Phew. For a moment there, I thought I might have to agree with a post over on (un)Sound Politics. But then I followed through the link. What a relief.
Jim Miller takes issue with Seattle P-I editorial cartoonist David Horsey for this week’s Burning Question, blockquoting it for the convenience of (u)SP readers:
Unquestionably, there are good things resulting from the democratization of the media. The best bloggers are delving into issues and information that may be bypassed by professional journalists. But with everyone holding a virtual megaphone, will we be able to hear the wiser voices amid the din of full-throated free expression?
Here’s my Burning Question:
All things considered, is our understanding of the world made better or worse by an unfiltered cacophony of opinions?
Miller calls it a “revealing question” that displays a “dangerous misunderstanding”:
Freedom of speech is not something owned by public officials and “professional journalists”. It belongs to all of us, regardless of how wise David Horsey may think we are. It is up to the listener, or the reader, not some filter, however “professional”, to decide what should be believed — and what should not be believed.
The loss of their monopoly has hit many journalists hard. But to see one half wishing for filters on the freedom of others is still dismaying. I have criticized David Horsey more than once, but I have never said that he should be filtered. But he seems to believe that it might be better if I were.
Uh-huh.
What a pompous, paranoid load of crap.
The fact is, Horsey’s question isn’t “revealing” at all, and the only “misunderstanding” is the one that Miller willfully foists on his readers by presenting the question entirely out of context. If you click through the link and actually read Horsey’s piece (something I’m sure Miller understands a small minority of blog readers generally take the initiative to do) you’d understand that this week’s Burning Question is the final installment in Horsey’s long-running series.
The world of punditry has been democratized. The mainstream media are surrounded by non-professional competitors who employ a wide array of formats to exchange opinions unfiltered by editors or experts.
In this new context, finding a place to express a viewpoint is hardly a challenge. Thus, with that need more than met, Burning Questions will close up shop next Saturday to give way to new things.
Miller tsk-tskingly accuses Horsey of “half wishing for filters on the freedom of others” (totally oblivious to the fact that us bloggers are media filters in our own right,) but a fair reading of Horsey finds that he actually celebrates the new media, openly acknowledging that the Burning Question series has come to an end exactly because us bloggers have made it superfluous and outdated. That said, Horsey then goes on to raise some legitimate concerns about the blogosphere in general, and our comment threads in particular.
Yes, it does seem good that average folk can have their say, just like George Will and Paul Krugman. Yet, most times when I’ve read through a long string of comments posted on an online forum, I have come away with the same doubts I had about the amateur hotel reviewers.
Not just doubts, actually, but worries about the intellect and analytical skills (plus spelling ability) of my fellow citizens. In so much of this populist punditry there is an overabundance of ill-informed spouting off infused with incredible rudeness, paranoia, bias and bile.
Gee, I dunno… that seems to me like a pretty fair description of the comment threads on both (u)SP and HA. I’m not exactly sure what Miller finds so objectionable.
As for the claim that Horsey’s question is “revealing,” Miller ignores the basic conceit of posing a “Burning Question” in the first place. The whole point of the exercise is to spark debate. How could a question possibly be revealing if the very nature of the rhetorical device demands that it be controversial?
Jesus… what an idiotic and/or dishonest critique.
The irony is that by reading between the lines to portray Horsey as a status-quo-defending, patrician enemy of free speech, Miller pretty much confirms all of Horsey’s doubts about the “intellect and analytical skills” of us citizen bloggers. (Though I gotta admit, Miller’s spelling is dead on.) Unpoisoned by Miller’s paranoid analysis, I think the average reader would find that Horsey was actually saying some pretty darned flattering things about us bloggers.
Too flattering.
Daddy and Mr. Miller are playing their drinking game again. That’s because those awful Democrats take over tomorrow.
But Daddy has a blog. He calls it the Wall Street Journal.
I was considering doing a post on this one, but I’m glad you did it because I don’t have to. My basic angle was going to be that someone who invites a variety of voices into one of the daily papers every week is probably in favor of more speech.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the cross post on his own page is funnier still. He explains that the fact that he didn’t think the post-invasion looting was bad is proof that there is no need for a mainstream media.
Oh, and I should also mention that the crew down at Penny Arcade were none too happy at Horsey a few years ago for having “chosen to riff on the First Amendment, suggesting that it is somehow a perversion of its mission to communicate things and be protected.”
Jim Miller isn’t the only wingnut to exhibit weak analytical skills; they all do. It must take real effort to miss the fact that the customers of the journalism industry not only allow, but want, professional journalists to “filter” information and opinion for them.
Why? For the same reason people read Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, headnotes of published legal opinions, or executive summaries of reports. None of us have time to read even a tiny fraction of what’s out there, so we depend on paid professionals to winnow through the heap and bring us the grain, i.e., that which is accurate, important, and useful.
On the other hand, most of what is “published” on blogs is inaccurate, unimportant, and useless. The people reading Sucky Politics, Freep, or similar blogs are seeking affirmation of their beliefs by hanging out with their own kind. There’s probably less of that here, because we liberals are vastly more emotionally secure and vastly more capable of independent thinking. No, we frequent the HA comment threads to verbally kick the shit out of the moronic, ignorant, uneducated, unpatriotic, America-hating, troop-despising, fascist pigfuckers who come here looking for a brawl. Thank God for our wingnut trolls! Without them, there would be no reason to post here. May Satan keep sending wingnuts up from the dungeons of Hell to entertain us for as long as I’m alive! This sure would be a boring blog without them.
I suppose there may be a certain amount of information that some people may find useful on blogs dedicated to, say, skateboarding or model railroading or bird watching. The only thing you’ll ever learn from reading the comment threads of this blog is that most wingnuts can’t even spell their own fucking names!
The only thing anybody learned from the pathetic little competing blog is that (a) Stefan can’t hold a job for more than 1/2 days due to his inability to follow a supervisor’s instructions, and (b) a former GOP candidate for the legislature hopes terrorists kill a planeload of innocent Americans to improve his party’s election chances. These facts are entertaining but, face it, trivial. Who gives a shit that Stefan Sharansky, who also can’t spell his own fucking name, is unemployable? He’s living off his lawyer wife’s income and donations to his “legal action fund,” so you don’t need to worry about him becoming homeless.
@1 Only a few hours to go!
INVESTIGATIONS! SUBPOENAS! HEARINGS! PERP WALKS! PINK JUMPSUITS!
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Eat shit, rightys! The hour of your doom is at hand!
I mean, c’mon, when I buy a copy of the P-I, I’m paying the editors and reporters to cull through the day’s events and use their professional judgment to decide what’s important enough to be worth my time reading it.
I’m a busy rabbit, ya know. Considering how much time I have to spend keeping HA’s trolls under control, I only have an hour or so a day to read the news.
Wingnuts, as a general rule, aren’t free speech’s biggest fans. For example, Jonathan Gardner aka Federal Way Conservative says anyone who criticizes Bush should be executed for treason. I think he means it. Therefore, if Gardner shows up at my burrow to arrest me for being a Democrat, I’ll have no choice but to exercise my right of lawful self-defense by using the degree of force that a reasonable person apprehending himself to be at imminent risk of death or grave bodily harm would use.
(metallic sounds)
ah, lets see why we might be “paranoid”
a) Gregoire wants to limit campaign donations to judge races (which of course limits free speech in political campaigns)
b) Elections commission went after conserv radio KVI for hosts’ support of Eyman
c) Initiatives/referenda keep getting ignored and squashed in this state … libs love to talk about relying on our great electors, as if people have no innate right to challenge government
d) print and tv media in this town all 1 sided to the left
dream on lefties
George McGovern, the liberal 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, dropped a little bombshell to Larry King the other night: He voted Republican in 1976, for Gerald Ford.
McGovern said he finally told his wife, Eleanor, that Thanksgiving. Her reply: “So did I.”
Horsey conflates “comments on an on-line forum” with “posts on a blog” so it is not really clear what he is talking about. Yes a lot of the people who write comments are stupid. Yes a lot of the people who writre letters to the P-I are stuipid. Yes?
And since Horsey cites NO specifics, just his assertions and conclusions, I though his article useless and merely a means for you and Miller to waste my time.
Hey right wing dick suckers – WHAT TIME IS IT?
It’s NANCY time punks. HE HE!
And hey Sucks, I’m through with your wife now, you can have her back.
Hey Rabbit – How many helmets could be purchased with the money being spent on Stretch’s coronation? Doncha think that money could be better spent?
Mr. Sucks stated:
Proving that many liberals are willing to seriously consider differing points of view and do not automatically oppose conservatives simply because of the party label. Essentially, if an honest conservative is doing a pretty good job, we’ll consider voting for that person.
Too bad we’re having such a hard time finding honest conservatives these days, but I haven’t given up hope. Now that the neo-cons have received their well-deserved thumping, maybe they can come out of hiding.
1976 was the first Presidential election where I could cast my vote, and I too voted for President Ford, and still do not regret that vote. Yes, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney both worked for him, but he kept them under his control, rather than the way our current President seems to have been under theirs.
Unfortunately, the far-right simply abandoned President Ford when Ronald Reagan didn’t get the nomination and refused to campaign for him.
No matter. Despite the rather effective hatchet-job done on him by the neo-cons and far-right types, President Carter actually did a pretty decent job too.
Hell, everybody has an opinion; with broadband, everybody can post it.
Doesn’t make everybody a journalist; doesn’t mean anybody takes you seriously.
As for the comments, well, blogger software GUI’s make the “nyah’s” “neener-neener’s” and “SEZ you’s” easier to read.
Name me a time in any blog comments section anywhere in the world where the words “You’ve convinced me. I see your point.” has ever appeared. HA! Indeed.
@13
From the Tits for Tats Dept.
Partisans from either side may piss and moan over the other’s coronation costs only if they complained at the costs of their own camp’s coronation last time.
Blue/Red Handbook
Carter lost in a landslide in 1980. He won only one 3 states and 41% of the popular vote when running for re-election in 1980. He won just over 50% of the vote in 1976 and something like 20 states. The voters realized he wasn’t a good President, and it didn’t take a “hatchet job” to show that.
Carter is a decent human being, but he was a lousy President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....tion,_1980
Carter was blamed for a whole basket of woes; some of which he inherited – a goodly number of which should rightly be laid at the feet of Congress at the time.
But back to the executives:
RMN’s choice of Arthur Burns in ’70 to run the Fed was the first in a series of acts that profoundly effected our economy for the rest of the decade. Nixon’s declaration, “Now I am a Keynesian.” in January of ’71 lit the fuse. And let’s not even talk about oil and OPEC, at that time.
How many are old enough to remember the wage and price freezes? I was in the grocery business in 1973. Prior to the freeze in June, we were changing prices on items on a daily basis. In our store alone, four employees were tasked full-time with price changing. We weren’t marking them down. The economy was tanking in much the way the Administration was, politically. Gerald Ford (RIP) was handed this mess, and if Reagan had put away his hurt feelings, gotten off his Hollywood ass and campaigned for him, Ford would have continued to deal with the “soaring inflation, high interest rates, a stagnant economy at home, and a deteriorating situation abroad, especially in the Middle East,” that the good historians at Wikipedia bestow on Carter.
But that’s another tale.
It’s not what people say in their comments that is important – it’s what they don’t say.
Call it “reading between the lines”; a skill all Americans should develop and which the Internet seems to be helping them learn.
18 Agreed…it’s interesting (but only mildly) to speculate on whether the same issues Carter was saddled with would have hampered Ford equally in a second term. I personally doubt Ford would have been any less willing to offer aid to the Shah. Perhaps (especially with a push from Rummy and Cheney) he would have done something earlier to stabilize the situation in Iran before the mullahs took over. Might have worked, or we could have wound up in a nice new quagmire just as we were getting the vile taste of Vietnam out of our mouths.
In any case, it’s a pretty sure bet that Reagan would still have been elected in 1980. The Men Behind the Curtain had ordained that Ronnie’s brand of “Hollywood conservatism” was due for its airing. Ford may have stumbled in the way of that happening four years earlier than it did.
@9 righton says: ah, lets see why we might be “paranoid” – a) Gregoire wants to limit campaign donations to judge races (which of course limits free speech in political campaigns) … 01/04/2007 at 6:56 am”
Civics 101: Judicial elections are not “political campaigns.” They are non-partisan elections.
9(b) Well, yeah, some of us liberals think the PDC overreached on that one, too.
@13 The pertinent question is how many helmets did YOU buy for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bought one, for $99. You?
P.S., pay your gambling debt! Hey, I have a suggestion – why don’t you ask Goldy if you can settle your bet with him by donating $100 in his name to http://www.operation-helmet.org/? As of this morning, they have a backlog of 469 helmet requests from troops, so they still need donations.
13 (continued) You see, Redneck, I have no control over how much is spent on Stretch’s coronation, whoever he is. The only money I control is my own, and while that money most definitely is in limited supply, I did what I could within my resources to support our troops. What have YOU done to support our troops – besides spewing hot air to the effect that they should continue dying for nothing? Since talking is your forte, in that you don’t do anything else, can you tell us what the mission is? Is there one?
17 “Carter was blamed for soaring inflation, high interest rates, a stagnant economy at home, and a deteriorating situation abroad, especially in the Middle East, …”
So what? Clinton was blamed for everything from drug smuggling to Vince Foster’s death! Blaming someone doesn’t mean they’re to blame.
Let’s start with “soaring inflation.” When did it start? Remember Nixon’s price controls? Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program? This war-induced inflation essentially resulted from LBJ and Nixon both printing money to fight the Vietnam War, and was raging apace long before Carter came along. BTW, inflation peaked in 1981, on Reagan’s watch.
Now let’s talk about high interest rates. The Federal Reserve, not the president, influences interest rates through setting federal funds rates and governing monetary policy. Carter appointed Paul Volcker, who “is widely credited with ending the United States’ stagflation crisis of the 1970s.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker Interest rates and money supply need time to take effect, so righties conveniently give credit to Reagan for bringing down inflation, but it was actually Carter’s appointee to the Fed chairmanship who did it.
Now let’s fact-check the “stagnant economy” claim:
Jobs Records of Presidents
(as percentage of workforce)
Democrat Roosevelt 5.3%
Democrat Johnson 3.8%
Democrat Carter 3.1%
Democrat Truman 2.5%
Democrat Clinton 2.4%
Democrat Kennedy 2.3%
Republican Nixon 2.2%
Republican Reagan 2.1%
Republican Coolidge 1.1%
Republican Ford 1.1%
Republican Eisenhower 0.9%
Republican Bush Sr. 0.6%
Republican Bush Jr. (0.7%)
Republican Hoover (9.0%)
Notice where Carter is on the list? And Reagan? ‘Nuff said.
As for “deteriorating situation abroad, especially in the Middle East,” Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which resulted in an enduring peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the single most significant achievement to date toward long-term Middle East peace. And what did Reagan do? He secretly paid ransom in the form of weaponry to Iran, our arch-enemy. ‘Nuff said.
Now let’s consider some of Carter’s other accomplishments:
“The military in the latter half of the 1970’s was … converting from a draft-fed force to an all-volunteer one, requiring changes in bases and amenities throughout the system. … In the Air Force, we were deploying new F-14s, F-15s, and F-16s and … [t]he cruise missle program was … entering the development phase … and billions of dollars [were put] into the B-2 stealth program, a classified budget item … apparent to … few in the government. … The Navy was modernizing its forces with the AEGIS class cruisers, and a complete re-working of its anti-aircraft and anti-missle defense systems. New submarines were also being deployed …. [In the Army] there [were] technological advances which required large amounts of money for research and development. The new attack helicopters, Bradely Fighting Vehicles, and M-1 Tanks … all … underwent … development during the Carter administration. … The Marines [got] new amphibious landing vehicles, including hovercraft, and assault ships … [and] the British Harrier Jump-Jet …. Now, most of the up-front money for these programs were spent in the mid to late 1970’s, but … you didn’t … see the results of these programs until the 1980’s. But … they had to be paid for, despite many … being in the “black” … budget which was not viewable by [Carter’s] critics. And as the 1980 election neared, there was tremendous pressure [from copnservatives] to cut the budget. California’s Proposition 13 … was an anti-tax movement which the Republicans promptly [nade] their cause …. So Carter was under … pressure to cut the federal budget while funding [defense] programs no one could see. …
“So Carter ordered the lights dimmed. His budget director, Casper Weinberger … earned the nickname ‘Cap the Knife’ for his parsimonious pinching of the pennies …. [T]he very Republicans who criticised him for being ‘weak on defense’ also criticized him for running budget deficits ….
“So Carter paid the price, economically and politically, for reforming the military, and lost the 1980 election. Reagan got the credit when the reformed military took to the field, with its new weapons systems, and more money was available to increase troop pay.And the Republican insistence on a balanced budget was quickly forgotten [in favor of] tax breaks … [that] left massive structural deficits which had to be adjusted a few years later by … tax increase[s] …”
(Quoting a comment on HA by rhp6033 on 8/18/06 @ 8:21 am)
Bottom Line, wingnut Carter-bashing consists prototypical wingnut fare: Lies, ignoring Carter’s accomplishments, blaming Carter for the results Nixon’s and Ford’s policies, and giving Reagan credit for Carter’s policies. What a bunch of hooey! How can you tell a wingnut is lying? Simple, his lips are moving.
It might also be pointed out that as the public sees the light and the wheels continue to fall off the neofascist juggernaut, the rantings of the right-wing pundits and the blog trollfucks become more and more illogical, outrageous and distanced from reality. The irony of this is they’re actually working against their own cause by scaring off anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
The inflation rate at the start of Carter’s was 5.22%, by November 1980 it was 12.77% . Reagan inherited an 11.83% inflation rate. It was 4.5% by November of 1984 when Reagan was re-elected. So are you really arguing that the more than doubling of the inflation rate during the four of the Carter administration was Nixon, Johson and Ford’s fault?
That would be factually incorrect.
http://inflationdata.com/infla.....rentPage=2
Inflation peaked in early 1980 at over 14%. Reagan was elected in November of 1980.
24 Roger, by “Stretch’s coronation”, Mark the Sexist Knuckle-Dragger is referring to Pelosi’s installation as Speaker, incorporating some sort of crude speculation as to the probability that she’s had a face lift.
It’s on the same level of political discourse as that of the blog trolls and dollar-a-holler local radio pundits in Michigan referring to Jennifer Granholm as “the mole-faced bitch”.
It’s as if we were to speak of John McCain as “Captain Combover” or Dennis hastert as “Lard-In-A-Suit”…but we good people would never stoop so low as to do such things, would we?
@27: “Stagflation.”
You are confusing 3 very different issues & making the Rabbit’s point in a different way.
Johnson’s “guns & butter” started the US economy down a slippery slope as the costs of the Viet Nam War began to pressure a wage/price spiral. Nixon, stupidly, imposed some artificial & extremely selective “controls” that blew all of the market forces into various forms of spin. Ford’s 29 months in office, with Arthur Burns fucking things up at the Fed & William Simon as SecTreas, tried to cap & sequester & divert spending programs–Ford vetoed scores of spending bills from the Democratic-controlled House & Senate. When Carter stepped in, the spiral was out of control. Any conservative would instantly lay the blame on Nixon’s stupid “wage price controls” because they so very obviously eliminated market forces. The aftermath, in all conservative monetary models, will be hyper-inflation——so conveniently spread across Carter’s 4 years.
Enter 6 foot 8 inch Paul Volker & you have a correcting influence to destroy inflation–he raised Federal Reserve interest rates to an altitude like that of his own & slowly began to push the stagflation spiral into a straight line. By the end of Carter’s term, the Volker goals were becoming fully effective.
Oddly, Ronnie RayGun blew the lid off. His administration took a moronic & unnecessary course that led to what is termed “deflation.” They accepted the downsides of horrible unemployment, personal & business bankruptcies, economic stagnation & ruined credit as the cost of destroying inflation. Then the dumbasses cut taxes & undid the valid, but ruinous, results of the deflation. RayGun’z 1981-83 depression was the worst shit of modern times.
So take your wingnutz inability to follow a cause & effect timeline to the outhouse & give birth to a great conservative notion. When you hear the plop, you’ll know that another pungent conservative economic idea has found its home.
In a way, what Johnson and Reagan did had the same purpose: to taunt the Soviet Union with a show of “guns and butter”, maintaining domestic prosperity while conducting a very expensive game of global military one-ups-manship. The objective was to goad them into spending themselves into the ground, and it worked. Their system was sufficiently weaker than ours that it collapsed first. The main difference was in where the “butter” went, to those at the top or the bottom. It seems that neither Nixon, Ford nor Carter really “got it”–they tried to do something different, with detente and internationalism.