inaccuracy, reason or madness, moderation or extremity…‘Karma’ is a popular bullshit dump. In politics, ‘sensitivity’ is a bullshit dump; so is the ‘influence of the media.’”
http://books.google.com/books?id=mUzTJ4-8N0EC&pg=RA2-PT221&lpg=RA2-PT221&dq=%22bill+james%22+%22bullshit+dump%22&source=bl&ots=UEomaNp8Mx&sig=hyKdvuJrWCoynA92Bp3zM45NLRs&hl=en&ei=AlJITPOtCtKinQfW_5T5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
This is exactly right; which is not to deny that the media has influence, only that the way people think about this influence tends to be highly imprecise and therefore self-serving. Anybody who is losing a public opinion battle can point to vague impressions of unfairness, always in lieu of analysis, usually defined by single slogans (“rationing,” “death panels,” “waiting times.”)
If people are predisposed to associate universal health care with things they dislike, one wonders how the idea ever became popular in the abstract. I am not sure why you consider rationing to be a myth. Obviously insurance companies and government ration care; the progressive argument was simply that it is better that they do so than that market prices do so. It is possible that median voters believed that the bill was designed so that government rationers are malevolent, but it is also possible that they simply rejected that progressive argument.
Moreover, I have yet to have anyone explain to me the process by which the Democrats suddenly became vastly less adept than Republicans at verbal subtleties. When Nancy Pelosi said that we could cut Medicare without hurting people by reducing “waste, fraud and abuse,” why didn’t that convince people? Politicians for decades have been promising that they can cut these things, ignoring the mockery of policy wonks. Clearly they regard it as a myth people are predisposed to believe. I still want an explanation for why Barack Obama, starting only in 2009, could not match Sarah Palin’s oratorical powers.
— Aaron · Jul 23, 04:25 AM · #
Aaron— most people don’t pay close attention to the ins and outs of the political debates. During the health care debate, we had one side saying, “this will reduce the deficit and expand the number of insured,” and the other side saying, “death panels, Marxism, kill grandma!” The media reported it as a live debate (see “this exchange“http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1864/republican-tax-nonsense#comment-8476 , in which Bruce Bartlett writes, “The press has not done its job[,] which is one reason why it is dying. Reporters refuse to call a spade a spade. Why, I don’t know.)
If you’re not paying close attention you get the impression that there’s a disagreement, and probably both sides are a bit to blame— especially when the debate drags on for many months, and all the news you hear is about political wrangling. It’s not jedi mind tricks, it’s just human nature.
There is zero disincentive for conservatives to lie, because the media doesn’t report facts, it reports what the two sides say.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Jul 23, 01:13 PM · #
Home medical equipment is a category of devices which is used for patients whose care is being managed from a home or other private facility managed by a nonprofessional caregiver or family member.
— durable medical equipment sale · Jul 27, 07:16 AM · #