THE SCIENCE AND JOY OF DIVERSION/DISTRACTION! Does climate change really threaten the world? But first, a governors hair: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2008
Thus disinformed Brzezinski: On last nights Countdown, the Nations Chris Hayes praised that front-page report by the New York Times David Leonhardtthe report in which Leonhardt semi-discussed the conservative worlds latest disinformation campaign (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/10/08).
We understand why some progressives saw the glass half-full when they read Leonhardts reportalthough, on balance, we still see it quite empty. What was missing from Leonhardts report? Well, Mika Brzezinski, for one.
As we said yesterday, that bogus claim about Big 3 pay is just the latest in a long list of highly successful pseudo-conservative disinformation campaigns. Its news when the public is thus disinformedand we think Leonhardt shied away from giving this news the full treatment. He cited only one example of the disinformationa bungled report by Wolf Blitzer. But this latest bogus claim has been pimped all through the mainstream press; in our view, Leonhardt shied away from fully presenting this hugely important fact. Good God! Here was Brzezinski, three weeks ago, in a pitiful Daily Beast post:
No, you cant get dumber than that. (For Brzezinskis full post, just click here.) As part of the Daily Beasts Buzz Board feature, the Morning Joe host had been given the chance to cite any one thing in the whole wide world. This disinformation was the one single thing she most wanted the public to know.
Its news when the public is thus disinformed by major mainstream journalists. Indeed, its highly important newsthe kind of news which deserves full, focused, stand-alone treatment. We understand why Hayes and others thought Leonhardts piece was worthy of praise; its extremely rare to see the Times deal with such disinformation at all. But we thought Leonhardt cut and ran from this awkward topic. We thought he made a weak, half-hearted attempt to report what his colleagues have done.
Indeed, the mainstream press has been full of this disinformation in the past month. Media Matters has cited a ton of examplesexamples Leonhardt could have drawn on. Instead, he cited one examplethen jumped to a string of scattershot topics. He discussed the reasons why his grandfather stopped buying Oldsmobiles in the 1970s, for example. That might have been a good story some other dayafter he had told the full story about the disinformation campaign.
That story remains untold in the Times. In our view, progressives should complain about that (rather familiar) fact.
The science and joy of diversion/distraction: The tragedy of the Blagojevich matter involves the placement of this news report in todays New York Times. But first, heres the start of Gail Collins column, in which the lady continues to praise the joys of diversion/distraction:
Yaaaayy! A story with which lets us give people what they yearn foryet another diversion! Collins seems oblivious to the vast harm this new story may cause; it may not cost 100,000 people their jobs, but it did affect the placement of that important news story today. But in standard diversionist fashion, Collins goes on to discuss Blagojevichs hair (two times); smirkingly, the lady explains whats wrong or imperfect with the senate replacement process in all three states involved in the task (Illinois, New York and Delaware). As usual, everything has to be wrongor imperfect. And as usual, diversion is praised.
Our elite culture turns on the need for diversion. Palace cultures always have.
In fairness, the clowning was scaled back on cable last night as pundits discussed the Blagojevich matter. Keith Olbermann correctly said that the word alleged should be used more often. Chris Matthews correctly noted that Blagojevich may be a bit daftthat some of the matters he allegedly discussed may imaginably have taken place in his head, though not in the actual world. Rachel Maddow correctly raised a direct question: Is it possible that Blagojevich has mental problems? Mental illness does play a large role in the world; its always possible that Blagojevich has some such problem. To our ear, Maddow seemed oddly immature as she discussed this perfectly sensible topic, which she kept describing as craziness. (On MSNBC, joking is all.) But in contrast to the previous night, it seemed to have crossed the minds of some players that a lot of innocent people might get dragged through a whole lot of mudif cable players continue their clowning and joking about the Blagojevich matter.
Collins silliness to the side, this story could do our country great harm. Monica Davey offers a short, intelligent warning in this mornings Times:
In truth, we know very little about the real facts behind the matters now under review. Responsible pundits will try, very hard, to remind the public of this fact. But magpies were eager to laugh and cavort Tuesday nightand to speculate, very hard. To our ear, the conversation between Maddow and Michael Isikoff was especially egregious. But people are getting their names dragged through mud. And uh-oh! At a time when were facing massive problems, some of them are among the most important folk in the world.
Its fun to divert, and to talk about hair. (In the 1990s, Maureen Dowd helped fashion a brainless career from Gores bald spot and Rudys comb-over.) But careless conduct by the commentariat can do massive harm at this junctureas it did in the past, when the diversions they joyfully churned involved earth tones, and inventing the Internet. And the Cubs and the Yankees, of course. And the fact that John Kerry wind-surfed. And got the wrong cheese on his steak.
First, peoples reputations can get badly, unfairly damaged if pundits are careless, silly or devious. This is already happening, of course, as some punditspeople like Isikoffoffer extremely frivolous speeches about the vast interconnections theyve managed to spot between Obamas aides and Blagojevich. Well only say this: We liberals cant engage in fatuous trashing of Republican targets, then expect others to be more careful when it comes to Big Dems. Last night, to cite one sad example, Olbermann was still promoting the moronic bullsh*t about Palin and the turkey farm. Progressives cant play the fool in that manner, then complain when utter foolishness rules the rest of the discourse.
(As weve noted in the past: Dems have sacrificed major players to this brainless culture in the past sixteen years. Yes, its fun to play the fool about Palin. But now this brainless culture may be redirecting itselfagainst Obama and his major aides. Does that seem like a good deal?)
Second problem: As Collins said, the Blagojevich matter serves as a diversionat a time when our actual problems are vast. This brings us back to that news report, the one we cited in paragraph one. Obama Team Set on Environment, the headline says. And yet, this important story got second billing on the Times front page today, pushed down the page by that latest diversion. Does climate change really threaten the world? Collins, simpering inside Versailles, is more involved in talk today about her diversions hair.
Does climate change really threaten the world? On Tuesday, Obama met with Gore, one of the major players we Dems allowed to be eaten alive by the culture of clowning. Absent Blagojevich and his hair, this might have produced a few discussions of the actual state of the planet. But because of Collins latest diversion, the Q-and-A that emerged from that meeting involved Blagojevich, if not his hair.
Inside Versailles, they long for diversion. This wont cost 100,000 people their jobs, one pundit divertedly says.