NOT UNLIKE SEAN HANNITY! When Hannity churns reports of this type, we liberals call him dishonest: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011
Ezra Klein buys Rhee: On the front page of todays New York Times, Trip Gabriel does a worthwhile report about the ongoing war on teachers.
Headline: Teachers Wonder, Why the Scorn? Early on, Gabriel hints at one of the motives behind all the teacher-bashing:
Lets state the obvious: In part, this is a political war, driven by Republicans and corporate anti-union privatizers. The full set of motivations is wider than that, of courseand many folk have no motives at all. But in large part, the scorn thats being heaped on teachers has a plain political sub-text.
This brings us to Ezra Kleins rather strange piece in Tuesdays Washington Post.
As weve long noted: When it comes to public education, our finer young liberals will often perform as running-dogs for corporate narratives. Ezra produced one of the strangest such performances weve ever seen.
Teacher lay-offs are coming, he said. In many states, this will mean that the least experienced teachers will get pink slips, based on their lack of seniority. You may think thats the wrong way to make such decisions. But the following judgment is truly bizarreand just consider that source!
Ezra damns those infernal unions as he makes an extremely strange judgment. And just consider that source!
What judgment did Ezra reach? For unknown reasons, he says it will turn a crisis into a catastrophe if school districts decide to lay off the least experienced teachers. That is one of the strangest judgments weve ever seen in print.
Plainly, Ezra doesnt want any lay-offs. But why would he think that the youngest, least experienced teachers are better than everyone else? Thats pretty much what you have to think to advance this unexplained thesis, in which firing the least experienced teachers seems to create the worst possible outcome.
Thats an extremely unlikely hypothesisbut Ezra doesnt explain it. Would it be better to let administrators decide, as he suggests? Maybe! But then again, that might be worse.
Firing the least experienced teachers would create a catastrophe? Who would advance such an overwrought notion? Who would issue such a chilling report? Why, the New Teacher Project, of coursethe group Michelle Rhee founded!
On Sunday, Steve Benen was pimping Wendy Kopp. Two days later, Ezra semi-pimped Rhee.
Lets be clear: Just because Rhee founded the New Teachers Project, that doesnt mean theres something wrong with the group. But Ezras claim is absurdly overwroughtand it follows the comic-book, Kopp/Rhee line in which the finer young children come into the schools and create the educational miracles the lazy unionized teachers simply refuse to produce. This has always been a ridiculous fantasy, based on miracle claims by Kopp and Rheeutterly silly miracle claims supported by none of the research.
On Sunday, Benen was pimping this jive. On Tuesday, Ezra pretty much did. It pretty much never stops.
Ezra goes on to contemplate a new, better system of teacher evaluation. He betrays no sense of understanding how subjective judgment of the type he describes will often actually work. For ourselves, we favor more aggressive teacher evaluationbut that isnt what caught our eye in this truly absurd analysis. We were struck by Ezras overwrought language, starting with his reference to that chilling reporta chilling report from one of the groups which has tended to serve as a useful tool for the corporate privatizers.
By the way: The New Teacher Project is one of the groups which supplies those inexperienced teachers. Presumably, some of their teachers would be getting laid off, which might explain that chill.
On Sunday, Benen praised TFA. On Tuesday, Ezra caught chills from the New Teacher Project. To a large extent, these groups have pimped dishonest claims which work against serious public school discourse. And of course, its the unions fault!
The finer young liberals are often happy to run with the Kopps and the Rheeswith the finer Ivy Leaguers who look and sound so much like themselves. Or so it can seem when they make the types of overwrought claims found in Ezras piece.
PART 4NOT UNLIKE SEAN (permalink): Theres nothing wrong with making mistakes; people make mistakes all the time. But Rachel Maddow admitted no errors in her distraction-laden performance last weeka performance delivered beneath a big sign: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
This report was delivered on February 24 (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/2/11). Maddow did demand correctionsfrom others. But she offered none of her own.
Maddow devoted a lengthy, twelve-minute segment to the topic of corrections. She repeatedly stressed the wonderful way she rushes to correct her own errors. But by the time her segment was finished, she had admitted no mistakesand she was battering Politifact hard. As she neared the end of the segment, she completed a screed against right-wing sites who badger her because shes gay. She then turned back to her main antagonist as she summarized the long segment.
Maddow returned to a pair of themes she had established four minutes earlier. She said Politifact had spread bullpucky when it criticized her report on Wisconsin, a report she had made one week earlier. And she said you dont get to make shit up just because you have fact in your name:
In this summation, it was clear what this long, distraction-laden segment had been about:
Once again, Maddow insisted that she does fess up when she gets things wrong on her program. (She sings and dances her corrections, she said, helping us learn to adore her.) But according to Maddow, Politifact had called her a liar when, in fact, she hadnt been lying. The site had thus spread bullpucky, another word for bull[shit].
According to Maddows summation, Politifact doesnt get to spread bull[shit] around just because it has fact in its name.
Plainly, this was the principal point of Maddows long, rambling segment. That said, the segment was quite remarkableremarkable for the type of conduct we call dishonest when its done by the other side. Maddow had done an extremely poor job of responding to the various things Politifact had said. In the process, she misled her viewers about the errors Politifact found in her work.
For starters: Sorry, but noPolitifact never called Maddow a liar. Nor had Politifact slandered Maddow and her staff, a suggestion she seemed to make a bit earlier. In fact, Maddow had made some obvious errors in her February 17 reportand Politifact had noticed. Politifacts critique had been imperfect, but it also made some strong points. For the most part, it was Maddow who seemed to dissemble as she replied to Politifacts challenge.
Can we talk? If Sean Hannity did a report like this, the liberal world would call him a liar. And it would be extremely hard to say that the judgment was wrong.
How did Maddow mislead her viewers last week? Lets try counting the ways:
Maddow disappears her opening statement: Incredibly, Maddow never discussed the principal statement Politifact challenged in its report. She simply wished it away.
Right in its headline, Politifact scored this statement by Maddow as false: Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsins finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.
Its hard to know why Maddow made that statementa statement which was puzzling at best. But Maddow made this odd remark as part of a longer opening statementan opening statement in which she seemed to turn the world on its head. Im here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin, she weirdly said, speaking with the tone of a prophet. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually! She then made the puzzling remark about Wisconsin being on track to have a surplus.
Which it pretty much wasnt.
Its hard to know why someone would paint such a puzzling picture of Wisconsins budget. Quite reasonably, Politifact challenged Maddow for this opening statementand they scored that one statement false. But so what? Last Thursday, Maddow completely ignored this matter as she pretended to respond. Viewers were never told that she had made that odd remark as part of that longer, and odder, opening portrait.
Viewers werent told what Maddow had said. They werent told that Politifact scored it false. Maddow never had to explain. Her statement disappeared.
Maddow disappears an obvious error: As we noted yesterday, Maddow made an erroneous claim on February 17 about an alleged budget surplus. Early in her presentation, she said that Wisconsins non-partisan budget agency said last month that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year. (On screen, a visual showed that Maddow was referring to a report by Wisconsins Legislative Fiscal Bureau.) Maddow repeated this general claim several times as she continued.
As weve noted, many liberals were making that claim around the time of Maddows report. But as Politifact showed in its challenge to Maddow, that claim was erroneousfalse. In the days after Maddow made her report, several other major liberals self-corrected on that very point. But as with the claim which Politifact headlined, Maddow took the easy way out. During last Thursdays 12-minute segment, she didnt mention her own repeated error about the alleged budget surplus. Once again, she disappeared what she had saideven as she swore, again and again, that she is very, very, very careful to correct her own mistakes.
When Sean Hannity does [shit] like that, the liberal world calls him dishonest.
Politifact makes a mistake: Politifact did some very good work in its critique of Maddow. In particular, they clarified some basic facts which were being widely bungled. We would assume that their report helped produce the self-corrections which were observed in the next few days. In this post, for example, Kevin Drum linked to Politifacts report, recommending its account of the facts, even as he added an update to his own post. The original draft of this post underestimated the size of Wisconsin's future deficits, he wrote. I've corrected the text to more accurately reflect the legislative analyst's estimates. (Because his update supplanted his original text, we dont know how badly Kevin had underestimated things in his original post.)
Politifact helped clarify some basic points which were being widely misreported. And Maddow had been one of the people making these basic errors. That said, Politifact also made an error in its challenge to Maddow. As with Maddows various bungles, Politifacts error was understandable. But it was wrong all the same.
Politifacts error came here:
According to Politifact, Maddow had made a claim; she had claimed that Walker gave away $140 million in business tax breaksso if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, [he] created it. In fact, that claim was making the rounds, just as Politifact said. On February 16, Ed Schultz plainly made this claim, with The Nations John Nichols in hot agreement. The erroneous claim seems to track to Nichols February 16 editorial in the Madison Capital Times.
One day later, Maddow aired her own reportand Politifact thought she too had advanced this claim. But was she really advancing that claim? Is that what she was trying to say? As with almost everything in her report, its rather hard to tell. In the passage we highlight below, Politifact thought it spotted that claim:
On February 16, Ed Schultz explicitly said that Walkers tax cuts helped produce the shortfall. That same day, Nichols had explicitly made that claim in his editorial. One night later, Politifact thought Maddow had made the same claimbut Maddow didnt explicitly do that. As with so much of Maddows report, it isnt clear what she meant when she compared the (allegedly new) $137 million shortfall to the $140 million in new tax cuts. Her live delivery of this material doesnt help clarify matters; she semi-stumbled when she said that now a shortfall does exista statement which seemed to contradict what she said as she started her report.
In letters of complaint to Politifact, MSNBCs Bill Wolff insisted that Maddow had meant something different. In truth, theres no way to tell what she actually meant; this passage continued the reign of confusion displayed throughout her report. But Politifact shouldnt have said that Maddow made that claim. In this passage, as in much of her piece, its simply unclear what she meant. (As a courtesy, were assuming that Maddows report was written by one of her staffers.)
By the way: Other parts of that passage are factually wrong or foolish. Throughout that passage, Maddow extends her false assertion about Wisconsins supposed budget surplus. And how about this: What is happening in Wisconsin right now has absolutely nothing to do with public workers. Thats a very peculiar statement. If the budget shortfall has absolutely nothing to do with public workers, then why in the world have the public workers, and their unions, agreed to Walkers give-back requests? The shortfall isnt the fault of the workers; the workers shouldnt be blamed for the shortfall. But Maddows statement is utterly silly, like so many things she says.
What did Maddow actually mean when she cited Walkers tax cuts? Two weeks later, we have no idea. Theres no way to tell from her muddled text, which is long on snark but short on clarity. Quite possibly, some viewers thought what Politifact thought; they may have thought she was telling the world that Walker helped cause the shortfall, which Maddow falsely said was new. That claim was being widely bruited; it may be what Maddows staffer had in mind when composing that passage. But Politifact erred when it said that Maddow actually made that claim. This leads to one last point from Maddows rebuttal.
How Maddow responded: Despite that error, Politifact did a lot of good work in its challenge to Maddow.
It corrected a set of bungled facts about the Wisconsin budget. It corrected at least one obvious error from Maddows report. Beyond that, it challenged the extremely puzzling way she started her report. At any rate, as it summarized its presentation, it rated her take to be false:
Politifact made several basic statements:
There should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall, Politifact said. On that point, wed say that Maddows report was confused and confusing.
Walkers tax cuts are not part of this [current] problem and did not create it, Politifact said. Thats true, but it isnt clear that Maddow made that claim. (She did claim that the budget shortfall was new this month. That claim was significantand false.)
Politifacts report was full of informationinformation Maddow should have brought to her viewers attention. Instead, she edited Politifacts summation and offered a narrow, misleading defense of her own confusing reporta narrow defense which was highly misleading. In a long and rambling segment which spanned twelve minutes and 32 seconds, she devoted less than 90 seconds to a review of the actual things she had said.
She disappeared the erroneous things she had said, even as she boasted and bragged about her devotion to self-correction. Instead, she played tape of the one accurate thing she had saida nine-word statement which seemed unclear and self-contradictory in context.
What follows is Maddows full response to Politifact. When Hannity pimps silly [shit] like this, the liberal world calls him dishonest:
Actually, Politifact said it was false when Maddow said the following: Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin`s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year. But Maddow never played that tape of that statement, so no explanation was needed.
In a 12-minute, 32-second report, that was Maddows full attempt to respond to Politifact. Her weird opening statement was gone. So were her repeated false statements about that alleged budget surplus. She didnt explain what she meant by linking the current budget shortfall to Governor Walkers new tax cuts. She simply played tape of one short statement, and pretended that this settled everything.
Politifact made a mistake in its piece. After further consideration, were dropping its overall grade to a B.
But Rachel Maddows initial report had been an incoherent messa bungled mess containing real errors. One week later, her second report was vastly worse. Its hard to believe that intelligent people could produce such work in good faith.
According to Newsweek, Maddow is paid $2 million per year. According to Howard Kurtz, she has 17 full-time staffers. Its a stunning sign of the times when someone with such massive resources produces such hapless work. That first report was incoherent, a messa disservice to Maddows viewers.
That said, worker ants rush to praise their queens. Tomorrow, the ditto-heads speak.