Quote Of The Day
Mark Levin, who I’ve known for a long time, he has said some awful things about me. He declared this minor war on National Review, which I find baffling. He’s constantly ripping into my friend Steve Hayes. But at the end of the day, look, even if you’re willing to concede all the stuff Friedersdorf does about Mark Levin, the problem is that Mark Levin – his myriad talents and successes notwithstanding – is not the pope of conservatism.
And the reality is that very very few people listen to Mark Levin who don’t already agree with Mark Levin. The idea that Mark Levin is doing some profound damage to the country or the conservative movement rests on the idea that there are all these liberals tuning in who would otherwise be persuaded by Bill Buckley, but instead are being turned off by Mark. I don’t buy the logic of it.
My position on the conservative movement is that different people need to do different things. As I put it in that C-Span interview, it’s not the best analogy, but if you’ve got to tear down a house and replace it with another one, you need some guys with sledgehammers and earth movers, those are the people like Levin and Glenn Beck, some of those guys. But you also need people who do the fine carpentry and detail work. The way Bill Buckley or George Will or Charles Krauthammer might, or the guys at the Claremont Review of Books. It’s like a symphony. You need the string instruments and you need the percussion.
And there are all these people who think it’s up to conservatives to get rid of the percussion section because it’s too loud. And I don’t buy that. I think you need some people whose job it is to buck up and be cheerleaders for our own side. And you need some people who are going to be kind of Jesuitical proselytizers for conservatism, and go out among the masses and try to convert them.
And you need everybody in between. And I know I’m mangling and mixing my metaphors with reckless abandon here – there are people who love Ann Coulter because Ann is fantastic at getting conservative audiences to laugh and get revved up. And I think Ann is great at that stuff and she should be celebrated for it. But she’s not very good at going into an audience with a lot of moderates and middle-of-the-roaders and people sitting on a fence, and converting them to conservatism. She pushes people who aren’t already convinced to the other side. That doesn’t mean we should denounce Ann Coulter. It does mean that maybe we shouldn’t send her into audiences where she isn’t the right person to go there. That’s fine, just like we shouldn’t send David Brooks or David Gergen, heaven forfend, to a meeting of CPAC. You wouldn’t send one of those guys into CPAC and come out with some sort of platish, one the one hand, on the other hand kind of talk. You would send Ann Coulter into CPAC, and Ann Coulter would clean their clock with that sort of thing. But everyone has got different talents, and you use them for different things.
– Jonah Goldberg, in conversation with D.R. Tucker
So, if there was a right-winger out there advocating the sexual abuse of children, Goldberg wouldn’t denounce him because such a character might be useful in promoting conservatism amongst pedophile voters?
The sad thing is that even if you were to carefully and in great detail explain and demonstrate to Goldberg that his idea of putting the health of the conservative movement above all considerations of morality, ethics and decency is a one-for-one match to how early 20th century Communists thought about their enterprise, he still wouldn’t get it.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 20, 04:57 PM · #
“So, if there was a right-winger out there advocating the sexual abuse of children, Goldberg wouldn’t denounce him because such a character might be useful in promoting conservatism amongst pedophile voters?”
You are obviously the Hyperbolator for the left, doing your job. Good job.
— mike farmer · Dec 20, 05:45 PM · #
“She pushes people who aren’t already convinced to the other side. That doesn’t mean we should denounce Ann Coulter. It does mean that maybe we shouldn’t send her into audiences where she isn’t the right person to go there”
He implies that what Coulter says to the committed base will only be heard by the base. That is not the way todays media works. Since Bush left office Rush and Palin are the face of the GOP to the public. Hardly anyone has heard of Brooks or Gergen by comparison.
In the excerpt Goldberg does not even mention whether what Levin and Coulter says is true. He probably does not care. He only cares that his tribe wins.
— Mercer · Dec 20, 07:05 PM · #
Coulter is a hater, but Goldberg won’t disown her because she has a role to play (in fact she should be celebrated!) Beck is a hate and fear monger (“President Obama is a racist”) but Goldberg won’t disown him either (and Beck often promotes Goldberg’s “book”.)
Where does Goldberg say that anything is beyond the pale? I don’t see the problem with Mike’s comment. And Mercer is correct that Goldberg makes it pretty clear that the truth of what these people say doesn’t matter.
The only thing that seems to matter is that they are on his side. Nasty stuff, I’d say.
— Socrates · Dec 20, 07:21 PM · #
Goldberg should win some kind of award for most metaphors per paragraph.
— Kevin Lawrence · Dec 20, 07:24 PM · #
Socrates, although it doesn’t make it any better, in the war of two parties, each side has weapons, and the ones on the right are no more hateful and fearmongering than the Ed Shultzes and Olbermanns and Moores on the left. But neither side supports pedophiles, as far as I know — let’s not get carried away.
— mike farmer · Dec 20, 07:42 PM · #
I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone pulled out the Goldberg defense: “Liberals do it too / Liberals are worse / etc.”
(And used to defend Goldberg himself!)
Weak.
— Socrates · Dec 20, 08:29 PM · #
No, Socrates, you just don’t like a fair analysis. It’s more fun when one side can get bashed and everyone joins in the ass-slappin fun. I prefaced my response with the fact it doesn’t make it better — it just makes it the same.
— mike farmer · Dec 20, 08:32 PM · #
I think fair analysis is just dandy.
When will you be providing this?
Saying there are haters and liars on the left is true, but, that’s not the issue here.
Show us a quote by a mainstream liberal, comparable to Jonah Goldberg, who defends haters and liars on the left by saying that they are useful to me and to the cause.
— Socrates · Dec 20, 09:47 PM · #
I simply do not understand all the recent (it seems recent) hyperventilation about the “lack of civility in our political discourse”. When did all these people become so sensitive?
— steve walsh · Dec 20, 10:08 PM · #
I’m used to Goldberg’s weaseling, but this is a new low. As Mercer said, it’s not as if Coulter and Levin talk behind closed doors (thought I’d personally be fine with them not speaking at all).
Tom
— Tom Meyer · Dec 20, 10:38 PM · #
Socrates,
Are you corrupting the youth of Athens again?! You claim “Coulter is hater” but provide no evidence of her hate. You also claim Beck “is a hate and fear monger” and you back that claim up with one quote from Beck: “President Obama is a racist”. Now unless you are using a strange and idiosyncratic definition of “hate and fear monger” I don’t understand how one gets from claiming Obama is a racist (which may or may not be true and may or may not be helpful to win over moderates) = hate and fear monger. What’s hateful about calling out someone on a matter of policy, even if you do it in a forceful and argumentative manner?
You remind me more of Diogenes running around with your lamp looking for a true hater…
— Jeff Singer · Dec 21, 12:25 AM · #
“You claim “Coulter is hater” but provide no evidence of her hate.”
When she said some of the 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands death I think most people would classify the comment as hateful and disgusting.
— Mercer · Dec 21, 02:04 AM · #
Socrates, it’s like the village of Dinkers whose enemies were from the village of Wonks. The Dinkers caught a Wonk on the road and brought him back to the Head Dinker who decided to be fair — rather than kill the Wonk, the Head Dinker told the Wonk he would put him in the arena with a tiger, and if the Wonk could beat the tiger, he could go free. Before the great event, they buried the Wonk up to his neck in the center of the arena, and they starved the tiger for three days before the event. The Dinkers let the tiger loose in the arena, and the tiger’s vision was blurred from hunger, but he spotted the head of the Wonk and went charging towards it, leaping and missing the mark the first time, then missing the second time, and on the third leap as the tiger was going over the Wonk’s head, the Wonk bit the Tiger in the balls — the crowd of Dinkers yelled “Fight fair, Wonk, fight fair!”
— mike farmer · Dec 21, 04:04 AM · #
Sheesh, mike, I thought you found the whole “teabagger” moniker juvenile. Yet, there you go, conjuring the image of Levin with a mouthful of sac.
— Billie · Dec 21, 04:38 AM · #
Would anyone care to explain under what circumstances and/or for what reasons Jonah Goldberg would denounce a Conservative or a Neoconservative as being adverse, detrimental, or simply lacking in value to the Conservative and/or Neoconservative movements?
The late-William F. Buckley denounced and then eased out the John Birch Society from the Conservative movement of the 1950s. Does Mr. Goldberg or anyone commenter on this website see any possible circumstance or reason for which a 21st century Conservative and/or Neoconservative leader of Mr. Buckley’s ilk (if one exists) would need to take similar action to best exemplify the characteristics of not only Conservatism and Neoconservatism, but also of the United States of America?
— Mark · Dec 21, 04:39 AM · #
Billie, not a pretty image is it?
— mike farmer · Dec 21, 04:42 AM · #
Mark, I’m not a conservative, but I would denounce conservative statists-the Big Government type, otherwise, all the diverse ideas are just part of the market of ideas — they will inspire or be rejected on their own merit.
— mike farmer · Dec 21, 04:47 AM · #
Billie, but you must admit the image of Levin with a mouthful of Limbaugh’s sac would be hilarious. :)
— Bill · Dec 21, 07:39 AM · #
Bill, I don’t appreciate my nice little story being perverted for your sick pleasure.
— mike farmer · Dec 21, 02:05 PM · #
Mercer,
I think you are as confused as Socrates — you may not like Ann’s comment about the 9/11 widows (or maybe even find it tasteless) but how is it hateful? I don’t think Ann’s is expressing hate toward that group of widows (contempt yes, but not hate).
— Jeff Singer · Dec 21, 03:59 PM · #
“You are obviously the Hyperbolator for the left, doing your job. Good job.”
Where is the line a conservative can cross by being too mean, hateful, deceitful or just plain stupid for Goldberg? And yes, I realize the line of stupidity would have to be really damn low given Golberg’s own intellectual limitations.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 21, 04:34 PM · #
Jeff Singer,
Why get so caught up on one word? WHo cares if Coulter is “hateful.” She posseses plenty of other negative qualitities. The point is there is a group of professional conservative propogandizers (or snake oil salesmen, depending on your persopective, they are really both) that continually misinform and inflame their audiences. Goldberg more or less admits this and thinks it is, at least, OK, because he thinks it furthers his political movement. In other words, the ends justify the means. But if you are a conservative do you really want to belong to a movement with a majority who are badly misinformed about really basic information? Who are in some areas, effectually stupid?
— cw · Dec 21, 04:35 PM · #
“Why get so caught up on one word?”
Because that sort of sophistry has become the bread of butter of modern conservative “thinking”.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 21, 04:36 PM · #
“hate” = bad, “contempt” = okay? And you call me confused?
Look them up.
— Socrates · Dec 21, 06:24 PM · #
Oh well, I tried to balance it out — what the hell, I’ll join in — bad conservatives, liars, haters, fear-mongerers, bad conservatives, boo, stupid, hiss, ignorant.
Yea Liberals! Go Liberals!
— mike farmer · Dec 21, 06:58 PM · #
Adding “balance” just means you can’t defend the behavior.
And it’s perfect here, since Goldberg is the master of “Liberals do it too!”
— Socrates · Dec 21, 07:18 PM · #
Mike Farmer,
In this particular area, conservatives are far worse than liberals. They have been at it much longer, are better at it and a huge percentage of their base has been contaminated by it. The left has Moore and Oberman. Oberman’s been at it about 2years, if I remember correctly. That’s two guys against an entire mature industry. People on the left tried to copy it (al franken) but it just didn’t work. This is almost totally a conservative phenomena.
It’s not good for conservatives, liberals, OR libertarians. It is predicated on inflaming people by misinforming them. A well-informed electorate is necessary to a well-functioning democracy. You say you are not a conservative, so why bother defending it?
— cw · Dec 21, 07:30 PM · #
cw,
I think you make the key point in this comment debate (such as it is):
“The point is there is a group of professional conservative propogandizers (or snake oil salesmen, depending on your persopective, they are really both) that continually misinform and inflame their audiences.”
Here is what I would say in response: the entire mainstream media complex (TV news, mainstream newspapers and websites like “Slate”, etc.) continually misinform their audience and to a lesser extent, subtly inflame them. Now they aren’t blantant about it and most MSM types are good people who are trying to get to the truth and tell good stories. They are just hopelessly liberally biased and so distort the news in myriad ways. I’m sure you disagree with this and will demand I back up this assertion with a term-paper here in the comments section, but suppose I’m right. Well then, what everyone who seeks to persuade others of the truth for a living should do is do their best to make their case and not worry about how the other guy is making his case. Because at the end of the day, it would be a full-time job to worry about everyone else’s errors and their efforts to “inflame” and “misinform”.
The exception should be those who by their very association with you hurt the cause of the truth, i.e. the case of the John Birch Society and Bill Buckley or in a more modern-day format David Frum calling out conservative who were writing stuff that was frankly anti-American. So I suggest you keep reading NRO, “The Weekly Standard”, “Commentary”, “City Journal”, “The Claremont Review of Books”, “First Things”, and countless other excellent conservative websites and blogs (especially Steve Sailer). The rest is just noise.
— Jeff Singer · Dec 21, 09:17 PM · #
“Here is what I would say in response: the entire mainstream media complex (TV news, mainstream newspapers and websites like “Slate”, etc.) continually misinform their audience and to a lesser extent, subtly inflame them.”
Enough with the false equivalence. What Keith Olbermann does is not the same thing as what Rush Limbaugh does. Rachel Maddow is not the perfect reverse of Sean Hannity. Ed Schultz is not the mirror image of Glen Beck. What the New York Times does is not what Fox News does.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 21, 09:25 PM · #
False equivalence: exactly.
But they resort to this precisely because it’s very difficult to defend the behavior of Coulter, Levin, FOX News, etc.
— Socrates · Dec 21, 09:51 PM · #
Mike,
You say, “What Keith Olbermann does is not the same thing as what Rush Limbaugh does.” I agree — Olbermann is way more hysterical and ridiculous and fewer people pay any attention to him than Rush. Also, give the WSJ some time and perhaps one day they will replace the NYT as America’s paper of record and then the damage the Times does will be considerably diminished.
In the meantime, here’s a great conservative website you should all be reading on a regular basis:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/
Merry Christmas to all!
— Jeff Singer · Dec 21, 10:09 PM · #
“ the entire mainstream media complex (TV news, mainstream newspapers and websites like “Slate”, etc.) continually misinform their audience and to a lesser extent, subtly inflame them.”
I am open to this being true, but I really do need to see some atual evidence. There is tons of actual evidence that the conservative propo-tainment industry is massivly misinformative and that people who get their info from them are actually misinformed. You admit that the liberal mainstream media is more “subtle” in their propoganda, but this is one area of conservative dogma that really needs to be proved. Obviously you don’t have time, but until SOMEONE can really document this, then saying the mainstream media effectivly propogandizes too”(even to a lesser degree than the conservative machine), is not worth very much. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is research to this effect out there, but sure haven’t seen it. SOmething about NPR came up here the other day and I spent a week trying to find some sort of bais or unfairness in their presentation of the news and I honestly could find much.
“Well then, what everyone who seeks to persuade others of the truth for a living should do is do their best to make their case and not worry about how the other guy is making his case.”
The problem with this idea is that they are making thier case by misinforming (I won’t say lying becasue they may actually believe what they are saying). THis is not a case of there being multiple interpretations of something, but constant and actual mistatements of objective fact. Like I said before, a demcratic society needs informed voters to work.
— cw · Dec 21, 10:24 PM · #
I meant to type: “I honestly COULDN“T find much” (bias or misinformation at NPR).
— cw · Dec 21, 10:26 PM · #
Conor—your comments here and on the Dish on this subject are right on the mark, especially with regard to the damage that these voices are doing to the political philosophy on the right (I can’t tell you how many co-workers I have overheard at different times using virtually word-for-word ‘arguments’ from Limbaugh or Beck and who fundamentally lack any substantive knowledge of the subject being considered except for those quotations) and with regard to the way that conservatism has gone from reading Buckley and MIlton et al. to reading Sarah Palin.
— Charles Secondati · Dec 21, 11:32 PM · #
Conor:
How the hell can you take any of the people on your side of this issue seriously when they refuse to acknowledge the incredible bias we have been subjected to for the last 40 years?
I think much of the readership of this blog is ignorant on this topic. Perhaps they’re all as young as you.
— jd · Dec 22, 01:18 AM · #
Why don’t you enlighten us JD with some actual examples.
— cw · Dec 22, 01:26 AM · #
If I document some actual examples of bias of which you were unaware, would you admit your ignorance on this topic?
— jd · Dec 22, 02:08 AM · #
cw,
I Googled “left-wing media bias” and then “liberal media bias” and sorts of fun links came up — check out the UCLA study as a start or peruse Brent Bozell’s website for awhile for lots of amusing examples. When you get done, in a couple of weeks, come back and let us know what you found out.
— Jeff Singer · Dec 22, 02:16 AM · #
Conor:
I ask you a question and then cw proves the point.
Your hatred of Beck, Limbaugh, Levin masks the fact that you have no idea how badly this country has been served for 40 years by the dominant media.
You seem to have no idea what the world was like—nor why—when Limbaugh hit the airwaves.
I don’t mean to single you out: since 89% of your colleagues are liberal, you’re not exactly alone. But you claim to be conservative while entertaining the notion that the battle between conservative media and liberal media has somehow been symmetrical. That is an outrageous notion for anyone who is honest.
When Rush started there was no balance. And when you list the names of those folks who put forth the conservative viewpoint back in the day, try to remember how they were presented by the media.
Just out of curiosity, did you think that I should take cw’s challenge seriously?
— jd · Dec 22, 02:53 AM · #
jd, I said before that I’m open to the idea. Give me some examples of left-wing media misinformation and their effect on the electorate.
— cw · Dec 22, 03:28 AM · #
“You seem to have no idea what the world was like—nor why—when Limbaugh hit the airwaves.”
Someone named Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. How has Limbaugh improved conservatism since he went on the air?
“ everyone who seeks to persuade others of the truth for a living should do is do their best to make their case and not worry about how the other guy is making his case. Because at the end of the day, it would be a full-time job to worry about everyone else’s errors and their efforts to “inflame” and “misinform”.”
When Rush said he hoped Obama fails and Coulter insults widows they are helping their careers of make money off the hard core right but I think they are hurting the standing of conservatives with the general public. I don’t see anything wrong with criticizing conservatives when their rhetoric helps liberals. If you disagree please explain how Coulter insulting widows helps persuade others of the truth of conservative ideas.
— Mercer · Dec 22, 04:47 AM · #
As much as I hate right wing populism (which pretty much amounts to: privileged white male says “blank” isn’t an actual problem) I have to say I agree with Goldberg. If your message isn’t radically different, getting upset over tone and approach is a quick way to create needless divisions. Goldberg simply condescendingly sees the Levin’s and Becks of conservatism as low brow alternatives to higher minded conservative work. And he wonders why Levin doesn’t like him… hah.
— Console · Dec 22, 05:53 AM · #
cw:
You haven’t answered my question. It’s a simple question. And there’s no shame in admitting you’re ignorant about a topic. Why should I waste my time documenting things when you’ve already made up your mind?
If I document some actual examples of bias of which you were unaware, would you admit your ignorance on this topic?
— jd · Dec 22, 01:55 PM · #
jd,
Sure, yes. As I said I’m open to this idea. This is something I would like to understand better. But we are not talking about just bias. Obviously everone has a bias. We are talking about bias manifested and it’s effects. With Limbaugh et al it is manifested in misinformation about reality in order to get people to feel/vote for republicans. What I am wondering about is is there really is something similar from the mainstream media, as Jeff Singer suggested. It doesn’t have to be as blatant as it is with conservative propo-tainers, nor as intentional. Just something where the mainstream medias liberal bias manifested itself in a substantial chunk of misinformed electorate. I’ve been looking through some of the studies Jeff Singer recommended and there is no clear consesus that I can see.
— cw · Dec 22, 02:34 PM · #
“It’s not good for conservatives, liberals, OR libertarians. It is predicated on inflaming people by misinforming them. A well-informed electorate is necessary to a well-functioning democracy. You say you are not a conservative, so why bother defending it?”
I haven’t defended anything but a balanced account of the political war. Anyone who has been listening objectively cannot say that one side is more harsh than the other. I defend libertarianism, which, except for Beck with his conditions, I don’t hear any of them defending, so, I just watch the fight and comment on what I think is wrong with the ideas expressed by either side. As far as the individuals, I don’t care about their style, unless it’s entertaining, then there is, stylistically, the value of humor or satire — but to be honest, I only care about the value of the ideas expressed.
— mike farmer · Dec 22, 02:58 PM · #
“I’ve been looking through some of the studies Jeff Singer recommended and there is no clear consesus that I can see.”
Well, you could read Bernard Goldgerg’s inside account of CBS — Bias
— mike farmer · Dec 22, 03:08 PM · #
or you could read this — http://www.amazon.com/South-Park-Conservatives-Against-Liberal/dp/0895260190#reader_0895260190
— mike farmer · Dec 22, 03:14 PM · #
“Anyone who has been listening objectively cannot say that one side is more harsh than the other.”
Anyone who listens objectively can easily say that one side is more harsh than the other. That’s the reason why Glenn Beck has to go on the air and explicitly urge his fans not to resort to violence, while Keith Olbermann never does.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 22, 04:31 PM · #
“If I document some actual examples of bias of which you were unaware”
I’d be interested in seeing the liberal equivalent of the “Obama’s trip to India will cost $200 million a day” nonsense that went whipping through the conservative media establishment. Anyone who spent 5 minutes checking that story out would have found it was nonsense. Anyone who thought about it for 5 seconds should have known it was nonsense. Yet it was repeated over and over and over again by conservative media outlets.
What’s the liberal version of that?
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 22, 06:26 PM · #
“Anyone who has been listening objectively cannot say that one side is more harsh than the other.”
These kinds of statements are patently ridiculous.
You’re saying that YOU are objective, and that anyone who disagrees with you is not.
Rubbish.
— Socrates · Dec 22, 06:26 PM · #
Mike: The Bush “plastic turkey” story and the Dan Rather memos both come to mind. (Also, one of the papers that debunked the 200 million trip was the WSJ).
— J Mann · Dec 22, 09:30 PM · #
“Anyone who listens objectively can easily say that one side is more harsh than the other. That’s the reason why Glenn Beck has to go on the air and explicitly urge his fans not to resort to violence, while Keith Olbermann never does.”
Good grief. I give up. Carry on.
— mike farmer · Dec 22, 11:49 PM · #
On the whole, I’d say that Ann C and Mark L are net losses for the right, while Rush, Michael Medved(?) and some others provide more benefit. I don’t agree that Ann C should be celebrated, but Goldberg made some pretty standard observations about mass movements. There’s variety, the good and the bad – he’s just unwilling to admit the last for obvious political reasons. So what.
All of this is odd coming from Conor. I enjoy his take downs of Mark L, but I thought he would be more sympathetic to overheated rhetoric, misleading arguments, a writer motivated by personal hatred, and factual inaccuracies given the blog he purportedly edits. And didn’t Conor pass on the allegations that the government murdered some detainees at Gitmo – pass it on this very website. A website, known for fact checking. ha. Where’s the followup?
Look, we all wish that every pundit was Buckley, but Buckley is unique for a reason. Besides, every liberal I knew in the 80s thought that Buckley was near-Satanic. Hatred on the left is real. Its called human nature, my pure, love-filled liberal friends.
So right-wing anger is popular on the radio, but left-wing anger is not.
Why could that be? That is an interesting question.
— JC38 · Dec 23, 02:27 AM · #
Our two kids are in college now, but for most of their teenage years they were each convinced that we favored the other — more lenient, more likely to take the other’s side in a spat, etc. They both had many examples at hand, and when we offered a counterexample, they insisted that it was the exception rather than the norm or that it wasn’t in the same league as what they had experienced. They were both incredulous when told that the other felt the same way, convinced that the other was out of touch with reality.
Perhaps we could’ve come up with some organized and consistent way to count and measure every instance of favoritism and sum it all up; and if we did so, quite possibly the ledger would’ve been tilted to one side or the other. But probably the very act of attempting to specify ground rules would quickly show that they used different measuring sticks, each subtly biased towards their own interests and opinions.
— kenB · Dec 23, 02:35 AM · #
Ken B-
I think the human tendency you describ is real, but I am just not convinced that the right wing noise machine is the same as the left. I think there are qualitative differences. Who on the left is the equivilent of Limbaugh? Does Harry Reid worry about what Oberman thinks about him? What on the left is the equivelent of FOX? Isn’t it strange that three out fo the top four republican presidential candidates for 2012 are employed by FOX news?
It may be that becasue mainstream news media is staffed mostly by liberals that there is an effective equivelent effect, but I am in no way certain that this is true. But it is way too easy dismiss the phenomena by saying “they both do it,” without some actual evidence that they both do it.
— cw · Dec 23, 03:34 AM · #
Timeout, everyone— let’s take a moment to remember the reason for the season.
— Jeff Singer · Dec 23, 04:17 AM · #
cw,
So my daughter is very verbal and loud and stubborn, while my son is quiet and has speech difficulties and is fairly passive. Whenever there was competition over a scarce resources, she would shout over him and lawyer him and generally dominate him with her words, up to the point where he would get frustrated and threaten physical violence of some sort (at least on those occasions when he didn’t just meekly give in). She would then be absolutely outraged that he had threatened her like that.
So who was right and who was wrong in that situation? Obviously we didn’t want him to threaten her, but given her domineering nature, his only other choice was to let her win every single time.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. Obviously both sides are not exactly the same — they have different habits and strengths, facing different situations and with different weapons at their disposal. Conservative ideologues tend towards screaming brashness, liberal ideologues prefer smug self-righteousness (both sides include a heavy dose of moral outrage). When liberals opposed the Iraq war, conservative ideologues called them anti-American Saddam-lovers. When conservatives opposed the PPACA, liberal ideologues called them heartless greedy bastards. And so on.
Are they different? Sure. Is one side “worse” than the other overall, from some sort of objective standpoint? Well, start by defining the rules of the game, and then we can see to what extent those rules are mutually agreeable or just self-serving.
— kenB · Dec 23, 04:35 AM · #
kenB,
I hear what you’re saying, and I hope your kids have reached an uneasy peace.
However, I see one significant difference. Take Bill Maher versus Limbaugh. Both are big egos who betray massive ignorance on certain issues. Both are slick and ostentatious. Both are irritating far more often than they’re funny.
On the upside, both possess a certain magnetism, and they both have great broadcast voices. I mean that last one literally— whatever the content of their sermons, they both sound terrific on-air.
However, the big difference is the quality/quantity of dissent they invite on their programs. Maher consistently opens his mic to conservative voices— and a real variety at that. Yes, vacuous shills like Breitbart and SE Cupp get unfortunate exposure, but he doesn’t merely lure unpersuasive patsies in a rigged showdown. Some compelling speakers like Frum and a couple of guys much revered on this site have made appearances, too. Largely because this latter bunch makes interesting observations, they are almost never barked at the way lefties are on O’Reilly’s show. Sure, I concede that Maher’s table is frequently skewed toward liberal figures, but this often backfires. Anyone who’s ever seen Ashton Kucher on his show knows what I’m talking about. Limbaugh would never have the nuts to talk politics in this format.
This kind of mixed debate is far, far more often an ingredient of liberal/liberal-ish outlets than it is conservative ones. Any number of PBS/NPR programs— the News Hour, Mclaughlin Group (particularly grating example, I know), Talk of the Nation— exhibit it. The Washington Post editorial page airs conservative and neo-conservative viewpoints with great frequency.
I read/hear almost nothing like this from Rightist media.
So, while concerns over veracity and tone are justly raised about both sides of the spectrum, it’s the Left that fosters many media organs engaged in hearing out challenges to its assumptions. On the Right, such engagement barely exists.
— Morly Grey · Dec 23, 05:33 AM · #
Morley, I thought Maher considers himself a libertarian. A better comparison, based on influence and satire and one-sidedness and left/right, is between Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh.
— mike farmer · Dec 23, 02:56 PM · #
I would have said between Ed Schultz and Limbaugh, because Schultz was supposed to be the anti-Limbaugh, but no one listens to him and he’s too much of a joke to have any influence — still it doesn’t negate that he’s a partisan hack — he’s just wrong most of the time. You also have to look at the purpose of each of these players — Limbaugh’s purpose is to get the conservative message out there and refute the liberal message — he’s not interested in giving voice to liberals – he believes they have enough outlets in the media, so why should he imitate Maher when his purpose is totally different? However, Maher’s purpose isn’t open debate, it’s to show the superiority of his brand of modern liberalism/left libertarianism. But you can’t listen to Olbermann, O’donnell, Matthews and Shultz and say they are open-minded intellectuals searching for objective truth — you definitely can’t say they are better for the national discourse than Limbaugh.
— mike farmer · Dec 23, 03:10 PM · #
“Limbaugh’s purpose is to get the conservative message out there and refute the liberal message”
1. Limbaugh’s purpose is to make money. You are a sucker if you think otherwise.
2. Your description of Limbaugh is accurate, if you acknowledge that he’s serving the role of a propagandist.
“But you can’t listen to Olbermann, O’donnell, Matthews and Shultz and say they are open-minded intellectuals searching for objective truth — you definitely can’t say they are better for the national discourse than Limbaugh.”
3. Olbermann and company may not be completely objective because no one is. They are, however, restrained by things like “facts” and “the truth”. They do put a liberal spin on those things, but they almost never propagate pure bullshit just because it makes Republicans and conservatives look bad. Olbermann, for example, even at his more hysterical never flirted with 9/11 Trutherism the way Rush has flirted with Birtherism.
4. Rush Limbaugh does not actually participate in discourse. That would require him to both engage with what someone else actually says and then allow that person to engage with him. He doesn’t do that. He hides in a little room like the fat kid nobody wanted to play with in school, spinning out “debates” where he manufactures both sides of the discussion.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 23, 04:54 PM · #
“Mike: The Bush “plastic turkey” story and the Dan Rather memos both come to mind. (Also, one of the papers that debunked the 200 million trip was the WSJ).”
The “plastic turkey” is a legitimate example. The Rather memos were more a case of fraud that had to be ferreted out.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 23, 04:59 PM · #
“Good grief. I give up. Carry on.”
Glenn Beck has felt the need on more than one occasion to explicitly tell his audience that they should refrain from violence. Keith Olbermann never has. Those are facts and they pretty clearly demonstrate those two guys are not doing the same thing on the air.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 23, 05:03 PM · #
I give up for good this time.
— mike farmer · Dec 23, 07:39 PM · #
Two comments:
1) In case you clicked on the last comment to appear under the name “Jeff Singer” you will find that my stalker is back. Let me just say that I think the Blessed St. Thomas was right that heretics should be burned at the stake (or in a nod to modern sensibilities, I would settle for the electric chair).
2) cw — I have the perfect example for you and it couldn’t illustrate my point any better than if I had scripted it for a bad Jonathan Franzen novel (or is that “bad” redundant?). In the November issue of the always interesting magazine “The Atlantic” the writer Michael Hirschorn takes up the very theme of this post and comments — whether or not the media landscape is biased and whether the worst offenders of this bias are on the right or the left. Now, being a good liberal, Hirschorn takes the position that Conor, Socrates, and Mike have taken on this blog: that folks are entitled to their opinions but not their own facts and he then goes on to suggest that the right has been adept at creating their own facts to suit their opinions and provides a couple of examples to back up his “story”. I’m not really interested in his position, his specific examples (which include the hoary old charge of racism), or debating him on the merits of these particular examples (he’s right on some and on others he’s out to lunch) — instead I want to focus on one particularly amusing throw-away line in his piece:
“More far-reachingly, how does society function (as it has since the Enlightenment gave primacy to the link between reason and provable fact) when there is no commonly accepted set of facts and assumptions to drive discourse?”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/truth-lies-here/8246/
Now remember, this is an article all about the importance of getting your facts straight and the danger of mixing up opinion with fact. Yet here is the totally ignorant writer, Mr. Hirschorn, seemingly expounding with great authority that somehow the “Enlightenment” (leaving aside the problem with ascribing human agency to this historical epoch, the Western period of civilization we now call the “Enlightenment” was a complex and intellectually diverse period of thought) single-handedly “gave primacy to the link between reason and provable fact”. Now if Hirschorn knew anything about ancient Greek thought or even how the church took that thought and turned it into what we now call Scholastic philosophy, he wouldn’t have embarrassed himself with such an ignorant statement (even athiest medievalists would scoff at his ridiculous statement as there was plenty of “reason and provable fact” during the Middle-Ages going on). But not only does he not know the first thing about Western intellectual history and science, but neither do any of the editors over at “The Atlantic” who had no problem with that sentence and my guess is that neither do most readers of his article, even those hostile to his theme. In short, the liberal world has created a “meme” that “Enlightenment = Good” and everything before the Enlightenment, especially Holy Mother Church = Bad. Subtle, insidious and yet no doubt pervasive in the thought of our elites. When your average American high-school graduate can say with confidence that the Catholic Church (and later our Protestant brothers and sisters) made important contributions to science and modern-day civilization, then I will stop complaining about liberal media bias.
— Jeff Singer · Dec 23, 08:52 PM · #
@ Singer
Is it really a contribution if all you did was hoard knowledge from ancient cultures?
Snide replies aside though I don’t really see the problem in distinguishing the pre-enlightenment thought process from the enlightenment. The shift from deductive Aristotelian type thought (which the church sought to perpetuate) to inductive reasoning was profound. Then the shift from science-will-eventually-explain-all to this post-modern “facts are irrelevant” is also important to note. Even if they are very vague generalizations they explain a lot. I mean, I agree with the assessment of that throwaway line being sloppy but there is meaning there. And that meaning isn’t necessarily found in making assumptions about the author’s feelings on the dark ages (and I use that terminology on purpose, not out of ignorance). It’s all about the present day society we live in.
The funny thing is that conservatives have mastered the post modern media environment very well. Hell, this quote we’re examining by Goldberg is exemplary of it. Goldberg doesn’t even remotely care that Levin disagrees with him on many things, Goldberg simply cares that Levin furthers the goals of their tribe’s power. Facts and reasoning be damned.
— Console · Dec 23, 11:13 PM · #
Console,
You say,
“Snide replies aside though I don’t really see the problem in distinguishing the pre-enlightenment thought process from the enlightenment. The shift from deductive Aristotelian type thought (which the church sought to perpetuate) to inductive reasoning was profound.”
I say, you need to read more intellectual history. Science did not start with Newton and the church is concerned with the Truth, whether it comes deductively or inductively!
— Jeff Singer · Dec 24, 12:14 AM · #
Jeff SInger,
“In short, the liberal world has created a “meme” that “Enlightenment = Good” and everything before the Enlightenment, especially Holy Mother Church = Bad. “
First, I think this is a pretty hilarious example and shows where your interest lie. I mean this is a good way. It makes me like you.
And secondly, I think this is a huge generalization but in some sense is true.
But thirdly, there is a reason people celebrate the enlightenment and see it as an escape from the oppression and corruption of the catholic church. The catholic church has a very “complicated” history in Europe with pleanty of heritic burnings etc. I mean, they burned people for daring to publish the bible in English. People who wanted to take the bible from the elite and give it to the more or less common people, basically evangalists in the tradition of Jesus. Also remember that the united states was founded in part by people seeking to escape the catholic church and that many of our founders have intellectual roots in the enlightenment. Isn’t democracy as we know it a product of the enlightenent?
So when you say liberals invented this meme, they invented it back in the 18th century when liberal meant something else, and there maybe some good reasons to celebrate the enlightenment. Obviously the idea that the enlightenment is pure good and the catholic church pure bad is not correct but the celebration of the enlightenment is founded in good reasons. And it’s not propoganda created by Rahm Emanuel to further the Obama presidency.
Never the less I think this is probably an example of the TYPE of manifest bias that you find in main stream news. Mainstream news is mostly staffed by liberals and so thier their world-view most likely will spring from deep-seated liberal concepts and that will most likely seep out into their work somehow. But most journalists are—at least in the begingin—pretty idealistic. I hung out with a lot of j-students in college, and they had a stong ethos to be unbiased. They also have a pretty strict methodology designed precisely to prevent bias from creeping in, which becuase of thier idealism, they tried to follow. I think this probably means that in general, thier bias manifests itself in stories where these kinds of deeply based liberal concepts (enlightenment good) surfacing against the wishes of the journalist. At least if we are talking newspapers. Magazines and tv are a different arena and blogs are a completely different planet.
But anyway, I don’t think their bias is not going to very often manifest itself in plain untruths, like Palin’s death-panels, or raw inflamation, like Beck crying every day becasue we are slipping into totalitarianism.
But I would be really interested to know about is how the bias of the MSM is manifested and what effect it actually has on the elctorate. I think it is very difficult to capture.
— cw · Dec 24, 03:10 AM · #
cw,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply — I like you too more and more (dialogue has that salutory effect) even though I find myself in deep disagreement with you on fundamental issues.
A quick quibble — none of the British colonists came here escaping the Catholic Church; the British Crown and Anglican church was intermittently persecuting them but other than the small amount of French Huguenots, I can’t think of another group of colonists who came here to escape Catholic persecution. You are right though that many Founders owe an intellectual debt to Enlightenment thinkers, just as those Englightenment thinkers owe a debt to earlier Catholic thinkers.
Finally, I tend to agree with you about the difficulty of measuring how the bias of the MSM is “manifested and what effect it actually has on the electorate.” As one example I suspect that the widespread acceptance of sodomy and homosexuality in our society, manifested recently in the repeal of DADT, is a result of the bias I’m talking about but like you say, it would be difficult to prove cause and effect over 40-50 plus years. But I think this is true of the other examples you cite for your case against conservatives — in other words, there are plenty of reasons to not like Obamacare and whether or not you think “death-panels” is an appropiate term to describe certain aspect of that legislation, I think conservatives would still oppose Obamacare whether or not the term was ever made popular by Palin. The opposition was broad and was based on all sorts of substantive legal and policy ideas.
Merry Christmas and I look forward to continuing our debates in future posts.
— Jeff Singer · Dec 24, 03:57 AM · #
You’re right about the British colonists and the Catholic church. If I remember correctly by that time Catholics were the ones being persecuted. Very far adrift from the original topic here. Anyway, Merry Christmas to you, too.
— cw · Dec 24, 05:29 AM · #