Monday, September 19, 2005
A Free and Independent Media
How it's done:
...Kurtz, yesterday: (tip thanks to P O'Neill):
I know this depends on the definition of "reporter," but that distinction has been totally destroyed. Kurtz's "we" includes, presumably, the people who are guests on his show - Clarence Page (columnist), Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose, and talk show host Blanquita Cullum.
Another Win for 'Friends & Allies'
When John G. Roberts is approved as chief justice of the United States, as expected, he can thank President Bush 's "Friends & Allies" program, which went to work on him immediately after he was nominated. The project, started by the Republican National Committee in the 2004 re-election campaign, is simple and effective: Give opinion makers, media friends, and even cocktail party hosts insider info on the topic of the day. How? Through E-mailed talking points, called D.C. Talkers, and conference calls. For Roberts, it worked this way: A daily conference call to about 80 pundits, GOP-leaning radio and TV hosts, and newsmakers was made around 9 a.m. On the other end were the main Roberts gunslingers like Steve Schmidt at the White House and Ken Mehlman and Brian Jones at the RNC. D.C. Talkers would then be distributed to an even larger list filled with positive info about Roberts and lines of attack on his critics. "The idea," said one of those involved, "is to feed them information and have them invested in us." It has even created addicts, he added. "Now they come to us before going on TV."
...Kurtz, yesterday: (tip thanks to P O'Neill):
KURTZ: The politicians don't talk about it very much. But does that let journalists off the hook? Since when do we take our talking points from the political class?
I know this depends on the definition of "reporter," but that distinction has been totally destroyed. Kurtz's "we" includes, presumably, the people who are guests on his show - Clarence Page (columnist), Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose, and talk show host Blanquita Cullum.
Wanker of the Day
Michelle Malkin.
The problem with Malkin isn't that she writes and publishes her obscenity of a book. The problem is that despite the fact that she has neither the intellectual capacity nor intellectual honesty to be an actual scholar, she gets treated as one by our mainstream media. At worst, she's given the red carpet to spew her nonsense unchallenged all over the airwaves. At "best" she's paired with actual historians who know what they're talking about which, though sadly necessary, is like CSPAN's recent desire to pair a broadcast of Deborah Lipstadt with one of David Irving (no, I'm not calling Malkin a Nazi, just a venemous crackpot).
Thank you, media, for blurring the lines between experts and non-experts, journalists and hacks, geniuses and fools.
The problem with Malkin isn't that she writes and publishes her obscenity of a book. The problem is that despite the fact that she has neither the intellectual capacity nor intellectual honesty to be an actual scholar, she gets treated as one by our mainstream media. At worst, she's given the red carpet to spew her nonsense unchallenged all over the airwaves. At "best" she's paired with actual historians who know what they're talking about which, though sadly necessary, is like CSPAN's recent desire to pair a broadcast of Deborah Lipstadt with one of David Irving (no, I'm not calling Malkin a Nazi, just a venemous crackpot).
Thank you, media, for blurring the lines between experts and non-experts, journalists and hacks, geniuses and fools.
Times Select Survivor
If the New York Times really believes its columnists primary purpose is to make them money rather than influencing the world, they should follow it through to the logical extension. They need to know which columnists are actually making money for them, which ones people are actually willing to pay for, and jettison the worst revenue earners.
To accomplish this they should allow people to purchase, for a modest fee, an annual subscription to one columnist or to a subset of their columnists. The one who takes in the least revenue should be, every 6 months, rotated off the island. That's capitalism, baby.
To accomplish this they should allow people to purchase, for a modest fee, an annual subscription to one columnist or to a subset of their columnists. The one who takes in the least revenue should be, every 6 months, rotated off the island. That's capitalism, baby.
Times Select
Well, that's just an awful idea with rather bad execution. They were at least smart enough to give some access to existing print subscribers. There's been much talk about how the Wall Street Journal has actually been able to make money from subscriptions, though I have a hard time believing the Times can duplicate that by selling its opinion pages. According to Michael Wolff, however, while the Journal's internet operations have made money, it's actually hurt their print advertising quite a bit. By putting its internet operations behind the wall the Journal has made itself much less culturally relevant. Why pay for print advertising in the journal when it isn't really part of the buzz anymore?
You can get your dose of Krugman here.
You can get your dose of Krugman here.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Benjamins
Worth a look, oh 4th estate:
Look over there! Someone's looting a bottle of water!
One billion dollars has been plundered from Iraq's defence ministry in one of the largest thefts in history, The Independent can reveal, leaving the country's army to fight a savage insurgency with museum-piece weapons.
The money, intended to train and equip an Iraqi army capable of bringing security to a country shattered by the US-led invasion and prolonged rebellion, was instead siphoned abroad in cash and has disappeared.
"It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Ali Allawi, Iraq's Finance Minister, told The Independent.
"Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."
...
Most of the money was supposedly spent buying arms from Poland and Pakistan. The contracts were peculiar in four ways. According to Mr Allawi, they were awarded without bidding, and were signed with a Baghdad-based company, and not directly with the foreign supplier. The money was paid up front, and, surprisingly for Iraq, it was paid at great speed out of the ministry's account with the Central Bank. Military equipment purchased in Poland included 28-year-old Soviet-made helicopters. The manufacturers said they should have been scrapped after 25 years of service. Armoured cars purchased by Iraq turned out to be so poorly made that even a bullet from an elderly AK-47 machine-gun could penetrate their armour. A shipment of the latest MP5 American machine-guns, at a cost of $3,500 (£1,900) each, consisted in reality of Egyptian copies worth only $200 a gun. Other armoured cars leaked so much oil that they had to be abandoned. A deal was struck to buy 7.62mm machine-gun bullets for 16 cents each, although they should have cost between 4 and 6 cents.
Look over there! Someone's looting a bottle of water!
What's a Minority Party to Do?
According to the Washington Post Editorial Board, the minority party should simply serve to provide a rubber stamp and political cover to the party and power and its supporters in the Washington media (such as, the Washington Post editorial board).
Now not only must the Democrats not go to any lengths to try to stop the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, they should, in fact, express their delight and approval for the guy by voting for him.
They write:
Leaving aside the Post's premise, which is that Roberts is the "best" justice, from a liberal perspective, that Democrats could hope for, I find nothing wrong with he notion that there's "no conservative capable of winning their support." As the minority party, there's basically one way for Democrats to express their objection to such a nominee for the record, and that's to vote against him. Doing so simply puts on the record that they don't support his nomination, they don't want him as Supreme Court justice, and if it were really up to them someone else would have the job.
If Bush had genuinely worked with Democrats, as Clinton did with Republicans, in choosing a nominee (Orrin Hatch brags that he gave Ginsburg's name to Clinton), then such reciprocation might be warranted. But none of that actually happened.
If the Democrats unanimously vote against Roberts it will not prevent him from become Cheif Justice. All it will do is send the message that they disapprove of the choice, and it's a choice they should certainly disapprove of.
Let us hope that the Democrats begin to understand that the worst set of advisers they have are the Beltway media who have their own interests at heart.
Now not only must the Democrats not go to any lengths to try to stop the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, they should, in fact, express their delight and approval for the guy by voting for him.
They write:
We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.
...
For this reason, broad opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support. While every senator must vote his or her conscience on the nomination, the danger of such a message is considerable. In the short term, Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee. In the longer term, Republicans might feel scant cause to back the next high-quality Democratic nominee, as they largely did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Leaving aside the Post's premise, which is that Roberts is the "best" justice, from a liberal perspective, that Democrats could hope for, I find nothing wrong with he notion that there's "no conservative capable of winning their support." As the minority party, there's basically one way for Democrats to express their objection to such a nominee for the record, and that's to vote against him. Doing so simply puts on the record that they don't support his nomination, they don't want him as Supreme Court justice, and if it were really up to them someone else would have the job.
If Bush had genuinely worked with Democrats, as Clinton did with Republicans, in choosing a nominee (Orrin Hatch brags that he gave Ginsburg's name to Clinton), then such reciprocation might be warranted. But none of that actually happened.
If the Democrats unanimously vote against Roberts it will not prevent him from become Cheif Justice. All it will do is send the message that they disapprove of the choice, and it's a choice they should certainly disapprove of.
Let us hope that the Democrats begin to understand that the worst set of advisers they have are the Beltway media who have their own interests at heart.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
It's certainly not the case that generic party ballot polls 14 months away from an election offer much predictive value, but they nonetheless show that the political winds are for the moment certainly trending way from the Republicans. It is nice to see that Democrats are maintaining the 20something vote.
Wussies
One of the more amusing things in the last few years has been the shrieks and yowls about "anti-Americanism" in parts of the European press or elsewhere. There is of course a genuine anti-American mindset, the kind which causes people to fly planes into buildings, which is of genuine concern. But, look people, we're the biggest guy on the block living in the biggest mansion. I truly worry about the collective psyche of our nation where harsh coverage of our country in the European press, deserved and fair or not, is worth even noting, especially when our press coverage of most of Europe oscillates between cluelessness and contempt.
What kind of weird sensitivity has affected us so much that anyone actually gives a shit what those in the peanut gallery are saying about us. Such delicate flowers.
What kind of weird sensitivity has affected us so much that anyone actually gives a shit what those in the peanut gallery are saying about us. Such delicate flowers.
Another Opportunity for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders
Since they won't sacrifice their lives, how about their treasure?
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.
But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.
Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans "a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq."
Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed, because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.
...
The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.
Intellectual Lightweight
One wonders if John Tierney is as stupid as he imagines his readers are. As Roger Ailes notes, it's becoming apparent that Tierney's entire schtick, when he isn't obessing about gender differences, is pointing to a private company that did something good and using that as "proof" that it means "market good" and "government bad." It's a silly exercise, as its opposite would be as well. I haven't yet seen any liberal argue that the several airline bankruptcies are proof that the federal government needs to nationalize the entire means of production, but that would essentially be the mirror image argument of what Tierney's doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)