Awash in media coverage of the Democratic Convention, Sen. John McCain announced today that his running mate will be Republican Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Palin was a dark horse, and the fact that her selection remained a secret for so long might have been an impressive media coup had the announcement not been overwhelmed by Sen. Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech a mere 12 hours earlier.
The McCain campaign has not been exceedingly deft in its interaction with the media, though reporters have taken dives for McCain on one or two important occasions. If the timeline surrounding the selection had been different, this might have signaled a reversal for the campaign.
Much like Obama's pick, Palin sketches out a number of contrasts to the top of her ticket. She is 28 years McCain's junior, and has not held any office in Washington. Palin came into office as a reformer in a state teeming with corruption less than two years ago, so her rhetoric about Washington will probably approach that favored by Obama. She gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome in April; she and her husband decided not to abort the pregnancy when they learned of their unborn son's disability. Her vociferous opposition to abortion makes her a pleasing choice for the religious right. If she becomes the first female vice president, she will break the old-Protestant-white-guy mold on as many counts as Barack Obama.
The obvious problem with choosing a neophyte as nominee is that it undermines the McCain campaign's primary attack meme against Barack Obama. A vice president must be qualified for the presidency, and not merely because of the dictates of the Constitution. The Republican National Convention next week will endorse a woman with 21 months of experience in state government to be commander-in-chief. If Obama's resume is thin, Palin's is transparent.
The strategy behind Palin relies partially on her reputation as a reformer in her own party, which McCain hopes will reinforce his erstwhile claim to maverick-dom, and partially on the hopes that she will attract disaffected Clinton voters. But her primary advantage may be her appeal to the hard right. Palin is extremely Protestant, speaking out loudly against abortion rights and advocating Creationism in her state's school curricula. One consolation that came with McCain's primary victory was the elimination of three of his rivals who indicated in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. The choice of Palin may give unfortunate credence to the anti-reality crowd.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Fair and Balanced
As The Onion has observed, a huge amount of print space has lately been devoted to the fact that newspapers are quickly becoming obsolete as a news medium. Circulation at most major newspapers has dropped continuously over the last decade as Internet news sources have drawn readers away. Most online news outlets do not require paid subscriptions; they provide articles in a torrent throughout the 24-hour news cycle; for what it's worth, they save all the resources used in printing and distributing newspapers, which is environmentally friendly and gives them a significant financial advantage.
One trend which others have considered troubling is the prominence of ideologically slanted news sources on the Internet. Personally, I rely on The Nation and alternet.org, and the only columnists I read regularly are the liberals at the New York Times. Reputable newspapers have stringent standards of fairness; journalists are expected to present both (or all) sides of any story with equal emphasis. Online news purveyors such as WorldNet Daily, alternet, and the entire blogosphere often have explicit biases. Consumers taking the path of least resistance to their information gravitate towards sources which tell them what they want to hear.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Alternet carries articles on topics which few other sources (and likely no conservative sources) touch upon. All of their authors write from a leftward perspective, but only sometimes only liberals are concerned with certain political and economic issues. There aren't always two perspectives on issues like water shortages or human rights; conservative writers just make those things less of a priority.
In some cases, the existence of two "sides" on an issue is entirely fictitious. There are empirical matters in science and history which are not debatable. Evidence weighs insurmountably toward one conclusion. Anyone who claims that a thousand innocent people were rounded up in the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, is just wrong. He or she would not deserve equal time with those who correctly report that eighteen were hanged and one pressed to death with stones during that incident. An important example of a debate in which one "side" is given undue credence by the standards of balance in news reporting is the Creationism movement.
In reality, there is no question as to whether humans and other animals evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Evolutionary theory is the basis of modern biology; it is based on a massive body of archaeological, genetic, and anatomic evidence. There is little or no evidence to support the Creationist position, by contrast. That Creationism is so often given equal time with science is due partially to the extraordinary deference our culture gives to religious beliefs, but it is also a result of a misplaced priority on balance.
I hope there will be a revision of the current standard in journalistic ethics to account for this problem, but I do not know what, precisely, I would propose. I can predict that the methods which will prevail will be determined by the financial realities of the Internet. News sources which can generate more advertising revenue will survive in the competitive marketplace. If news consumers desire certain standards of accuracy and ethical behavior in their reporting, sources which meet those standards will thrive. If consumers prefer sensationalism and biased reporting to sobriety and objectivity (whatever that means), that is what they will get. The structure of news organizations in coming years may be derived from old newspaper practices, or it may be radically different. The outcome will not be determined by the preferences of ethical thinkers but by those of consumers.
One trend which others have considered troubling is the prominence of ideologically slanted news sources on the Internet. Personally, I rely on The Nation and alternet.org, and the only columnists I read regularly are the liberals at the New York Times. Reputable newspapers have stringent standards of fairness; journalists are expected to present both (or all) sides of any story with equal emphasis. Online news purveyors such as WorldNet Daily, alternet, and the entire blogosphere often have explicit biases. Consumers taking the path of least resistance to their information gravitate towards sources which tell them what they want to hear.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Alternet carries articles on topics which few other sources (and likely no conservative sources) touch upon. All of their authors write from a leftward perspective, but only sometimes only liberals are concerned with certain political and economic issues. There aren't always two perspectives on issues like water shortages or human rights; conservative writers just make those things less of a priority.
In some cases, the existence of two "sides" on an issue is entirely fictitious. There are empirical matters in science and history which are not debatable. Evidence weighs insurmountably toward one conclusion. Anyone who claims that a thousand innocent people were rounded up in the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, is just wrong. He or she would not deserve equal time with those who correctly report that eighteen were hanged and one pressed to death with stones during that incident. An important example of a debate in which one "side" is given undue credence by the standards of balance in news reporting is the Creationism movement.
In reality, there is no question as to whether humans and other animals evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Evolutionary theory is the basis of modern biology; it is based on a massive body of archaeological, genetic, and anatomic evidence. There is little or no evidence to support the Creationist position, by contrast. That Creationism is so often given equal time with science is due partially to the extraordinary deference our culture gives to religious beliefs, but it is also a result of a misplaced priority on balance.
I hope there will be a revision of the current standard in journalistic ethics to account for this problem, but I do not know what, precisely, I would propose. I can predict that the methods which will prevail will be determined by the financial realities of the Internet. News sources which can generate more advertising revenue will survive in the competitive marketplace. If news consumers desire certain standards of accuracy and ethical behavior in their reporting, sources which meet those standards will thrive. If consumers prefer sensationalism and biased reporting to sobriety and objectivity (whatever that means), that is what they will get. The structure of news organizations in coming years may be derived from old newspaper practices, or it may be radically different. The outcome will not be determined by the preferences of ethical thinkers but by those of consumers.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Association, Implication, Accusation
Yesterday, alternet.org published an article by Rory O'Connor discussing the culpability of right-wing talk radio in the July 28 shooting at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tenn. Rory is co-author of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio, in which he and Aaron Cutler attack right-wing hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I haven't read the book, but I am always wary of attempts by well-meaning liberals to deal with "hate speech." Hate should be rejected, rebutted, and remonstrated, but never censored. Acting as an agent of tolerance is incompatible with acting as a thoughtpoliceman. I will reserve judgment on the efforts and arguments of O'Connor and Cutler until such time as I have read them in context.
O'Connor's article first deals with accusations made against him by conservatives, comparing him the Nazis. These are fairly standard, not particularly adroit, and largely unworthy of attention. O'Connor dismisses them as such and derides the supposed 'conspiracy to kill talk radio' in which Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all liberals are complicit, according to the angry, grandiose delusions of right-wing radio hosts. O'Connor mentions this conspiracy theory as a means to transition onto the topic of the 'actual conspiracy to kill,' in which he links the right-wing radio stalwarts Savage, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin to last week's church shooting. Jim Adkisson, the church gunman, had bought and read several of their books, it turns out. He also listened to them on the radio.
This thesis is guilt by association, and I don't see much to warrant the connection. How can O'Connor establish that listening to Limbaugh or Savage abetted or even inspired Adkisson's act of violence? Limbaugh is more insipid than violent, though as O'Connor points out, some weeks ago he expressed his hope the agents provocateurs would stage riots and the Democratic Convention in Denver. I don't see any impetus in Limbaugh's words or ideas for random acts of violence on people merely because their church affiliation identifies them as liberal.
Savage, by contrast, seems dangerously deranged. He is erudite but bipolar, shifting in seconds from dulcet Brooklyn-tinged rumination to bellicose paroxysms. Savage frequently describes his opponents as 'vermin' and warns against the dangerous erosion of white culture in the United States. I don't necessarily think that Savage is an improbable instigator of violence, but I do think O'Connor's association here is facile. His case is not assiduously made. Accessory to murder is not a trivial charge, and the burden is on O'Connor to support it.
Both of the above talkers foster the conceit that large conservative blocs act according to their daily commands over the airwaves. Limbaugh takes credit for 'Operation: Chaos,' in which conservatives purportedly registered to vote in Democratic primaries so as to keep Hillary Clinton's candidacy alive. His hopeful speculation about riots in Denver played into the same pretension. Savage actually considers himself a national hero, taking credit for the horrendously jingoistic diversion of the dreaded Dubai Ports deal and the disgusting intrusion of the government into the case of Terri Schiavo. O'Connor is reinforcing the suggestion that Americans act on the exhortations of these hate-peddlers. So far as I understand, that's the thesis of his book,
It is likely that there is some non-causative correlation between violent hatred for liberal people and institutions and interest in the works of the conservative shock jocks. In an open marketplace of ideas, if there are dollars available to support this kind of hate speech, the niches occupied by Savage et al. will inexorably be filled. People in America already espouse the antipathies exhibited by Adkisson, and they will inevitably be articulated in some corners of the intellectual discourse. The pundits in question are a symptom of a social phenomenon antecedent to their prominence as radio hosts. Assigning them culpability won't kill their ideas. Even banning them from the radio wouldn't keep them off the Internet. Linking them to criminal activity in an attempt to silene them is a losing battle.
Moreover, guilt by association is a vile, right-wing tactic. These very same shock jocks spout constant accusations that Barack Obama is untrustworthy because he associates with terrorists such as William Ayers and his racist (Christian) ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We liberals (well, some of us) object when Marilyn Manson and the Grand Theft Auto games are blamed for violence by teenagers. I don't see any reasonable distinction between those and the question O'Connor is trying ask.
And O'Connor is, at base, asking a question about culpability. He flirts with standing up and pointing the finger at his adversaries, but always retreats into comfortable dubity. If he's going to make a case against Savage and Limbaugh, he should do so emphatically rather than by mere suggestion. Is there some passage in which Savage (for instance) demonized Unitarians in particular? Is there a connection somewhere in the voluminous screeds of Hannity or Limbaugh that touched particularly on a personal experience of Adkisson's life? While my presumption is against the association O'Connor is trying to make, I am not averse to evidence. O'Connor declines to provide any.
O'Connor's article first deals with accusations made against him by conservatives, comparing him the Nazis. These are fairly standard, not particularly adroit, and largely unworthy of attention. O'Connor dismisses them as such and derides the supposed 'conspiracy to kill talk radio' in which Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all liberals are complicit, according to the angry, grandiose delusions of right-wing radio hosts. O'Connor mentions this conspiracy theory as a means to transition onto the topic of the 'actual conspiracy to kill,' in which he links the right-wing radio stalwarts Savage, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin to last week's church shooting. Jim Adkisson, the church gunman, had bought and read several of their books, it turns out. He also listened to them on the radio.
This thesis is guilt by association, and I don't see much to warrant the connection. How can O'Connor establish that listening to Limbaugh or Savage abetted or even inspired Adkisson's act of violence? Limbaugh is more insipid than violent, though as O'Connor points out, some weeks ago he expressed his hope the agents provocateurs would stage riots and the Democratic Convention in Denver. I don't see any impetus in Limbaugh's words or ideas for random acts of violence on people merely because their church affiliation identifies them as liberal.
Savage, by contrast, seems dangerously deranged. He is erudite but bipolar, shifting in seconds from dulcet Brooklyn-tinged rumination to bellicose paroxysms. Savage frequently describes his opponents as 'vermin' and warns against the dangerous erosion of white culture in the United States. I don't necessarily think that Savage is an improbable instigator of violence, but I do think O'Connor's association here is facile. His case is not assiduously made. Accessory to murder is not a trivial charge, and the burden is on O'Connor to support it.
Both of the above talkers foster the conceit that large conservative blocs act according to their daily commands over the airwaves. Limbaugh takes credit for 'Operation: Chaos,' in which conservatives purportedly registered to vote in Democratic primaries so as to keep Hillary Clinton's candidacy alive. His hopeful speculation about riots in Denver played into the same pretension. Savage actually considers himself a national hero, taking credit for the horrendously jingoistic diversion of the dreaded Dubai Ports deal and the disgusting intrusion of the government into the case of Terri Schiavo. O'Connor is reinforcing the suggestion that Americans act on the exhortations of these hate-peddlers. So far as I understand, that's the thesis of his book,
It is likely that there is some non-causative correlation between violent hatred for liberal people and institutions and interest in the works of the conservative shock jocks. In an open marketplace of ideas, if there are dollars available to support this kind of hate speech, the niches occupied by Savage et al. will inexorably be filled. People in America already espouse the antipathies exhibited by Adkisson, and they will inevitably be articulated in some corners of the intellectual discourse. The pundits in question are a symptom of a social phenomenon antecedent to their prominence as radio hosts. Assigning them culpability won't kill their ideas. Even banning them from the radio wouldn't keep them off the Internet. Linking them to criminal activity in an attempt to silene them is a losing battle.
Moreover, guilt by association is a vile, right-wing tactic. These very same shock jocks spout constant accusations that Barack Obama is untrustworthy because he associates with terrorists such as William Ayers and his racist (Christian) ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We liberals (well, some of us) object when Marilyn Manson and the Grand Theft Auto games are blamed for violence by teenagers. I don't see any reasonable distinction between those and the question O'Connor is trying ask.
And O'Connor is, at base, asking a question about culpability. He flirts with standing up and pointing the finger at his adversaries, but always retreats into comfortable dubity. If he's going to make a case against Savage and Limbaugh, he should do so emphatically rather than by mere suggestion. Is there some passage in which Savage (for instance) demonized Unitarians in particular? Is there a connection somewhere in the voluminous screeds of Hannity or Limbaugh that touched particularly on a personal experience of Adkisson's life? While my presumption is against the association O'Connor is trying to make, I am not averse to evidence. O'Connor declines to provide any.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
