Friday, December 01, 2006

Bush: "the only person who understands"

* a reporter on Anderson Cooper:
"Is Bush really in a state of denial, or is he the only person who understands the situation?'
lol

* someone's president speaks:
"And that's why this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all."
is that an intentional shot at the 'realists'? It certainly doesn't look like an accident - he didn't say '...it isn't realistic...' Bush is so toast.

* Miguel's mini review of Sibel's latest:
"Sibel Edmonds paints a grim portrait of a modern nation that hides behind a democratic, secular façade, but in which real power is exercised by a 'deep state' composed of an alliance of drug lords, ultranationalists, intelligence operatives, militarists and money launderers.

And that's JUST the United States. Don't EVEN get Ms. Edmonds to start talking about her native land of Turkey."

* josh is angry:
"This is noxious, risible, fetid thinking. But there it is. That's the story they want to tell. The whole place is rotten down to the very core."
* larisa has some more speculation about the Russian assasinations on her blog. she ends thusly:
"I also think a lot more is about to happen in order to move the focus away from the Kremlin and the Italians. But I think people need to understand something very important about this case: it was in actuality a first nuke strike on British soil, using a human as not only the target, but possibly the central point from which a larger contamination might spread. This is really equal to an act of war, assuming they can absolutely prove an order by Putin."

* froomkin:
"I’m convinced that my enthusiasm for calling bullshit is the main reason for the considerable success of my White House Briefing column, which has turned into a significant traffic-driver for The Washington Post’s Web site.

I’m not sure why calling bullshit has gone out of vogue in so many newsrooms — why, in fact, it’s so often consciously avoided. There are lots of possible reasons. There’s the increased corporate stultification of our industry, to the point where rocking the boat is seen as threatening rather than invigorating. There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

The return of Democrats to political power and relevancy gives us the opportunity to call bullshit in a more bipartisan manner, which is certainly healthy. But there are different kinds of bullshit. Republican political leaders these past six years have built up a massive, unprecedented credibility deficit, such that even their most straightforward assertions invite close bullshit inspection. By contrast, Democratic bullshit tends to center more around hypocrisy and political cowardice. Trying to find equivalency between the two would still be a mistake – and could lead to catty, inside-baseball gotcha journalism rather than genuine bullshit-calling.

If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.

But here’s the good news for you newsroom managers wringing your hands over new technologies and the loss of younger audiences: Because the Internet so values calling bullshit, you are sitting on an as-yet largely untapped gold mine. I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.'

5 comments:

Mizgîn said...

From Miguel: And that's JUST the United States. Don't EVEN get Ms. Edmonds to start talking about her native land of Turkey.


Why is there so much resonance in that statement?

lukery said...

resonance is miguel's speciality :-)

noise said...

Is Froomkin joking? Corporate media protects corporate interests.

Kondracke's take is shameless but not surprising. From a review of John Dean's latest book by Bernard Weiner:

Conservatives, Altemeyer found, often engaged in right-wing aggression not only out of political belief but also "for the pure pleasure of it ... [They are] malicious, mean-spirited, and disrespectful of even the basic codes of civility ... [A]uthoritarians have little if any conscience when pursuing their causes, and reason gives way to expediency."

Not only do political conservatives tend to follow authority figures' orders more often, Altemeyer's research revealed, but they are "intolerant of criticism of their authorities, because they believe the authority is unassailably correct." In short, their leaders do not lie; but when they are found to have lied, they did so for good, godly reasons. After all, the righteous end justifies all means. (1)

lukery said...

thnx noise.

Anonymous said...

C'mon, Kondracke is not a conservative, he's a Scoop Jackson welfare/warfare-statist "liberal".

See http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/review.html for a contrary view on Dean and the pseudoscience he parrots from his bogus guru, Altemeyer.