YOU MAY LIVE IN AN IDIOCRACY IF! Paul Krugman is insufficiently shrill in todays (accurate) column: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
Asleep at the switchfor decades: Was the Washington Post tardy in its coverage of the recent ACORN matters? Andrew Alexander, the Posts ombudsman, said so in last Sundays column (click here).
Was the the New York Times too late in reporting the story? Clark Hoyt, the Times public editor, offered that judgment yesterday (click this).
For what its worth, theres more to recommend Hoyts judgmentthough not a great deal more. And Hoyt himself is rather selective when it comes to complaints of this type.
The current story got started on September 10. That evening, Brett Baier introduced a segment on Fox News Channels Special Report:
Emphasis on the word new video. Shawn presented the shocking [new] undercover video of ACORN, made by film-maker James O'Keefe at ACORNs Baltimore office. Glenn Beck had aired the same video one hour earlier, engaging in typical hysteriaand asking a typically ludicrous question:
With shrieking paranoia and classic illogic, Beck helped define the broken intellectual parameters of your floundering culture. Why has the media not reported on a story that broke today? he asked. Becks question answered itself, of course; indeed, his question explained why Beck himself hadnt reported on the story before that days broadcast. But inside your nations broken culture, such illogic has ruled us for decades.
At any rate, the current story began September 10. The AP filed its first brief report (142 words), stating that ACORN had fired the two workers seen on the Baltimore tape. Later in Special Report, Baier cited that newly-released AP report when he reported the firings.
Judging from the Nexis record, wed have to say this: The Washington Post wasnt massively slower than the Washington Times in reporting this story, if it was really slower at all. The New York Times was slower. In yesterdays Times, the headline of Hoyts column criticized the paper for tuning in too late.
That judgment has some merit. But why was the New York Times slow off the mark? We were struck by this highlighted passage from Hoyts piece, in which Hoyt starts explaining the reason for the newspapers tardiness:
Why was the New York Times slow on this story? Some editors told me they were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos on Fox, Hoyt reportedand were not surprised to hear that. For decades, big newspapers like the Times have seemed to play head in the sand on such matters. They almost seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of the public discoursespecifically, on their ignorance of the part of the discourse being driven by outlets like Fox.
We agree with Hoyt on one point. The New York Times does have trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio. For years, the Times has had trouble telling readers about the giant mountains of bullsh*t emitting from these swamps. For decades, they have run and hid from the ugliest, stupidest stories which have arisen from this world. They ran and hid when this fetid world accused the Clintons of serial murders. When the Times reviewed Ann Coulters first major book, it ran and hid from all the nonsense found inside its covers. During that same era, the Times actively invented the Whitewater pseudo-controversy, and the fake phony lies of Al Gore, of course. Sometimes, the Times has promoted this worlds phony claims. But when it doesnt promote such claims, it turns a blind eye to the nonsense.
Tens of millions of American citizens get disinformed in the process.
In this current instance, the ACORN tapes turned into real news. It was news when the Senate cut off funds. It was news when the New York City council froze all its funding.
But part of the news was the utter silliness driving a part of this story. Some ACORN employees reacted very poorly to the sting in question. (Other employees showed better judgment.) But how much have we actually learned when such a sting produces such results? What kinds of reactions might we get if we tried to sting employees at a range of other organizations? If a news org chose to report on this story, an examination of the storys logic would be important. But the Times has found it safer and easier, down through the years, to simply ignore such stories. When Grade A Bullsh*t has arisen from the polemical world of talk radio and cable television, the Times has endlessly run off and hid. We werent surprised to read that this newspapers editors were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos on Fox. This newspapers editors have been systematically unaware of what happens in such venues for the past several decades.
The New York Times has run and hid from the world of pseudo-conservative talkwhen it wasnt actively involved in actively pimping that worlds frameworks, of course. This big newspaper has simply refused to address the world of pseudo-conservative disinformation and hysteria. Seeing no evil and hearing no evil has long been this papers MO.
When complete bullsh*t about national health care arises from the polemical world of talk radio and cable television, the Times ignores that too. Tens of millions of people get disinformedand the Times types blithely along. But Hoyt doesnt scold the Times for that. Letting Fox disinform the rubes is now part of our national culture.
Its our greatest newspaperand its editors didnt know what was happening on Fox! But why should we be surprised about that? This is precisely the process which has led to our current know-nothing culture. The polemical world of talk radio and cable television can say and do anything. Neither the Times, nor Hoyt, will notice, or care, or respond.
PART 1INSUFFICIENTLY SHRILL: Paul Krugman is insufficiently shrill in this mornings (accurate) column.
Krugman writes about impending climate disasterand everything he says is perfectly accurate. Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet, he says as he starts. At that point, rubber meets road:
Picking nits, wed prefer that Krugman hadnt felt the need to say that this isnt the raving of cranks. But his basic assessment is perfectly accurate: In the past few years, climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandrasgifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them. And while the biggest disasters (Krugmans word) wont likely hit till the second half of this century, there will be plenty of damage long before then.
Its hard to believe that someone could print such a column and be insufficiently shrill. But at this point in his piece, Krugman asks an important questionand we think the answer which follows is soft:
Why arent we dealing with climate change? Krugman asks a very good question. But when he answers this basic question, wed say hes insufficiently shrill.
First, lets state the blindingly obvious: The United States isnt going to deal with climate change in a serious way. In part for that reason, there wont be major, coordinated global action over the next several decades. Whatever is already in the cardsor in the atmospherewill come to pass. Children being born today will have the chance to see how accurate todays climate models will turn out to be. As Krugman suggests, todays newborns may learn that current predictions of climate disaster were in fact insufficiently gloomy.
Most likely, children being born today will live to see global climate disasters. They wont see major world action in the next few decades. Why not?
For our money, Krugmans insufficiently shrill when he addresses this problem. That said, he makes three basic pointsand all his points are accurate. Part of the answer is that its hard to keep peoples attention focused, he saysand thats accurate. Beyond that, powerful vested interests...have armies of lobbyists in place. (Quite true.) This is his third reason:
Also truebut insufficient. Everything Krugman says is true. But we think his explanation for our looming inaction is insufficiently shrill.
Why is it hard to keep people focused? Why will your nation fail to act? Our answer would be a bit tougherand well start to lay it out tomorrow. Just a hint: Krugmans language suggests what is true: You dont live in a rational world. But the reality is a bit worse than that:
In fact, you now live in an idiocracya society which is no longer able to discuss any serious question.
What is the proof that you live in that world? A world where no serious discussion is possible? Well consider proofs of this point all week. But tomorrow, just for starters, well consider what David Corn did.
You may live in an idiocracy if: The Corns start resembling the Dowds.
Tomorrowpart 2: Mussolini in Neverland!
Whats an idiocracy? People! Just click here!