It's an unfortunate flaw in our constitutional system that I don't think the founders could've foreseen. Like greginak said, the president isn't all powerful but the combination of bully pulpit created by mass media and at least theoretical control over a sprawing web of an executive agencies and law enforcement does give the presidency a lot more power than originally concieved. This is especially so when Congess is too dysfunctional to act as a meaningful check most of the time.
I agree. One of the biggest blind spots in our political debates around foreign policy is what our interventions look like elsewhere, and the types of precedents it can be perceived as setting in regards to ongoing disputes and conflicts that most Americans have never heard of.
I don't really see how FP got caught doing anything other than sharing a perspective that's both common in other parts of the world and said something other than echo the Western perspective. Now I think there's an argument to be made that Trump's temperament increases the possibility of an international incident escalating into military conflict but all we have is conjecture. On the other hand we know for a fact that Clinton believes in an extremely belligerent and militaristic foreign policy, where the US not only plays world policeman but intervenes in all manner of disputes even if only tenuously connected to American interests. Now maybe we get lucky, and she at least continues the Obama trend of not putting boots on the ground anywhere and a Republican Congress frustrates her ability to use force as freely as she'd like, albeit for completely unprincipled reasons. However there are a lot of places in the world that look at Clinton as a big threat to stability and to their interests. Now obviously those players have their own self interest in mind as opposed to some higher principle but it is a view that needs to be taken seriously.
Take the references to ultra-right wing nationalist involvement in the overthrow of the government of Ukraine. There's another perspective out there that says the US and EU backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government by factions that included violent political extremists. This isn't to say that the government that was overthrown was a good one but that situation was a lot more complicated than good, liberals peacefully orchestrating the ouster of an illegitimate regime. The former is the type of foreign policy Clinton supports whereas Trump is more of an unknown quantity. Now this is not to say there aren't reasons to support Clinton over Trump but the office of the presidency is most powerful in the realm of foreign policy and we should absolutely take concerns about her preference for meddling, destabilizing other countries, and exacerbating conflicts into account when assessing her fitness for office.
I guess we could all make the sign of the flying spaghetti monster, declare that we have checked our privilege, form a circle and manually stimulate each other while declaring our rejection of racism. There are forums where that's the norm. I kind of like jr's approach better though.
I disagree. Advocacy journalism can certainly deteriorate to propaganda and echo chambers but there are other examples like Greenwald/Poitras breaking the leaks from Edward Snowden or a lot of Radley Balko's work, where without the perspective we might not get the story.
It might help to clarify that I don't think the MSM having biases is inherently a bad thing. I just think its a somewhat inevitable thing and that audiences need to be more sophisticated about how they interpret what it says.
Unlike more niche publications, it doesnt like to admit that it has a perspective. It comes from a place that's culturally center left (likes racial diversity, good with gay marriage) but is also mostly comfortable in the economic and social order and strongly believes in the power of technocrats, government officials, and well intended legislation to solve all of our problems.
Even with those biases, the MSM still can do great work. As the only institutions financially able to do hard, time consuming investigative journalism we need them.
My point is about the MSM not all media. I don't think that the publications in your first paragraph qualify. All of them have stated perspectives and target a smaller audience that generally shares that perspective. We could probably get into a long discussion about required characteristics for something to qualify as the MSM but I think that two major ones are that it must be aimed at a very broad general audience with a wide variety of content and circulation (call this the door steps and sports page rule) and that it aspires to 'objectivity' or, if you want to be critical about it, the view from nowhere.
As for the upper middle class coastal bias I'd say try thinking about it a little more. That doesn't mean the MSM is out pushing talking points for people who drive Volvos and live in cul-de-sacs in inner ring suburbs of coastal cities. It does mean that because it's operated by such people they can miss things like how petty fines harm the working poor and if not handled very carefully can create the conditions that contributed to the unrest in Ferguson. The fact that the NY Times and the Post and CNN doesn't pick up on stuff like that until way after its become a problem illustrates how issues that effect people who aren't like journalists are often omitted from or color what the MSM reports. Despite such places valuing a certain surface level of racial, religious, and gender diversity, as I think most liberals do, they are still left with blind spots related to geography and class.
As for criticism of the MSM from the left there's nothing new in that. People from Howard Zinn to Noam Chomsky to Glenn Greenwald have been making left wing criticisms of the MSM for years. Like I said, there are multiple biases at work here which is why I said saying there's a liberal bias, while not exactly untrue, doesn't come close to painting the full picture.
I'm with you. The MSM has biases but it's a lot more complicated than 'the media is liberal.' It does I think have a blue state, coastal bias that skews towards a certain type of liberalism (i.e. the assumed values tend to be those of college educated urban/suburban upper middle class progressives) but it also has corporate and statist biases than can skew towards a certain type of conservatism (i.e. cheerleading for warfare and the security state, omitting certain criticisms of our economic system from the discussion).
I like that thought experiment. I was about to say I might start trying it on my own but I'm worried it would only make me depressed in a very cosmic sort of way.
Instead I'll anthropomorph-ize those cats in my mind, and assume at least one put up a 'the truth is out there' poster.
I think your post really illustrates that any analysis (assuming the question is taken seriously) needs to be done on a species by species basis. I've read articles suggesting that anywhere you have humans and wolves in the same general geographic area you will inevitably end up with dogs. I'm not sure that it qualifies as the scientific definition of symbiosis but you can see how each species benefits in primitive conditions, assuming reasonably humane treatment of the dogs (we get hunting help and burglar alarms, they get food and shelter).
It might be different with other animals, though I also think anyone arguing that pet ownership is in itself unethical needs to have 'what's next' pretty thoroughly outlined. Even if I were to be convinced that was true it doesn't resolve the next problem, that being is it ethical to alter animals over generations to make them dependent on humans then release them defenseless into the wild, or even more extreme, euthanize them?
You're exactly right. Different jurisdictions have different rules about when, where, and how you can record people. For example, try it on the telephone in a state like Maryland and you find out the hard way about all party consent wiretapping laws (I believe Linda Tripp ran afoul of these in a rather famous episode).
Very interesting read. Its too bad we'll probably never know how exactly Kelly played the Ailes situation before she was a star. Whatever she did it does seem to have worked out for her.
When it comes to the appearances stuff I think that's absolutely correct. Fox News takes all of the weird foibles and pathologies of tv news up a few notches (or a bit further down the sewer, depending on how you look at it) but it's not like the female reporters on CNN or the local news don't also tend to be conventionally attractive.
I do think it would be interesting to see that as well. I'm still not sure it would be as insightful as we'd like. Any intern with goals of being on TV one day has to know that looks matter, and unfair as it is, there's a much higher standard for women most of the time. All speculation but it might end up saying more about our culture generally than Fox News in particular.
Ive always had similar thoughts when I've watched Fox News but I think there are really two seperate things going on here. The first is the sexual harassment and coercion. To the extent the accusations have merit Ailes and Fox deserve whatever settlements, lawsuits, and sanctions they're hit with.
The second issue I think is more complicated. We mostly talk about Fox News for its political conservatism but Fox News is also tabloid newstainment. Part of its appeal is to titillate the viewer with exploitative crime coverage and sexual innuendo. The pretty reporters are part of what they're selling. Now, those reporters should not be subject to illegal harassment on the job, and if the behind the scene stories are true Fox sounds like a pretty creepy place to work. However, I also wonder if there aren't plenty who are in on the game. Megan Kelly has been notably silent through all this. I struggle to believe that many female reporters ever mistook that place for a 'serious' news outlet and were subsequently shocked to discover they were just part of the window dressing.
I have similar suspicions, that the type of debilitating hardcore addiction we're talking about is more likely to be a symptom of some underlying psychological or socio-economic problem, rather than the cause. Anyone over 21 can freely walk into a store, buy gallons of liquor, and destroy themselves yet the vast majority of people chose not to.
I think you're right, that there is no perfect solution, but to me that's why we need to get more comfortable with harm reduction. Part of that is accepting that complete harm elimination isn't attainable. In my ideal policy framework that means leaving review of medical decision making to licensing boards and the tort system, leaving well enough alone for people who recreationally ingest some substance or another on their own time but lead generally functional lives, and making available public assistance for people with serious addiction problems.
The downside of that framework is that some people, no matter what's made available to them, won't get help. That's tragic but I think it's probably the best we can do, and more coercive measures have shown themselves to be worse than the disease. There is no such thing as a panacea.
It's like that here as well and it really blows my mind. All this learned compliance and intrusiveness all because somewhere, somehow, someone might be getting high.
I don't think resorting to assertion of rights is by any means irrational in our current political context where bad faith arguments, lawfare, and bureaucratic mission creep are the norm. I actually think it's a necessary push-back against the more authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the state.
I actually read the positions as pretty consistent. The concern is that by trying to make the system better we will actually make it worse i.e. more intrusiveness, more false positives, unintended consequences. The cure can be worse than the disease.
I can't speak for others but I'm certainly open to investigation and considering whether or not theres something we can do better that doesn't turn worried parents into criminal suspects. I'd start with wanting to understand how surgical procedures were permitted when, at least according to the article, test results kept coming up negative. I think the reception might be less negative if proponents of change were more specific about what they have in mind.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The American Interest: A Republic If You Can Keep It”
I was speaking more generally about the power of the office.
"
It's an unfortunate flaw in our constitutional system that I don't think the founders could've foreseen. Like greginak said, the president isn't all powerful but the combination of bully pulpit created by mass media and at least theoretical control over a sprawing web of an executive agencies and law enforcement does give the presidency a lot more power than originally concieved. This is especially so when Congess is too dysfunctional to act as a meaningful check most of the time.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.09.14.W}”
I agree. One of the biggest blind spots in our political debates around foreign policy is what our interventions look like elsewhere, and the types of precedents it can be perceived as setting in regards to ongoing disputes and conflicts that most Americans have never heard of.
"
I don't really see how FP got caught doing anything other than sharing a perspective that's both common in other parts of the world and said something other than echo the Western perspective. Now I think there's an argument to be made that Trump's temperament increases the possibility of an international incident escalating into military conflict but all we have is conjecture. On the other hand we know for a fact that Clinton believes in an extremely belligerent and militaristic foreign policy, where the US not only plays world policeman but intervenes in all manner of disputes even if only tenuously connected to American interests. Now maybe we get lucky, and she at least continues the Obama trend of not putting boots on the ground anywhere and a Republican Congress frustrates her ability to use force as freely as she'd like, albeit for completely unprincipled reasons. However there are a lot of places in the world that look at Clinton as a big threat to stability and to their interests. Now obviously those players have their own self interest in mind as opposed to some higher principle but it is a view that needs to be taken seriously.
Take the references to ultra-right wing nationalist involvement in the overthrow of the government of Ukraine. There's another perspective out there that says the US and EU backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government by factions that included violent political extremists. This isn't to say that the government that was overthrown was a good one but that situation was a lot more complicated than good, liberals peacefully orchestrating the ouster of an illegitimate regime. The former is the type of foreign policy Clinton supports whereas Trump is more of an unknown quantity. Now this is not to say there aren't reasons to support Clinton over Trump but the office of the presidency is most powerful in the realm of foreign policy and we should absolutely take concerns about her preference for meddling, destabilizing other countries, and exacerbating conflicts into account when assessing her fitness for office.
On “Coates: Why the Media Didn’t Bother to Verify if Hillary Clinton’s Remark About Half of Donald Trump’s Supporters Being ‘Deplorable’ Was True”
I guess we could all make the sign of the flying spaghetti monster, declare that we have checked our privilege, form a circle and manually stimulate each other while declaring our rejection of racism. There are forums where that's the norm. I kind of like jr's approach better though.
"
I disagree. Advocacy journalism can certainly deteriorate to propaganda and echo chambers but there are other examples like Greenwald/Poitras breaking the leaks from Edward Snowden or a lot of Radley Balko's work, where without the perspective we might not get the story.
"
It might help to clarify that I don't think the MSM having biases is inherently a bad thing. I just think its a somewhat inevitable thing and that audiences need to be more sophisticated about how they interpret what it says.
Unlike more niche publications, it doesnt like to admit that it has a perspective. It comes from a place that's culturally center left (likes racial diversity, good with gay marriage) but is also mostly comfortable in the economic and social order and strongly believes in the power of technocrats, government officials, and well intended legislation to solve all of our problems.
Even with those biases, the MSM still can do great work. As the only institutions financially able to do hard, time consuming investigative journalism we need them.
"
My point is about the MSM not all media. I don't think that the publications in your first paragraph qualify. All of them have stated perspectives and target a smaller audience that generally shares that perspective. We could probably get into a long discussion about required characteristics for something to qualify as the MSM but I think that two major ones are that it must be aimed at a very broad general audience with a wide variety of content and circulation (call this the door steps and sports page rule) and that it aspires to 'objectivity' or, if you want to be critical about it, the view from nowhere.
As for the upper middle class coastal bias I'd say try thinking about it a little more. That doesn't mean the MSM is out pushing talking points for people who drive Volvos and live in cul-de-sacs in inner ring suburbs of coastal cities. It does mean that because it's operated by such people they can miss things like how petty fines harm the working poor and if not handled very carefully can create the conditions that contributed to the unrest in Ferguson. The fact that the NY Times and the Post and CNN doesn't pick up on stuff like that until way after its become a problem illustrates how issues that effect people who aren't like journalists are often omitted from or color what the MSM reports. Despite such places valuing a certain surface level of racial, religious, and gender diversity, as I think most liberals do, they are still left with blind spots related to geography and class.
As for criticism of the MSM from the left there's nothing new in that. People from Howard Zinn to Noam Chomsky to Glenn Greenwald have been making left wing criticisms of the MSM for years. Like I said, there are multiple biases at work here which is why I said saying there's a liberal bias, while not exactly untrue, doesn't come close to painting the full picture.
"
I'm with you. The MSM has biases but it's a lot more complicated than 'the media is liberal.' It does I think have a blue state, coastal bias that skews towards a certain type of liberalism (i.e. the assumed values tend to be those of college educated urban/suburban upper middle class progressives) but it also has corporate and statist biases than can skew towards a certain type of conservatism (i.e. cheerleading for warfare and the security state, omitting certain criticisms of our economic system from the discussion).
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.09.12.M}”
I like that thought experiment. I was about to say I might start trying it on my own but I'm worried it would only make me depressed in a very cosmic sort of way.
Instead I'll anthropomorph-ize those cats in my mind, and assume at least one put up a 'the truth is out there' poster.
"
Sounds kind of like alien abduction.
"
I think your post really illustrates that any analysis (assuming the question is taken seriously) needs to be done on a species by species basis. I've read articles suggesting that anywhere you have humans and wolves in the same general geographic area you will inevitably end up with dogs. I'm not sure that it qualifies as the scientific definition of symbiosis but you can see how each species benefits in primitive conditions, assuming reasonably humane treatment of the dogs (we get hunting help and burglar alarms, they get food and shelter).
It might be different with other animals, though I also think anyone arguing that pet ownership is in itself unethical needs to have 'what's next' pretty thoroughly outlined. Even if I were to be convinced that was true it doesn't resolve the next problem, that being is it ethical to alter animals over generations to make them dependent on humans then release them defenseless into the wild, or even more extreme, euthanize them?
On “Why Americans Don’t Play Soccer, and Everyone Else Does Part II”
Just wanted to say this series is really interesting, thanks for writing.
On “Sometimes, foresight is also 20/20.”
You're exactly right. Different jurisdictions have different rules about when, where, and how you can record people. For example, try it on the telephone in a state like Maryland and you find out the hard way about all party consent wiretapping laws (I believe Linda Tripp ran afoul of these in a rather famous episode).
"
Very interesting read. Its too bad we'll probably never know how exactly Kelly played the Ailes situation before she was a star. Whatever she did it does seem to have worked out for her.
"
When it comes to the appearances stuff I think that's absolutely correct. Fox News takes all of the weird foibles and pathologies of tv news up a few notches (or a bit further down the sewer, depending on how you look at it) but it's not like the female reporters on CNN or the local news don't also tend to be conventionally attractive.
"
Thanks for sharing that article, I'll definitely take a look later.
"
I do think it would be interesting to see that as well. I'm still not sure it would be as insightful as we'd like. Any intern with goals of being on TV one day has to know that looks matter, and unfair as it is, there's a much higher standard for women most of the time. All speculation but it might end up saying more about our culture generally than Fox News in particular.
"
Ive always had similar thoughts when I've watched Fox News but I think there are really two seperate things going on here. The first is the sexual harassment and coercion. To the extent the accusations have merit Ailes and Fox deserve whatever settlements, lawsuits, and sanctions they're hit with.
The second issue I think is more complicated. We mostly talk about Fox News for its political conservatism but Fox News is also tabloid newstainment. Part of its appeal is to titillate the viewer with exploitative crime coverage and sexual innuendo. The pretty reporters are part of what they're selling. Now, those reporters should not be subject to illegal harassment on the job, and if the behind the scene stories are true Fox sounds like a pretty creepy place to work. However, I also wonder if there aren't plenty who are in on the game. Megan Kelly has been notably silent through all this. I struggle to believe that many female reporters ever mistook that place for a 'serious' news outlet and were subsequently shocked to discover they were just part of the window dressing.
On “Quartz: Chronic pain patients are suffering because of the US government’s ongoing War on Drugs”
I have similar suspicions, that the type of debilitating hardcore addiction we're talking about is more likely to be a symptom of some underlying psychological or socio-economic problem, rather than the cause. Anyone over 21 can freely walk into a store, buy gallons of liquor, and destroy themselves yet the vast majority of people chose not to.
"
I think you're right, that there is no perfect solution, but to me that's why we need to get more comfortable with harm reduction. Part of that is accepting that complete harm elimination isn't attainable. In my ideal policy framework that means leaving review of medical decision making to licensing boards and the tort system, leaving well enough alone for people who recreationally ingest some substance or another on their own time but lead generally functional lives, and making available public assistance for people with serious addiction problems.
The downside of that framework is that some people, no matter what's made available to them, won't get help. That's tragic but I think it's probably the best we can do, and more coercive measures have shown themselves to be worse than the disease. There is no such thing as a panacea.
"
The cogitive disonance is astounding.
"
It's like that here as well and it really blows my mind. All this learned compliance and intrusiveness all because somewhere, somehow, someone might be getting high.
On “The Language of No Compromise”
I don't think resorting to assertion of rights is by any means irrational in our current political context where bad faith arguments, lawfare, and bureaucratic mission creep are the norm. I actually think it's a necessary push-back against the more authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the state.
On “Gypsy Blancharde Is In Jail For Killing Her Mother”
I actually read the positions as pretty consistent. The concern is that by trying to make the system better we will actually make it worse i.e. more intrusiveness, more false positives, unintended consequences. The cure can be worse than the disease.
I can't speak for others but I'm certainly open to investigation and considering whether or not theres something we can do better that doesn't turn worried parents into criminal suspects. I'd start with wanting to understand how surgical procedures were permitted when, at least according to the article, test results kept coming up negative. I think the reception might be less negative if proponents of change were more specific about what they have in mind.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.