Tuesday, May 15, 2007

more perle


What Is The Post Opinion Section For?

One specific issue some of the delicate flowers raised was the question of why progressive bloggers are so mean to Fred Hiatt. And, indeed, a decent point was raised: Progressive bloggers are quick to impute specific motives to Hiatt and we're often leaping to conclusions -- and even frequently mistaken -- when we do so. The truth of the matter is that none of us know why the Post does the things it does; their actions are baffling. Today, for example, I see an op-ed by Richard Perle.

What is one to conclude from this?

Does the Post think Perle is a reliable source of information? Maybe it does, but in that case one would need to seriously question its sanity. My guess is that the Post doesn't think Perle is a reliable source of information, but that it decided to publish the op-ed anyway. Why would they do that? I'm not sure. I could speculate, but I won't since, as I've learned, that sort of thing annoys people. One is left, however, with the basic facts -- Perle's op-ed is there in the opinion section. There's also a column by Charles Krauthammer. Whatever reason either of those articles are there, their presence makes it difficult to believe that the Post's opinion pages are, as an institution, committed to making their readers better-informed about the world.


Christopher said...

Well, of course no one can be sure of the motivations of people--having said that, I do have some insight into the way Hyatt and his colleagues think. First of all I want to make very clear that most people who get to important positions in government and the mainstream media have been vetted continually. First in University and later as they move up the ladder. Intellectual brilliance (I assure you) won't get you very far.

One of the most remarkable things about the American intellectual elites (on all sides of the political spectrum) is their inability to understand power, class, elites, cliques and so on. Since Marx has long ago been forbidden in American discourse we also have thrown out Machiavelli and others who speak about how power (politics) really works. We have the strange (to me) notion that "public servants" and members of the media are somehow dedicated to the truth, to the betterment of mankind and so on. This notion is pure garbage--you wouldn't last ten minutes if you were.

My point is that Hyatt operates in the interest of his class and his clique. There is surprisingly little difference between members of the elites say that write for the Post across the left/right spectrum--they differ in tactics but pretty much agree on the necessity of Empire. These guys believe in the Walter Lippman idea that power belongs to the elites and that the people as a whole ought to be misinformed and propagandized.

You know, notion that the Neocons are some kind of aberration is kind of silly. They represent a large faction of the elites--what other factions don't like about them is that they are fairly straightforward in expressing their opinions and believe in making bold moves. Hyatt and others in the mainstream would rather be a little more circumspect, a little quieter, more polite and more diplomatic.

I say all this as a longtime resident and observer (usually from a distance but sometimes close up) of the Washington scene.

LeeB said...

Christopher, this post is tee-rific.
Luke! Front Page. STAT!

lukery said...

Thanks Christopher. I'll promote this to the front page, per LeeB's orders ;-)