SURVIVING SUPERMAN! The Post prays for a great debate. Well offer eight prescriptions: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010
Milbank breaks a rule: In this mornings Washington Post, we learn some intriguing facts (just click here). Example: In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 45 percent of respondents approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. 53 percent disapprove.
Those are important political facts. But last Saturday, Charles Blow helped us better understand the people expressing those views. Overall, 41 percent of those people cant even name the current vice president. (Correct answer: Biden. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/4/10.) And only 72 percent of those people can give the correct answer to a bone-simple A-or-B questiona question with only two possible answers, each of which respondents were given: Do you happen to know which political party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives? Democrats or Republicans?
In short, when it comes to the simplest public affairs, we the people rarely know our keisters from our keyholes. Aside from the political implications of our views, why should anyone care what we think about Obamas economic prescriptions? This is an enduring question, but its one the press corps sternly avoids. It has long been a matter of Hard Pundit Law: You dont discuss the massive dumbness exhibited by us the people.
Congratulations to Blow from ignoring this stricture last weekend. And congratulations to Dana Milbank for a long essay in Sundays Postan essay which ignored another long-standing prohibition. Uh-oh! When we dont know our keisters from our keyholes, were susceptible to believing any damn-fool set of claims which come down the pike. In the past twenty years, our politics has endlessly been driven by such arrant nonsense.
Bill Clinton was a serial murderer! That notion was spread all over the land by one of our most famous preachers. Al Gore said he inspired Love Story! That fateful claim got its start in 1997, from Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd. Then there are the ludicrous claims which have driven our policy discussions. Again, a prominent handful:
Garbage, right down the line. But these claims have endlessly been recited, jumbling our major policy debateswith major journalists like Milbank looking silently on. For decades, no claims have been so dumb or so false that the mainstream press corps would push back against them. Indeed, when it came to the crap about Clinton and Gore, Milbank was happy to advance the history-altering claims.
But that was thenand this is now! In his essay, Milbank does something that never is donesomething which, in a rational world, would be a normal press function. Unheard of! In his essay, Milbank takes a leading American broadcaster and examines the ludicrous things he has said! He identifies these claims as absurd! He does so at some length!
Lets say it again: In a rational world, this would be a standard press function. This sort of essay would appear in the press all the time. But especially when it comes to powerful players, mainstream journalists have refused to engage in this basic function. Lets recall a recent incident, involving a pair of our true moral frauds: When Sean Hannity kept making false claims about Imam Rauf, Nicholas Kristof knew what to do: He never said a word about Hannity, who was disinforming millions of people every night. Instead, he beat up on an insignificant playera decent man who made one mistake in a minor Maine newspaper.
So the system has worked, for decades. The established world of our liberal journals has essentially never complained.
Milbank did something thats never done; he performed a basic press function! Given prevailing press corps norms, its stunning to see such a piece appear.
Good lord! After all these years! More on his essay tomorrow.
PART 1SO THE EDITORS PRAY (permalink): Does the American press corps hate kids? So it often seems. Just consider an editorial in Saturdays Washington Postan editorial which displays, in very mild fashion, the press corps long-standing, feckless approach to public school issues.
Needless to say, the piece was high-minded. As they closed, the editors offered a fervent plea for Washingtons mayor-elect, Vincent Gray:
DCs much-discussed school reform has not been anti-black, the editors judged. And they wished the best for Mayor Gray as he moves forward from here. Should Gray retain Chancellor Rhee, the source of major controversy? The new mayor should be allowed to base his decision on facts, not fears or fantasy, the editors loftily said.
But when has the press corps followed this advice when it comes to the public schools? In that same editorial, the editors presented this defense of Rheea defense which is riddled with claims which cant be defended as facts:
We would assume that Washingtons schools are better because of Rhee. But that pro-Rhee history is built around claims which cant be described as facts. We hate to disappoint the editors, but there is no factual basis for the claim that Washington had the country's worst scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress when Rhee took over in 2007; in fact, this claim is almost certainly false (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/28/10). Nor is there any factual basis for the claim that Washington has been leading the nation in the rate of improvement under Rhees leadership.
Washingtons scores on the NAEP have improved under Rhee. But those embellished claims by the Post bear a certain resemblance to fantasies They arent established facts.
Ditto for the editors claims about those gains on local test scores. The editors cite actual proficiency rates generated by the Districts annual testing; they extend their work to two decimal places to show us how careful they are. And its truethose proficiency rates have increased under Rhee. But are the editors sure that the Districts tests havent gotten easier in recent years? Are the editors sure that the gains in proficiency didnt stem, in part, from certain test-taking techniques which have been taught in certain schoolstechniques on which the Post has reported without noting the technical problems these techniques seem to present?
It isnt like these are abstract questions. Just two months ago, the state of New York threw out years of student test scores. In the process, the state admitted that its ballyhooed gains in passing rates had been illusory, because its statewide tests had gotten easier over the years! The Post responded to this scandal in typical journalistic fashion; as best we can tell, the paper has simply never reported this matter! In this way, the Post covers up for favored elites. For example, the Post covers for New York City chancellor Joel Klein, a man who should have known what was happeningand a major ally of Rhee, who is presumed to be right in all things. But then, this is the way the Post behaved in 2006, when the state of Virginia (part of the Posts local beat) admitted that it had reported fraudulent test scores for several years, in all schools, all over the state.
Covering up for Virginias elites, the Post refused to report this major news too! Today, the high-minded editors waddle forth, praying that Gray should be allowed to base his decision on facts. We agree with that lofty idea. But why should Gray get this advantagean advantage the Washington Post keeps denying its readers?
Do the editors simply hate kids? Journalists who cared about public schools would surely create a more enlightened discussion. Or maybe these editors are simply too dumb to understand the issues involved here. However we judge it, the press corps has engaged in an orgy in recent weeks, in the wake of Davis Guggenheims new documentary, Waiting for Superman. The discussion of this simple-minded film has often been a rolling disgrace. Are we simply too dumb to do better? Or does the press corps hate kids?
Over at the New York Times, Lady Collins announced that Guggenheims film has sparked a great debate about American education. In our view, that claim is delusionalseveral miles past absurd. If we want a great debate, well have to move beyond Guggenheims bungled claims and his stunningly simplistic frameworks. Over the next three days, well suggest some things a nation would do if it did desire that great debate. Where should a real debate go from here? Well offer eight, maybe nine prescriptions.
We agree with the editors lofty goals! Our debate about the public schools should be based on facts, not on fictions or fantasies. But look around the modern American landscape! Given the norms of our adult world, is there any earthly chance well ever see such a discussion?
TOMORROWPART 2: Can we drop the magic bullet approach? Can we stop hiding our actual test scores? Must we make delusional statements about the recent past?