NO MORE TEACHERS DIRTY LOOKS! All good journalists knew the script about our villainous teachers: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
Pot meets kettle: It isnt like Maddow is all by herself. Yesterday, we marveled at the way she railed against the decision to postpone that vote on the Bush tax rates (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/27/10).
Why would Democrats make such a decision? Nobody has any clue what Harry Reid is thinking, Maddow dumbly complained. This was one hour after several people provided such clues on Countdown. It was one full day after Ryan Grim semi-explained Reids decision at the Huffington Post.
Why did Reid make that decision? We cant say with certainty, of coursebut the clues have been all around! Grim suggested that a vote for a higher tax rate on the top two percent might hurt Reids re-election chancesor at least, that Reid may think so. But alas! Like many pseudo-liberals, Maddow often seems to take pride in failing to understand such mattersin failing to understand the way average voters may think. Maddow prefers telling dick jokes about such prolesabout the people who didnt get into Stanford. Last Friday, she kept insisting that Reids decision was the stupidest everthat nobody has any clue why he did what he did.
Maddow stuck to this know-nothing stance even after a set of liberals offered an array of such clues. But then, pseudos like Maddow have long taken pride in not understanding the public.
For a second example of this impulse, check out a post by Steve Benen, who we hate to critique on this day. We thought Steve made a superlative point in this earlier Sunday post. But soon, Steve was critiquing Mitch McConnells appearance on This Week. In the process, we thought Steve showcased the peculiar trait which Maddow often displays.
In his problematic post, Steve critiques McConnells discussion of the federal deficit. Let me tell you how I'd reduce the deficit, McConnell told Christiane Amanpour; he then proceeded to count the ways. Despite some cherry-picking of McConnells remarks, despite a heavily tilted paraphrase, Steve then offered a semi-sensible critique of what McConnell had said.
But alas! Steve closed his post like this. Were always amazed when political journalists make such odd admissions:
Benen is a political journalist. But so what? He has no idea why tens of millions of American voters may find McConnells remarks persuasive. (We refer to McConnells real remarks, not to that tilted paraphrase.)
Were not suggesting that McConnells remarks should be persuasive; his remarks werent persuasive to us. But after reading Benens post, we read back through McConnells full statement on This Week.
Sorry, but we can easily explain why voters may find his remarks persuasive. But then, we dont take an overweening pride in our failure to understand what the unwashed think.
Apparently, Reid thinks voters may find McConnells position so persuasive that he decided to postpone that vote. But Maddow insisted that no one has any clue why Reid made this decision. And Benen boasted that he has no idea why voters might so react.
Were not big fans of Benens work; we think he tilts toward hackish. That said, his fans will probably think he was just using a figure of speech when he said he has no idea about the way voters think. Well only say this:
Its striking when pundits go out of their way to say that they have no idea about their own basic subject matter. When people like Maddow and Benen cant explain the way voters think, we liberals are getting dumbed down.
This pattern has obtained for decadeswith time out for the long, lazy periods when liberals have taken long naps.
PART 1 NO MORE TEACHERS DIRTY LOOKS (permalink): Might we quote the late Sam Cooke? When it comes to the public schools, journalists tend to know very littledont know much about the French they took (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/27/10).
For the most part, they do know their cohorts prevailing scripts. But thats the extent of their knowledge.
This can be a serious problem. You see, famous educators tend to lie when they muse about public schools.
On Sundays Meet the Press, David Gregory swiveled his $5 million frame toward DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. Gregory lobbed a classic softball toward his guest. And in this, her very first statement, Chancellor Rhee pretty much lied, right in Gregorys kisser:
Chancellor Rhee has never been bashful when it comes to effusive self-praise. But all parts of that highlighted statement are false, or are extremely hard to defend.
First, its hard to believe that DC was ever worst amongst all urban jurisdictions in the country at any point in the past five years. NAEP data are limited when it comes to big urban systems, but Detroits reading and math scores remain lower today than the Districts scores were at any point in the last decade (even adjusting for income). Meanwhile, is the District actually leading the nation in gains in our progress of students on the NAEP examination in both reading and math over the last three and a half years? The closest one can come to that time frame involves comparing scores from 2005 and 2009. (Testing was done in 2005, 2007 and 2009.) Atlanta made larger gains than DC during that periodand the NAEP simply doesnt have data for most urban districts.
(The NAEP is designed to sample the nation, and all fifty states. At present, it only provides a full sample for a limited number of city systems. This is not a defect; it just means that its data cant tell us which urban district was lowest.)
Rhees self-praise didnt seem to be accurate; this seems to be a bit of a habit. But Gregory, a babe in the woods when it comes to such topics, had no way of knowing. But so it goes when the movers and shakers con us rubes about public schools, with know-nothing journalists getting played by a gang of crude self-promoters.
Inevitably, such self-promoters then piously claim that their work is all about helping the kids. They then assure you that those who oppose them have much grimier motives.
People like Gregory sit and stare as this dissembling occurs. They tend to repeat a handful of scriptsscripts the lords of their upper-class world have carefully laid out for them. And so it went on Sunday. All through this day of special programming, one script prevailed among NBCs family: The teachers unions are the problem! David, Brian, Mika and Joe all aggressively pimped this script, even as they pandered to Rhee. Example: On Meet the Press, Gregory was soon whistling this high, hard one past the head of Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers:
Trust us: Gregory doesnt know shit from shinola when it comes to public schools. (More to come as our series unfolds.) But he did have his prepared scripts to read. Paid millions per annum, he read them.
Are teachers and teachers unions the problem? To anyone who grasps the sweep of the problem, this ugly notion is utterly stupid. And yet, it has ruled the airwaves in the past week as NBC and its sad cable arms have staged a cleansing witch hunt aimed at the deeply vile teachers who have ruined our children. (This started on Fridays Morning Joe, with one of the dumbest pundit discussion we have ever observed.) Presumably, teachers and unions are part of the problem, to the extent that our schools are failing. But the notion that teachers and unions are the problem comes straight from the gang in Salem Village, by way of a broader anti-union jihadmessaging which has driven our politics over the past forty years.
(For one account of this anti-union war, see Paul Krugmans The Conscience of a Liberal.)
Unfortunately, Davis Guggenheim seems to believe that he has a very good heart. As a result, he decided to make a film about public schoolsa film which seems designed in part to showcase his own moral grandeur. The film is called Waiting for Superman; in the past few weeks, it has spawned some of the dumbest public discussions weve ever seen or heard. And by the way: If you think political journalists know nothing about public schools, you should see what film critics write! One such savant, Stephen Holden, launched his angry tirade as follows. These are paragraphs 3 and 4 of his clueless review, found in the great New York Times:
Poor Holden! His devotion to script was so pure, so extreme! As a result, he forgot to mention an inconvenient trutha fact reported in his own newspaper, just one week before. In this easy-to-read passage, education reporter Trip Gabriel helped us imagine a key pointlike his pious heroine Rhee, Director Guggenheim may not always be compulsively honest:
Pitiful, isnt it? In fact, Washingtons teachers have accepted a new contract under which teachers would give up tenure in exchange for higher salaries based on merit. (Were borrowing Holdens language.) But so what? Three months later, pimping script, Holden gave the New York Times poorly-taught readers a thoroughly different idea.
Who knows? Maybe Holden didnt know about that breakthrough contract. Perhaps he failed to do his homework; maybe he forgot to read Gabriels news report, which appeared in his own famous paper. In fairness, many critics are flubbing this point as they advance Guggenheims teacher-hating script, in which a weak, small-minded nitwit advances decades of right-wing messaging.
That said, were really at the barrels bottom when Holden bungles this point. Just a guess: Guggenheim failed to include this fact in his high-minded film (chyrons are easy to insert in post-production), even as he gave the impression that the DC union refused to relent. Just a guess: Guggenheim failed to include this fact in the guide he distributes to movie criticsthe guide from which such uninformed dopes cut-and-paste their misleading reviews.
Groan! The DC union has agreed to a measure under which teachers would give up tenure in exchange for higher salaries based on merit. But New York Times readers were told something different as Holden typed his heartfelt review! He was pimping a heartless, dumb script: No more teachers dirty looks! And even more disinformation would flow as his clueless review continued.
Rhee and Guggenheim are morally pure; indeed, they even admit to this trait in their public statements! But Holdens review became more problematic as its assault on teachers (and sanity) proceeded. Alas! People like Holden and David Gregory dont know squat about public schools. Youd think, if they value the children so much, they might be a little more careful.
TOMORROWPART 2: Stephen continues to fail
THURSDAYPART 3: Ugly data, broken down
FRIDAYPART 4: What Finland lacks