All Posts Tagged With: "media"
The Year in People
A look back on the year’s most influential and newsworthy people in America and around the world.
Free Sarah Palin
Okay, the media isn’t all bad:
The Bailout Debate
I’ve already stated here a couple times that I don’t fully understand what’s going on with the financial crisis, so I’ll try not to get too cocky in my commentary on it. But I will say that it seems to me that the people in charge of explaining this to the American people are doing a really crappy job of it. The media (at least, the cable news media) has been presenting the situation as a choice between two alternatives: (1) “bailout,” or (2) “no bailout.” Except that this doesn’t seem to be where the real debate is. As I understand it, the real issue is whether to add some combination of the following provisions to the current bailout plan:
- Creating an oversight board and some sort of judicial or administrative review.
- Taking an equity stake in institutions participating in the program to protect taxpayers.
- Limiting executive compensation.
- Tying the program to a second stimulus package.
- Forcing Treasury to renegotiate mortgages for homeowners once it buys them up, in order to stabilize the housing market.
There seems to be near-universal agreement on #1, even among the administration. The rest seem to be where the real debate lies. I’m not entirely clear on which of the above provisions are included in Dodd’s proposal (PDF), but for sure the first three are, I think #5 is, and I think #4 is not.
As far as I can evaluate these things, #1 strikes me as obviously necessary, #2 and #5 strike me as deal-breakers that Congress should force the administration to accept, and #3 and #4 strike me as good ideas to push for but not necessarily deal-breakers.
But again, I’m not going to pretend I know what I’m talking about. What is frustrating, however, is that if all I did was watch the news, I wouldn’t be able to explain even the parameters of the debate, let alone get a feel for where I stand. Obviously this is complicated stuff, and it’s difficult for anybody to explain it clearly, and it would be even more difficult to get Americans to pay close enough attention to understand things. But I’d feel better if I at least got the impression that these people were making an effort.
Anyway, here are a few sources that have been more useful to me than the TV: Paul Krugman, Calculated Risk, Greg Mankiw, Ezra Klein, and this post from Matthew Yglesias.
The "Bush Doctrine"
So this clip appears to be getting some decent play this morning:
It’s important to be fair-minded about this. As somebody who has bashed this type of questioning in the past, I will continue to bash it now. This is, to an extent, a “gotcha” question designed to create a moment that other networks will play over and over again, and to make Charlie Gibson look smart and tough. It’s a little bit unfair, given that the “Bush Doctrine” isn’t as clearly defined a concept as, say, the Monroe Doctrine. At one point in time, the Bush Doctrine referred to Bush’s statement soon after 9/11 declaring that states which harbor terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves. This is a widely held view across the political spectrum, but when Bush articulated it, many came to refer to it as the “Bush Doctrine.” The other way that term could be interpreted is what Gibson is actually referring to, which is what Bush calls “preemption” but which Gibson more accurately terms “anticipatory self-defense,” stating that if the United States sees a threat coming somewhere down the road, we have the right to attack now.
So okay. It’s kind of an unfair question. But there’s still plenty of reason to be concerned about Palin’s reaction. Palin didn’t respond to the question with a scoff at Gibson’s transparent attempt to trick her, and when she was asked what her interpretation of the term “Bush Doctrine” was, she didn’t say, “Well, it could mean X or it could mean Y and I’m not sure which you’re referring to.” She said, uncertainly, “His world view?” While the question was unfair, the answer still reflected a clear lack of engagement and knowledge. And this isn’t an unimportant issue – it’s not the way Bush failed in 2000 to name the president of a foreign nation, something that genuinely isn’t that big a deal. Not understanding the basic theoretical approaches to foreign policy after 9/11 is a very big deal.
The point was underlined when she finally did articulate an approach, saying that America can act when a strike “is imminent against American people.” There’s nothing wrong with that approach – it’s actually quite sensible. It’s also, however, not the approach George Bush or John McCain takes to the question. Even after it was clearly explained what Gibson meant when he said “Bush doctrine,” she was either incapable of confronting the question or she fundamentally disagrees with the top of the ticket on a critical issue.
This has to be called what it is: an absurd and insane farce. Prescott was right a couple weeks ago to argue that many liberals, myself included, were leaping to judgment about Sarah Palin. This interview may not seal the deal, but it’s a very strong indicator that she is just as unqualified as liberals were always saying. It is alarming to think of her becoming the most powerful person in the world, and conservatives should be honest about that.
My Brains Are Leaking Out of My Head
I’m sitting here watching Hardball, and Chris Matthews literally just said: “We’re going to spend much of this hour talking about whether Barack Obama really was referring to Sarah Palin when he said ‘lipstick on a pig.’ We will have [some guests]. And I will also provide my own take, that with [a bunch of real problems like war and economic trouble], we’re sitting here talking about lipstick on a pig.”
It’s clear that Chris Matthews is intelligent enough to find McCain’s attacks on Obama intellectually bankrupt and this whole discussion absurd. He apparently doesn’t realize, however, that he possesses free will and is one of a very small number of people in a position of power to make choices on what gets reported for two hours a day on a cable news network.
He’s kicking the crap out of the guy trying to defend John McCain, and in a manner that is entertaining, effective, and true. Anybody watching it will rightly come away with the impression that the McCain campaign is being foolish with these attacks. That’s better than them coming away with the impression that the McCain campaign is right and Barack Obama was actually calling Sarah Palin a pig, I suppose. But it’s not better than talking about the things Chris Matthews himself just said he should be talking about. So why doesn’t he talk about them?
Again, he just now said as I’m typing this, “I think we’re beating a dead horse here and everybody knows what’s going on here. But of course we’re going to do it again in the next segment because we’ve got politicians on to talk about it.” What the hell is going on?!?!
Now he just said, with a chuckle, “I think we’ve settled this very inconsequential point. But I said we’re not gonna quit,” and then told his viewers to stay tuned for another segment of him talking about the point he just said is inconsequential. AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Gustav
I talk a lot of shit about the media, but I have to say, CNN knows how to cover hurricanes. We all remember Anderson Cooper’s reporting on Katrina, and it looks like CNN has rallied around his example now that Gustav is coming, because they are just tossing down their hurricane knowledge like it’s nothing.
Anyway, if anybody has anything interesting to say about Gustav, feel free to discuss it here. From what I’ve been watching, it looks like it’s going to be awfully bad, but also like we’ve got our act together better than last time. Here’s hoping for the best.
Is American Leadership Enough?
John McCain in a speech today criticizing Obama’s internationalist approach to foreign policy:
My opponent had the chance to express such confidence in America, when he delivered a much anticipated address in Berlin. He was the picture of confidence, in some ways. But confidence in oneself and confidence in one’s country are not the same. And in that speech, Senator Obama left an important point unclear. He suggested that the end of the Cold War proved that there was, quote, “no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one of our adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided during the Cold War — between the side of freedom and the side of tyranny. The Cold War ended not because the world stood “as one,” but because the great democracies came together, bound together by sustained and decisive American leadership.
All of this is more than an academic debate. For the sake of our own security, and the defense of our values in the affairs of the world, American leadership is critical.
His seven thousandth invocation of his time as a POW is annoying and cheap, but on the whole, this is actually a fairly honest articulation of the distinction between Obama and McCain’s foreign policy approaches. McCain is, of course, being purposefully ignorant in implying that Barack Obama is not aware that the Cold War was characterized by a sharp ideological division between capitalist and communist states. But he’s not wrong to draw a distinction between Obama’s emphasis on global cooperation and his own emphasis on American leadership.
Implicit in McCain’s criticism of Obama’s statement that there is “no challenge too great for a world that stands as one” is that McCain would have much preferred a statement that there is no challenge too great for America, or, perhaps, “the great democracies,” whichever ones those happen to be. Anybody comparing the success of the current Iraq War, which was carried out by a tiny coalition of the willing, to the success of, say, the Persian Gulf War, which was carried out under the auspices of the UN Security Council, might see cause to doubt McCain’s faith in America’s ability to act successfully without broad international support. Others might not be quite so eager to jump into another Cold War or even World War, even if they are confident in America’s prospects for eventual success.
But look. Argumentativeness aside, and this is (or at least should be) a pretty banal point, but this is how political debate should be conducted. McCain is presenting his view of how he thinks international affairs works. I find it foolish, and I find Obama’s view to be more seriously minded, morally centered, and based in reality. But ultimately, it’s an important, substantive division that deserves attention and debate. And yet, when I turn on cable news, I see a bunch of lazy media hype and Democratic hand-wringing over whether Obama is “HITTING BACK HARD ENOUGH” against attacks everybody seems to agree are beneath the intelligence of a third-grader but which they still can’t stop talking about. That’s depressing.
The Media Is Dumb
I’ve been watching MSNBC for a little bit today and they’ve been talking quite a bit about the segment of the population still upset about Hillary not getting the nomination. The humorous/infuriating thing about this coverage is that it would take two hands to count the number of times one of the correspondents or pundits has explicitly conceded that this issue is getting too much coverage but that they basically just think it’s fun to talk about. Chris Matthews was on with a crowd of Hillary-supporters behind him, split between those who are now supporting Obama and those who are still holding out for Hillary. This may not be a particularly important fight, Matthews conceded, but “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Journalism at its finest, America. And this is the pro-Obama network. Sigh.
UPDATE: In the wise words of Chuck Todd, “I think in a few days we’re gonna look back at this and realize these people were the equivalent of the Ron Paul groupies who are gonna be at the Republican Convention.”
Yaaaaayy!!!
Fantastic news: Rachel Maddow, whose presence you have come to know and love as a regular guest on MSNBC, is getting her own show at 9:00 following Keith Olbermann (replacing Dan Abrams). It will premier September 8th. Hurrah!!!
Okay, so this is really only fantastic news to liberals who think the media needs to stop being so goddamn lame all the time, and in particular those who love sassy, sharp-witted lesbians. I suspect that will be a surprisingly large demographic, though. Watch the show!
For those of you who are unfamiliar with her, here she is smacking Pat Buchanan down:
In seriousness, her statement at the end of this clip, “Whether or not [the attacks] are working, I think we have a responsibility to talk about whether they’re deserved, Pat,” is symbolic of why even conservatives who are going to disagree with Maddow on most things should welcome her presence. She’s interested in a pursuit of the truth as she sees it, not in determining which attacks are “effective.” Far more than political balance, what the media needs a strong dose of is intellectual honesty, and she’s got it.
Barack Obama Enters the Heart of Darkness
Not long ago my parents took a trip to Hawaii. Here’s a picture of them there to prove it:
At the time, I thought this was a fairly typical vacation spot due to its pleasant climate and aesthetically appealing scenery. Then I saw this clip of Cokie Roberts and learned that it really means that they – along with Barack Obama, who is currently vacationing there – ARE MYSTERIOUS FOREIGNERS WHO PROBABLY PRACTICE EXOTIC RITUALS INVOLVING ANCIENT CURSED TRIBAL IDOLS:
I mean, hasn’t Obama ever seen the Brady Bunch?! (By the way, in all seriousness, you can tell you’re grasping at straws when you have to preface your argument with an explanation that you do, in fact, “know Hawaii is a state.”)
P.S. Yes, commenters, I know, I know – obnoxious, childish, blah blah blah. No need to remind me.