Journalists: experts in what?

The New Neo Posted on by

I fear I’m getting boring here, carping on the MSM again ( getting boring? ask my critics. You’ve been boring for a long time now.)

But here it is again. Via Michael Totten, I read this recent fisking of a story that appeared in last Sunday’s Washington Post and was itself a critique of Lebanon’s upcoming elections.

The fisker is described by Michael Totten as “my friend in Beirut at the Lebanese Political Journal.” So I guess he knows a thing or two about Lebanese history and political life. And he says that Annia Ciezadlo, who wrote the Post story, has gotten a great number of her facts wrong. Maybe the fisking isn’t quite up there with Mary McCarthy’s famous description of Lillian Hellman, “Everything she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the'”–but it’s close.

When one reads this fisking and its point by point rebuttal of most of Ms. Ciezadlo’s claims, it is truly astounding to see how wrong she gets it, even for one such as myself who has lost faith in the MSM in recent years.

So I’m wondering, what gives here? Ms. Ciezadlo is probably intelligent. She also appears (from a brief Google search I did that turned up a paucity of information on her) to be an American who reports quite a bit from Beirut. So it’s not a case of her doing the equivalent of a quick term paper from afar, and coming up with this article. She ought to know better; she’s had the time to study the situation and do the proper research. Is it bias? Blinders? Sloppiness? Bad sources?

I don’t know. But I think it matters, very much. Newspapers are the way the vast majority of people get their information, and how their viewpoints are shaped. If the papers are getting it wrong, the consequences are vast. And this isn’t about opinion; these are simple facts that Ms. Ciezadlo has misstated here.

It reminds me of something I read somewhere once about journalism (I Googled this every which way to find the actual source, but I came up empty). It went like this: The more expert you are on a subject, the more clear it is when you read a newspaper article about it that everything in that article is incorrect.”

Although that’s of course hyperbole, I’ve noticed the phenomenon myself. The people I’ve known personally who’ve been quoted in an article–misquoted, as often as not. If the article is about something I know a bit about–therapy, dance, social science research–I find glaring errors as a rule. What is this about? Is it willful? Is it stupidity? Is it speed? Sloppiness?

My answer at the moment is that sometimes it’s any of those things, all of those things, or some combination of those things. But I have a theory that sometimes the following factor is also operating, either in concert with these things, or alone: I get the impression that many journalists nowadays (as opposed to in the past) are first and foremost writers (I don’t know about Ms. Ciezadlo, since, as I said, I was unable to get much biographical information on her). As such, they may not really be experts in anything, except writing and journalism itself. Perhaps they were English or literature majors who may have then gotten a graduate degree in journalism school. Writing, writing, writing.

Now, I’m not down on writers–some of my best friends are writers! I’m a writer, even! But I think that writers who come to writing with a solid grounding as experts in something–history or economics or the military or law–or who have training in the discipline known as “critical thinking,” might be less likely to make so many errors (especially when writing on a subject within their field of expertise).

Journalists sometimes remind me of the line from the “My Fair Lady” song “Why Can’t the English”: “The French don’t care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly.” Perhaps some journalists don’t care what they say, actually, as long as it’s well-written. Bias is always a possiblity (and, in some cases a probability), also. But again, I’m not talking about opinions here, I’m talking about simple and verifiable facts. Why can’t the journalists get them right?

Time to complain about the weather

The New Neo Posted on by

It is cold, dark, dank, and rainy. Much of this spring has been like that, and now they say it will continue for the rest of the week for northern coastal New England, with temperatures in the balmy (“balmy” as in “crazy,” not as in “mild and pleasant”) 40s and 50s.

It reminds me a bit of two summers ago, when there was a three-week period of rain, heavy humidity, and fog in August. The foghorns made a continual moan, which was pleasantly atmospheric for the first day or two, and then began to grind on the nerves most gratingly. One morning I noticed that the muted gold-colored fabric on my dining room chairs had taken on a moss-green sheen. How odd! When I went to inspect, I saw that the moss-green sheen was moss-green because–well, because it actually was some sort of green moss/mildew/mold. And then I noticed that, virtually overnight, various and sundry organic relatives of that green stuff had sprouted over many of the surfaces of the lower floor of my house–on walls, cabinets, wood, and fabric.

I’ll spare you the details of what was necessary to remove the visitation, but suffice to say it involved a lot of bleach and a lot of work, and was the stuff of early Twilight Zone episodes, including nightmares featuring the return of the dread and humongous fungus.

As for the present rain, which has not yet reached those proportions–well, the flowers probably like it. But right now they all are bowed down by the heavy barrage, the tall tulip heads bent so low that they arc to nearly touch the grass.

And we people most assuredly do not like it. We didn’t bargain for Seattle. Spring is usually a very nice season in New England–although a rather short one.

There’s an old saying here, though: there are two seasons in New England–winter, and the Fourth of July. I guess we’re in the winter part.

See the AP headline; read the AP story

The New Neo Posted on by

Our old friend Jennifer Loven reports on what was essentially a cooperative meeting between ally Karzai and President Bush, and tries her best to spin it into a quarrel.

I know that reporters generally don’t write their own headlines, so I probably can’t blame her for that, but I can blame someone at the AP. Take a look: the headline reads “Bush rebuffs Karzai’s request on troops.” Then read the story, and decide whether you think the headline accurately portrays the gist of the situation, and the tenor and spirit of the meeting and the press conference.

Ms. Loven also writes:

Karzai thanked Bush for helping to put his country on the path to democracy. But he also came to their meeting with a long list of grievances.

I always imagine that journalists know the meaning of the words they use, and choose them quite carefully. I would suggest to Ms. Loven that the proper word would be “requests,” not “grievances.”

A couple of days ago, the headlines about Karzai all read something like this (I can’t find the links, but this is what I recall), “Karzai blasts US for Afghan prison abuse.” But, if you look at the transcript of today’s press conference, you read something quite different from Karzai:

On the question of the prisoner abuse, we are, of course, sad about that. But let me make sure that you all know that that does not reflect on the American people.

Right now in Afghanistan there is an Italian lady that has been kidnapped by an Afghan man, while there are hundreds of Afghan women demonstrating outside in the streets of Kabul demanding the release of that woman, the Italian lady.

So the prisoner abuse thing is not at all a thing that we attribute to anybody else but those individuals. The Afghan people are grateful very, very much to the American people, and recognize that individual acts do not reflect either on governments or on societies. These things happen everywhere.

Karzai–a devout Moslem–shows the same sort of common sense on the subject of Newsweek and the Koran-flushing story:

[The riots] were more against the elections in Afghanistan. They were more against the progress in Afghanistan. They were more against the strategic partnership with the United States.

We know who did it. We know the guys. We know the people behind those demonstrations. And unfortunately you don’t, here, follow the Afghan press. But if you listen to the Voice of America, the Radio Liberty and the BBC, the Afghan population condemned those acts of arson in Afghanistan.

Of course, we are, as Muslims, very much unhappy with Newsweek bringing a matter so serious in the gossip column. It’s really something that one shouldn’t do, that responsible journalism shouldn’t do at all.

But Newsweek story is not America’s story. That’s what we understand in Afghanistan.

So, Newsweek is losing credibility all over the world. I can’t say that makes me weep. Sometimes I think that, if the MSM can’t be objective, and can’t put things in the proper context, they should just publish the transcripts and call it a day. Let us be the judges of what people are actually saying and meaning, and be done with the middlemen/women oh-so-helpfully “interpreting” it all for us.

And yes, the usual suspects will probably call Karzai an American puppet and Bush’s willing tool. I find it hard to understand how anyone can look at the man and listen to him, and still doubt his deep integrity and sincerity, not to mention his sheer courage.

It’s a moderate start

The New Neo Posted on by

Good news–I think.

Apparently, according to the Boston Globe, there is a middle-of-the-road coalition being formed in the Senate, and it has some chance of tempering the polarization there. Could this be the start of something big?

An excerpt from the article:

The group of about 15 senators has been quietly forging a compromise even as their more partisan colleagues bludgeon each other daily on the Senate floor. They comprise at least six members of each party, the current margin of power in the Senate, and thus could decide any vote that falls along party lines.

Close Senate observers say the coalition’s work could shift power from the majority and minority leaders and revitalize the political middle, with moderates who have found themselves out of the mainstream of their own parties enjoying heightened influence on major legislation.

If they are able to work productively together on other issues, their influence could expand, with the docket including such contentious issues as Social Security, stem cell research, reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and John Bolton’s nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations.

Here are the names of some of the Senators involved:

The Democrats include the longest-serving senator, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, and one of the newest, freshman Ken Salazar of Colorado. They are joined by Democratic centrists, such as Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Those on the Republican side include such moderates as Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, as well as independent-minded conservatives, such as John W. Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina.

I don’t know about you, but I like the sound of this development.

German election results: Schroder on the ropes

The New Neo Posted on by

As I said, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Via Instapundit, I havelearned that the results of the election in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia have come in, and they look very bad for our friend Herr Schroder.

Despite Schroder’s recent anti-American and anti-capitalist efforts, his SPD party came in approximately eight points below the CDU in the most populous area of Germany, an SPD stronghold for the past four decades. Although national elections had not been scheduled until 2006, Schroder is now calling for the elections to be held within the next four months.

However, there’s possible trouble ahead. I don’t pretend to understand German politics, but this sounds rather ominous to me:

With the bitter election result for my party in North Rhine-Westphalia the political support for our reforms to continue has been called into question,” Mr Schré¶der said. Pursuing these policies required “clear support from a majority of Germans”.

However, with many in the SPD demanding a shift to the left in a bid to win back core voters, Mr Schré¶der could face a bruising battle with his grassroots as he draws up the party’s election platform. In recent weeks senior party members have vilified short-term investors as “swarms of locusts” descending on German companies and many party members credit that aggressive rhetoric with its success in closing the gap with the opposition in the run-up to yesterday’s vote.

So, the left wing of Schroder’s party thinks the problem is that he wasn’t tough enough in his rhetoric. Maybe within the next four months he’ll manage to close the gap by getting even clearer about just who those “locusts” might be.

Fasten your seat belts, Germany. I think you may be in for a bumpy ride.

Radical Son: on “progressives” and conservatives

The New Neo Posted on by

Many people have suggested I really need to read David Horowitz’s book Radical Son, so many that I decided to take them up on it. I just got the book out of the library and have only read a bit so far–and done this in my usual fashion, which involves skipping around rather wildly, reading the parts that interest me most first.

It is a long book, and a rambling one. But some of his words really leapt out at me with great power. My impression, based on just the little bit I’ve read so far, is that Horowitz’s story is a sad one. Disillusionment with beliefs, and the resultant ostracism by one’s former “comrades,” is always sad. My story differs a great deal from Horowitz’s, especially in two particular points: Horowitz was a well-known public figure and activist both before and after his “conversion,” and he began from a far more radical position than I–hence the title.

But the book is still of great interest to me; those who suggested it were right. I only hope I can find the time to read the whole thing. One of the points that Horowitz drives home is how unforgivable his apostasy was to people who had formerly been his friends, many of whom ruthlessly cut him out of their lives with great bitterness solely because of his new political opinions.

The following struck me as so on-target that I wanted to quote it here. It explains the power of the Communist leftist dream to generations of poor immigrants during the early decades of the twentieth century. Horowitz is describing his own father, who was a committed Marxist–and I believe he is also describing an immigrant grandfather of mine whom I never knew, since he died in the 1920s:

Political utopians like my father had a master plan. They were going to transform the world from the chaos we knew into a comfortable and friendly place. In the happy future they dreamed about, there would be an end to grief from life out of control, life grinding you down and smashing your gut when you expected it least. Human cruelty would go out of style and become a memory in the museum of historical antiquities. In my father’s paradise there would be no strangers. No one would feel like an outsider, alienated from others and at odds with themselves.

For thirty-five years I followed my father’s footsteps and believed in his earthly redemption, until a day came when I realized that there are tragedies from which one cannot recover, and alienation that no revolution can cure. That we are the mystery, and this is the only truth that matters.

This is a fine description of the tragedy of the Utopian, who believes in the perfectibility of human nature and thus often commits (or at least condones) great evil in the name of an only-imagined good. To these people, faith in Communism replaced faith in religion, and was going to make up for all the disappointments of their lives. Some of them managed to abandon the dream when the excesses of Stalin were finally revealed in mid-century; others could not give it up, but instead gave up their hold on reality. I knew some of these people.

Horowitz also has a fine passage on the difference between those who like to call themselves “progressives” (read: leftists) and conservatives:

In December 1992, I was invited to give a lecture at the Heritage Foundation, the right’s most important policy think tank. The subject was, “Are We Conservatives?” The very posing of the question was interesting. It was difficult to imagine, for example, a parallel forum asking, “Are We Progressives?” I explained this anomaly to my audience by pointing out that conservatism was an attitude about lessons from an actual past. By contrast, the attention of progressives was directed towards an imagined future. Conservatism was an attitude of caution based on a sense of human limits and what politics could accomplish. To ask whether conservatives were conservative was to ask a practical question about whether particular institutions were worth conserving…

The reason why progressives were unable to ask a similar question went to the root of their intolerant attitudes. Because the outlook of progressives was based on the idea of a liberated future, there was no way to disagree with them without appearing to oppose what was decent and humane. To criticize the radical project places one in opposition to a world in which social justice and harmony would prevail.

No wonder “progressives” ended up hating this guy. In this particular passage, Horowitz gets to the heart of a matter I’ve often thought about, and he explains it with a fine economy of expression. In summary, he is saying: how can you argue with a dream? Although dreams ordinarily don’t hurt people, this one has caused profound harm to untold millions of people during the course of the twentieth century, and is still causing misery in certain places.

“Progressives”–boy, do I hate that word, although now I finally understand it better, because it expresses very well their focus on a dream of the future in which things, including nasty old human nature, will have progressed and been perfected. “Progressives” feel that conservatives, and even moderates and neocons, are the ones Frank Sinatra was talking about in the song “That’s Life” when he sang: some people get their kicks from stomping on a dream.

No, we “non-progressives” [sic] don’t get our kicks that way. But we, like Hobbes (as opposed to your Rousseau), see human nature as an imperfect given, something that needs to be taken into account when advocating a plan for society, or attempting a remedy for social ills.

David Brooks: in defense of Newsweek

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column defending Newsweek against the bloggers. Brooks writes that, instead of criticizing the media, we need to focus on “the extremists, the real enemy,” the ones who bear the true responsibility for the deaths.

As I wrote previously, however, there are two separate issues raised by the Newsweek/Koran story, issues that have been lumped together by many commentators. And Brooks, unfortunately, is ignoring them both, as well as setting up a false “either/or” dichotomy of responsibility.

The first issue has to do with practicality–what was written and what were the consequences of publishing it. Questions about the information’s truth or falsehood don’t enter into this first consideration. Even if it had been true, an argument could be mounted against the need to print it. In the last analysis, that’s a judgment call, as I wrote in my previous post on the subject.

The second issue has to do with what’s called “process”: how was the information authenticated, and was this in agreement with commonplace journalistic standards that are (or used to be) in place to make certain that anything printed in an article is likely to be correct? The answer in this case is “no.” But this is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with either truth or consequences–although, of course, we are only talking about the issue because of the dire consequences of publishing this particular poorly-researched article.

When you put the two issues together, and look at what Newsweek has done here, you have an affront to both common sense judgments and time-honored journalist practices. Brooks’ analysis in his column ignores all of this. I am, quite frankly, really surprised at his lack of intellectual rigor. I think it only shows that, in this case, he is letting his identity as a journalist trump his ability to think straight. And it’s not just his identity as journalist–it’s his identity as a former writer for Newsweek, and a colleague of Isikoff and the rest. My guess is that he has an emotional allegiance to them, and doesn’t like seeing them bashed by those mean old bloggers, and this is clouding his judgment.

The liberal media doesn’t have to be way out there with Chomsky to be negligent nevertheless. I wonder whether Brooks ever heard of the old concept of “contributory negligence”–meaning one can still be responsible for something without being 100% responsible. There is a partial responsibility. In this case, of course the fundamentalist Moslems who were all riled up about this and went on a rampage bear the greatest responsibility. That goes without saying, and that’s why no one felt the need to say it.

But the fact that others–the ones who committed the acts–bear the greater responsibility does not in any way absolve Newsweek of its partial responsibility in the matter. We expect more from Newsweek–we expect them to use good judgment, and to follow proper journalistic safeguards before they publish a story–and yes, to think about the possible consequences of that story vs. the public’s need to know. Is that too much to ask?

Crisco through the ages

The New Neo Posted on by

I was suprised at the depth of feeling evidenced in the recent Crisco cookie wars (if you are unaware of what I’m referring to, see here). I hope we have reached the point where we can now call a truce by stating that the real difference between the two sides appears to be one of dunkers vs. non-dunkers. Simply put, those who dunk cookies prefer them to be made with Crisco; those who don’t, don’t.

But the whole cookie discussion started me thinking about Crisco itself. This is unusual; Crisco, like Spam, is something I don’t ordinarily think about. We didn’t use either one all that much in our house when I was growing up, even though it was the Fifties–except, of course, for the obligatory piecrust (made with Crisco, that is, not Spam). And meditating on Crisco made me think of a very odd but strangely fascinating book I once read.

The book is called Perfection Salad. Written by Laura Shapiro, it’s a history of the “Scientific Cooking” movement, in which a group of women of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s tried to revolutionize American cooking, introducing the idea of order and form as paramount considerations. Sounds rather dull, but I found the book surprisingly riveting.

It turns out that these ladies were trying to tame food and civilize it. The goal was to make it an esthetic and refined experience, as far from its “animal” roots as possible, and devoid of any “low” and ethnic influences–such as, for example, that tiny detail known to us as taste (if you are of a certain age, like me, and you wonder why the food of your youth was so uniformly bland, these ladies share some of the blame). Color was elevated to a matter of extreme importance, and white was the very best color of all.

It’s hard to imagine exactly what this entailed in practice, so to get an idea to what lengths the advocates were willing to go, here’s an excerpt from the book:

Color-coordinated meals enjoyed a surge of popularity…Mrs. Lincoln once shared with her readers the description of a green-and-white luncheon created by a subscriber. Grapefruit, lightly covered with white frosting and pistachio nuts, opened the meal; cream of pea soup with whipped cream followed; and the main course was boiled chicken with banana sauce, accompanied by macaroni, creamed spinach, potato balls, and parsley. Green-and-white ices and cakes completed the picture…Mrs. Rorer had a special fondness for the all-white meal, which she didn’t mind going to some lengths to achieve. Cream soups, cream sauces, boiled poultry, and white fish dominated her dinners, with vanilla ice cream, whipped cream, and angel cake for dessert.

I don’t know about you, but this is my idea of revolting. And where does Crisco come in? In 1911, to be exact–as the makers of Crisco inform us, having thoughtfully provided us with a timeline on the Crisco website. Crisco was the quintessential white, pure food, the dream come true of the scientific cooking movement. Leached of taste, smell, and the ability to spoil, it was lauded and embraced by these women.

Here is Perfection Salad on the subject of the introduction of Crisco:

Crisco had been tested extensively in the laboratory ever since its discovery…Now it was ready for the public: “Dip out a spoonful and look at it. You will like its very appearance, for it is a pure cream white, with a fresh, pleasant aroma….Crisco never varies…[it] is put up in immaculate packages, perfectly protected from dust and store odors. No hands ever touch it…”

Some early Crisco recipes:

Caramel Sweet Potatoes could be glazed with brown sugar and Crisco; stuffed onions could be filled with bread crumbs and Crisco; sandwiches could be spread with Crisco mixed with an egg yolk and seasoned rather highly with Worcestershire sauce, lemon juice, and vinegar; and finally, a pure and tasteless white sauce could be prepared by melting two tablespoons of Crisco, adding two tablespoons of flour, and stirring in a cup of milk.

I do believe I have finally found the source for the recipes used by the chefs (I use the word advisedly) in the dining hall at my college dorm.

Let freedom ring–Carnival of the Revolutions

The New Neo Posted on by

Calling all bloggers who might be interested in sending posts to the recently reinaugurated Carnival of the Revolutions. Hosted by a consortium of bloggers, the idea is to give a home to stories about the growth of freedom worldwide. What more could a neo-neocon (or a neocon, or even just a freedom-lover) want? Please take a look–and send a post, if you’re so inclined.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy: Schroder

The New Neo Posted on by

Quite a few bills seem to be coming due lately: first, Australia’s Howard; then, America’s Bush; next, Britain’s Blair; and now our dear friend and ally, Germany’s Schroder, who is about to be presented with a small but pressing little bill of his own.

The pending German election is not a national one–that won’t happen till 2006–so it hasn’t gotten much media coverage here. I didn’t even know about it until I caught this in the New Republic. As it turns out, according to TNR assistant editor Clay Risen, even though the election is only local to the state of North Rhein-Westphalia, there are national repercussions. The indication is that Gerhard may be in more than a little bit of trouble. And, like so many politicians, he is doing and saying whatever he can to stay in power.

Here’s an excerpt:

Largely ignored on this side of the Atlantic, German state elections this weekend in North Rhein-Westphalia could be the beginning of the end for Chancellor Gerhard Schré¶der. Germany’s most populous state and home to Dé¼sseldorf, Cologne, and Bonn, NRW, as it is known locally, has been governed by the Social Democrats (SPD) for 39 years. Polls, however, show the party headed for an embarrassing defeat by the right-of-center Christian Democrats (CDU). A loss in NRW could render Schré¶der a lame duck between now and the 2006 federal election–not only because of the region’s symbolic value as a longtime SPD stronghold, but also because a win there would give the CDU enough of a parliamentary majority to veto the chancellor’s agenda.

Both friends and enemies regard Schré¶der as an enormously skillful and ruthless politician, so it’s been no surprise to see his party’s leadership take a sharp populist turn over the last few weeks, lashing out at “international capital” and the “Anglo-Saxon” business model as a threat to the German social system. In some ways it’s a repeat performance of his 2002 federal election strategy, in which to save his post he demonized Bush on Iraq and all but tanked U.S.-German relations. Fortunately, Schré¶der has been able to repair some of the damage done by that first attack, sending soldiers to Afghanistan and training Iraqi troops. This time around, though, the debate engendered by his party’s rhetoric is both more virulent and more likely to spread uncontrollably, influencing not just bilateral government relations but business relations as well. And that’s bad news for both sides of the Atlantic.

Although I have my usual difficulty evaluating the actual economic arguments on the merits, it does seem pretty clear that Schroder’s stance is a strategic one, designed to cover his political hindquarters, but shortsighted and potentially damaging to Germany’s already at-risk economy. And furthermore, it doesn’t seem to be working; the polls show his party likely to lose the upcoming North Rhein/Westphalian election.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Blogger Problem

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m trying to fix a problem with Blogger. The blog is coming up on the screen as a blank white page. I’ve been told that, when that happens, if you manage to post something, the blog content usually shows up again. So, this is a test to see whether that works.