Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 15:46:59 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 15:51:47 GMT -5
subscription required.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 15:57:49 GMT -5
I can read it and I don't have a subscription. An excerpt for you (ibid.): “You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” [HC] said. She added: “Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching all of the back-room discussions and the deals, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”
Right. In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, as when President Richard M. Nixon denied Watergate complicity, but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes, such as trying to prevent a civil war, as in Lincoln’s case, or trying to protect American prestige and security, as when President Dwight D. Eisenhower denied that the Soviet Union had shot down a United States spy plane.
During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to televise negotiations over health care reform, but when the real work had to be done, the negotiators shut the doors. In a study of defense bills in Congress, the political scientist Colleen J. Shogan quotes a former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director as saying: “Why should we do it in the open? It would wreck the seriousness of the purpose. Staff needs to give candid views to senators, and you can’t do that in open session. Governing in the sunshine shouldn’t be applied to everything.”
Is it hypocritical to take one line in private, then adjust or deny it in public? Of course. But maintaining separate public and private faces is something we all do every day. We tell annoying relatives we enjoyed their visits, thank inept waiters for rotten service, and agree with bosses who we know are wrong. This stuff is straight out of 1984. It boggles the mind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 20:39:15 GMT -5
I can read it and I don't have a subscription. An excerpt for you (ibid.): “You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” [HC] said. She added: “Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching all of the back-room discussions and the deals, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”
Right. In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, as when President Richard M. Nixon denied Watergate complicity, but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes, such as trying to prevent a civil war, as in Lincoln’s case, or trying to protect American prestige and security, as when President Dwight D. Eisenhower denied that the Soviet Union had shot down a United States spy plane.
During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to televise negotiations over health care reform, but when the real work had to be done, the negotiators shut the doors. In a study of defense bills in Congress, the political scientist Colleen J. Shogan quotes a former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director as saying: “Why should we do it in the open? It would wreck the seriousness of the purpose. Staff needs to give candid views to senators, and you can’t do that in open session. Governing in the sunshine shouldn’t be applied to everything.”
Is it hypocritical to take one line in private, then adjust or deny it in public? Of course. But maintaining separate public and private faces is something we all do every day. We tell annoying relatives we enjoyed their visits, thank inept waiters for rotten service, and agree with bosses who we know are wrong. This stuff is straight out of 1984. It boggles the mind. i am way more cynical than you about government. i would never have guessed that. i would describe this POV as "the prevailing view" in WDC. it has been the norm for close to a century, if not longer. here is what Lippmann said about it in 1922: The basic problem of democracy, he wrote, was the accuracy of news and protection of sources. He argued that distorted information was inherent in the human mind. People make up their minds before they define the facts, while the ideal would be to gather and analyze the facts before reaching conclusions. By seeing first, he argued, it is possible to sanitize polluted information. Lippmann argued that interpretation as stereotypes (a word which he coined in that specific meaning) subjected us to partial truths. Lippmann called the notion of a public competent to direct public affairs a "false ideal." He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain.
Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning. In his first book on the subject, Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann said that mass man functioned as a "bewildered herd" who must be governed by "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." The élite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge to circumvent the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen". This attitude was in line with contemporary capitalism, which was made stronger by greater consumption.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 22:29:28 GMT -5
I can read it and I don't have a subscription. An excerpt for you (ibid.): “You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” [HC] said. She added: “Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching all of the back-room discussions and the deals, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”
Right. In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, as when President Richard M. Nixon denied Watergate complicity, but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes, such as trying to prevent a civil war, as in Lincoln’s case, or trying to protect American prestige and security, as when President Dwight D. Eisenhower denied that the Soviet Union had shot down a United States spy plane.
During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to televise negotiations over health care reform, but when the real work had to be done, the negotiators shut the doors. In a study of defense bills in Congress, the political scientist Colleen J. Shogan quotes a former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director as saying: “Why should we do it in the open? It would wreck the seriousness of the purpose. Staff needs to give candid views to senators, and you can’t do that in open session. Governing in the sunshine shouldn’t be applied to everything.”
Is it hypocritical to take one line in private, then adjust or deny it in public? Of course. But maintaining separate public and private faces is something we all do every day. We tell annoying relatives we enjoyed their visits, thank inept waiters for rotten service, and agree with bosses who we know are wrong. This stuff is straight out of 1984. It boggles the mind. i am way more cynical than you about government. i would never have guessed that. i would describe this POV as "the prevailing view" in WDC. it has been the norm for close to a century, if not longer. here is what Lippmann said about it in 1922: The basic problem of democracy, he wrote, was the accuracy of news and protection of sources. He argued that distorted information was inherent in the human mind. People make up their minds before they define the facts, while the ideal would be to gather and analyze the facts before reaching conclusions. By seeing first, he argued, it is possible to sanitize polluted information. Lippmann argued that interpretation as stereotypes (a word which he coined in that specific meaning) subjected us to partial truths. Lippmann called the notion of a public competent to direct public affairs a "false ideal." He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain.
Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning. In his first book on the subject, Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann said that mass man functioned as a "bewildered herd" who must be governed by "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." The élite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge to circumvent the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen". This attitude was in line with contemporary capitalism, which was made stronger by greater consumption. Interesting. Never heard of the man, but he's straight out of Plato's cave. Is there a link for the above? As for my (lack of) cynicism concerning government, my shock here isn't that leaders are two-faced. My shock is that the NYT, what we might call the flagship of the US mainstream media empire and the champion of the Fourth Estate, is going on record telling Americans it's none of their damned business what Ms. Clinton says to Wall Street, or what industry lobbyists say in the closed-door hearings on Obamacare, or why the President refuses to acknowledge the existence of targeted drone killings (also in the article), or what leaders are doing behind closed doors generally as long as its putatively for the public good. According to Mr. Rauch, "hypocrisy and two-facedness, when prudently harnessed to advance negotiations or avert conflicts, are a public good and a political necessity" (like you say, straight out of Lippman's work), and he concludes "In our hearts, we know [HRC] is right." Targeted drone strikes, closed-door Obamacare meetings, and selling out at Wall Street paid speeches are apparently now indispensable tools for advancing negotiations and averting conflicts. Obviously this viewpoint has been around since time immemorial, but this is the flagship newspaper we're talking about. The Fourth Estate. The organ that's supposed to be dedicated to keeping the public informed and the double-speaking politicians in check. The ones trying to shine light on all the shady recesses of government. This article is a de facto public admission by the editors of the NYT that they, as an organ of government, no longer consider the public worthy to be informed of Washington backroom dealings. And they hope and expect readers to agree with them.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 24, 2016 23:06:59 GMT -5
Their readers do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:11:08 GMT -5
i am way more cynical than you about government. i would never have guessed that. i would describe this POV as "the prevailing view" in WDC. it has been the norm for close to a century, if not longer. here is what Lippmann said about it in 1922: The basic problem of democracy, he wrote, was the accuracy of news and protection of sources. He argued that distorted information was inherent in the human mind. People make up their minds before they define the facts, while the ideal would be to gather and analyze the facts before reaching conclusions. By seeing first, he argued, it is possible to sanitize polluted information. Lippmann argued that interpretation as stereotypes (a word which he coined in that specific meaning) subjected us to partial truths. Lippmann called the notion of a public competent to direct public affairs a "false ideal." He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain.
Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning. In his first book on the subject, Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann said that mass man functioned as a "bewildered herd" who must be governed by "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." The élite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge to circumvent the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen". This attitude was in line with contemporary capitalism, which was made stronger by greater consumption. Interesting. Never heard of the man, but he's straight out of Plato's cave. Is there a link for the above? As for my (lack of) cynicism concerning government, my shock here isn't that leaders are two-faced. My shock is that the NYT, what we might call the flagship of the US mainstream media empire and the champion of the Fourth Estate, is going on record telling Americans it's none of their damned business what Ms. Clinton says to Wall Street, or what industry lobbyists say in the closed-door hearings on Obamacare, or why the President refuses to acknowledge the existence of targeted drone killings (also in the article), or what leaders are doing behind closed doors generally as long as its putatively for the public good. According to Mr. Rauch, "hypocrisy and two-facedness, when prudently harnessed to advance negotiations or avert conflicts, are a public good and a political necessity" (like you say, straight out of Lippman's work), and he concludes "In our hearts, we know [HRC] is right." Targeted drone strikes, closed-door Obamacare meetings, and selling out at Wall Street paid speeches are apparently now indispensable tools for advancing negotiations and averting conflicts. Obviously this viewpoint has been around since time immemorial, but this is the flagship newspaper we're talking about. The Fourth Estate. The organ that's supposed to be dedicated to keeping the public informed and the double-speaking politicians in check. The ones trying to shine light on all the shady recesses of government. This article is a de facto public admission by the editors of the NYT that they, as an organ of government, no longer consider the public worthy to be informed of Washington backroom dealings. And they hope and expect readers to agree with them. Walter Lippman was one of the most influential men in the history of American politics. but it is little wonder that you haven't heard of him. few people alive today have. the quote i provided linked the media to this strategy. you remember me saying over the years that the media is subservient to power? this is why. the media is part of the political establishment. the 4th estate is a myth. it has not been adversarial since the advent of the public relations industry helped Wilson overcome the nation's inclination to remain isolationist. i mentioned it before, but i will mention it again. the NYT, the presumed liberal beacon, quashed the NSA Spying story for Bush AT HIS REQUEST, even though they had the information necessary to run it BEFORE THE ELECTION. think about that. if your vaunted adversarial press was functioning, why on EARTH would they not run a story that would have shut down the worst president in three generations? could it be because they are not actually adversarial? www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601716.htmlif you think Lippmann is an exception, he's not. he was considered a liberal and a moderate in his day. he professed to want to keep people out of government for their own good, because they were too stupid to know how to do it. he felt (as MOST people in government do) that the political class should run things. this sort of attitude is hardly unknown, Virgil, and hardly new to the times, even in the 19th century. John Jay, for example, once stated "the people who own the country ought to run it". democracy of by and for the people? no way. we have never been for it. ever. ever ever. let's turn to Reinhold Neibauer, a contemporary of Lippman, for further enlightenment on the subject. Neibauer viewed democracy not as something to be nurtured and cherished, but as a threat to be avoided. to wit: Democracy…requires something more than a religious devotion to moral ideals. It requires religious humility. Every absolute devotion to relative political ends (and all political ends are relative) is a threat to communal peace. But religious humility is no simple moral or political achievement. It springs only from the depth of a religion which confronts the individual with a more ultimate majesty and purity than all human majesties and values, and persuades him to confess “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”[33]
Recognizing Divine perfection and human fallibility, the appropriate response, Niebuhr argued, is not sinful pride in the rightness of one’s position, but humility regarding the penultimacy of one’s political ends. To be clear, this is not to suspend all judgment regarding the relative good of particular ends—such judgments are the necessary constituents of political life—but rather to acknowledge their relativity. Neibauer felt that common people were incapable of properly concerning themselves with the welfare of themselves, let alone others. before this election, i really disliked these two men. but now, i have a bit more sympathy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:12:05 GMT -5
their readers are clueless. the NYT is no more looking out for the common man than Trump and Clinton are. which is precisely what a sensible person would expect.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:17:48 GMT -5
Virgil, i forgot to add THIS gem, from Neibauer, also, which AGAIN, links directly to the OP:
The naïve faith of the proletarian is the faith of the man of action. Rationality belongs to the cool observers. There is of course an element of illusion in the faith of the proletarian, as there is in all faith. But it is a necessary illusion, without which some truth is obscured. The inertia of society is so stubborn that no one will move against it, if he cannot believe that it can be more easily overcome than is actually the case.
in other words, the political class, the "enlightened", have to feed us bullshit to lead us. i think this ultimately leads to demagogues and technocrats, which is on full display in 2016. this is another reason why worshiping a nation or a government is a fools errand, imo. they have approximately the same interest in us that a chicken farmer has in his flock.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 23:22:49 GMT -5
their readers are clueless. the NYT is no more looking out for the common man than Trump and Clinton are. which is precisely what a sensible person would expect. Gah! You are more cynical than me!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:23:29 GMT -5
their readers are clueless. the NYT is no more looking out for the common man than Trump and Clinton are. which is precisely what a sensible person would expect. Gah! You are more cynical than me! i hide it well, tho, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 23:25:10 GMT -5
Virgil, i forgot to add THIS gem, from Neibauer, also, which AGAIN, links directly to the OP: The naïve faith of the proletarian is the faith of the man of action. Rationality belongs to the cool observers. There is of course an element of illusion in the faith of the proletarian, as there is in all faith. But it is a necessary illusion, without which some truth is obscured. The inertia of society is so stubborn that no one will move against it, if he cannot believe that it can be more easily overcome than is actually the case. in other words, the political class, the "enlightened", have to feed us bullshit to lead us. i think this ultimately leads to demagogues and technocrats, which is on full display in 2016. this is another reason why worshiping a nation or a government is a fools errand, imo. they have approximately the same interest in us that a chicken farmer has in his flock. I knew these men existed. It's just that their rhetoric is so much more chilling in their own words.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:29:04 GMT -5
Virgil, i forgot to add THIS gem, from Neibauer, also, which AGAIN, links directly to the OP: The naïve faith of the proletarian is the faith of the man of action. Rationality belongs to the cool observers. There is of course an element of illusion in the faith of the proletarian, as there is in all faith. But it is a necessary illusion, without which some truth is obscured. The inertia of society is so stubborn that no one will move against it, if he cannot believe that it can be more easily overcome than is actually the case. in other words, the political class, the "enlightened", have to feed us bullshit to lead us. i think this ultimately leads to demagogues and technocrats, which is on full display in 2016. this is another reason why worshiping a nation or a government is a fools errand, imo. they have approximately the same interest in us that a chicken farmer has in his flock. I knew these men existed. It's just that their rhetoric is so much more chilling in their own words. what you call "these men", i call "my government". this is why i get angry when you and others accuse me of being "pro government". there is no greater insult, imo. the proper role of a citizen is eternal and ceaseless vigilance, scrutiny, and critique of government- not "love" of any kind. the only rights that we have as citizens were won by hardship and suffering of those before us. no rights whatsoever were "given" to us. women and blacks know this lesson best of all, but even a privileged person such as myself, with some effort and practice, can see it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 23:31:31 GMT -5
I knew these men existed. It's just that their rhetoric is so much more chilling in their own words. what you call "these men", i call "my government". this is why i get angry when you and others accuse me of being "pro government". there is no greater insult, imo. the proper role of a citizen is eternal and ceaseless vigilance, scrutiny, and critique of government- not "love" of any kind. the only rights that we have as citizens were won by hardship and suffering of those before us. no rights whatsoever were "given" to us. women and blacks know this lesson best of all, but even a privileged person such as myself, with some effort and practice, can see it. You're a weird political creature, so I make no apologies for anything I may or may not have accused you of loving. That said, thank you for caring about this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2016 23:34:37 GMT -5
what you call "these men", i call "my government". this is why i get angry when you and others accuse me of being "pro government". there is no greater insult, imo. the proper role of a citizen is eternal and ceaseless vigilance, scrutiny, and critique of government- not "love" of any kind. the only rights that we have as citizens were won by hardship and suffering of those before us. no rights whatsoever were "given" to us. women and blacks know this lesson best of all, but even a privileged person such as myself, with some effort and practice, can see it. You're a weird political creature, so I make no apologies for anything I may or may not have accused you of loving. That said, thank you for caring about this. i think it is a very interesting subject. i doubt that the NYT has any idea how un-selfconsciously they say what they do. it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 24, 2016 23:52:38 GMT -5
You're a weird political creature, so I make no apologies for anything I may or may not have accused you of loving. That said, thank you for caring about this. i think it is a very interesting subject. i doubt that the NYT has any idea how un-selfconsciously they say what they do. it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. They may just see the writing on the wall. They've beheld the surveys charting public confidence in the media year after year, the same as the rest of us. The ones that show the steady, two-decade-long descent of the "mostly trust" and "somewhat trust" responses. Depending on which survey you believe, "mostly trust" is now in the mid single digits. That seems to me to be about the right time to cut their losses and appeal to whatever readership they have left, "So... it's true we're not telling you anything, but it's for your own good."
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 24, 2016 23:59:07 GMT -5
If one of us writes an editorial and it is accepted for publication by a newspaper, is it a statement of our opinion only or does it become the opinion of the newspaper since they published it (still under our name)?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2016 0:05:40 GMT -5
If one of us writes an editorial and it is accepted for publication by a newspaper, is it a statement of our opinion only or does it become the opinion of the newspaper since they published it (still under our name)? i think they generally disclaim those things, but i don't actually know. the "real estate" is certainly theirs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2016 1:07:08 GMT -5
Virgil- i missed your question. i think i pulled all of the bolded sections from Wikipedia. but i searched by quote. the first quote was "bewildered herd". the second was "threat of democracy". the third was "necessary illusions".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 25, 2016 11:29:29 GMT -5
Virgil- i missed your question. i think i pulled all of the bolded sections from Wikipedia. but i searched by quote. the first quote was "bewildered herd". the second was "threat of democracy". the third was "necessary illusions". I'd like to claim "I'll add those to my reading list." but the backlog is already pretty severe.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 25, 2016 12:16:52 GMT -5
If one of us writes an editorial and it is accepted for publication by a newspaper, is it a statement of our opinion only or does it become the opinion of the newspaper since they published it (still under our name)? I wondered whether it might be part of a series of editorials showing "all perspectives" on duplicity in politics, carrying an implicit caveat that the paper doesn't endorse any one of the viewpoints. But i) editorials in a series nearly always come with a "part of a series" disclaimer attached, ii) the editorial focuses specifically on Ms. Clinton and is clearly a reaction to her leaked speeches to Wall Street; it doesn't have the flavour of being part of an informative series; and iii) if the article is part of a panorama, at least one of the pieces would/will have to take a position critical of Ms. Clinton's duplicity, and that kind of thing would light up the right-wing blogosphere ("Look what the NYT is saying about Clinton!"). It wouldn't have escaped my notice and I highly doubt it's coming. Hence we conclude it's not a part of a series. If it's not, if the NYT is limiting its examination of this issue to one specific viewpoint, then I ask you: how reasonable is it to believe the viewpoint being presented isn't the viewpoint the NYT endorses? The answer in my mind is: not very. It's clearly labeled "opinion"; they know it takes a side. Apart from a series or an astronomical commission, I can't think of any reason why a newspaper would print an opinion it didn't tacitly endorse. Bear in mind the piece is a full-page behemoth on the second most prominent page in the newspaper (a true "op ed"--opposite the letters to the editor) with a custom-made graphic. It's not something they didn't expect would have any prominence. Short of putting "The NYT endorses this opinion." somewhere in the article itself, I don't see how they could make it more obvious they want people to read and agree with Mr. Rauch.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2016 12:26:20 GMT -5
Virgil- i missed your question. i think i pulled all of the bolded sections from Wikipedia. but i searched by quote. the first quote was "bewildered herd". the second was "threat of democracy". the third was "necessary illusions". I'd like to claim "I'll add those to my reading list." but the backlog is already pretty severe. i highly recommend that Lippmann book. it is like a window into a hidden chamber that contains all the machinations of modern US government. it is, however, about the equivalent of what Upton Sinclair wrote about the meat packing industry.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2016 12:28:15 GMT -5
If one of us writes an editorial and it is accepted for publication by a newspaper, is it a statement of our opinion only or does it become the opinion of the newspaper since they published it (still under our name)? I wondered whether it might be part of a series of editorials showing "all perspectives" on duplicity in politics, carrying an implicit caveat that the paper doesn't endorse any one of the viewpoints. But i) editorials in a series nearly always come with a "part of a series" disclaimer attached, ii) the editorial focuses specifically on Ms. Clinton and is clearly a reaction to her leaked speeches to Wall Street; it doesn't have the flavour of being part of an informative series; and iii) if the article is part of a panorama, at least one of the pieces would/will have to take a position critical of Ms. Clinton's duplicity, and that kind of thing would light up the right-wing blogosphere ("Look what the NYT is saying about Clinton!"). It wouldn't have escaped my notice and I highly doubt it's coming. Hence we conclude it's not a part of a series. If it's not, if the NYT is limiting its examination of this issue to one specific viewpoint, then I ask you: how reasonable is it to believe the viewpoint being presented isn't the viewpoint the NYT endorses? The answer in my mind is: not very. It's clearly labeled "opinion"; they know it takes a side. Apart from a series or an astronomical commission, I can't think of any reason why a newspaper would print an opinion it didn't tacitly endorse. Bear in mind the piece is a full-page behemoth on the second most prominent page in the newspaper (a true "op ed"--opposite the letters to the editor) with a custom-made graphic. It's not something they didn't expect would have any prominence. Short of putting "The NYT endorses this opinion." somewhere in the article itself, I don't see how they could make it more obvious they want people to read and agree with Mr. Rauch. oh, that is definitely where the NYT sits. no question. and there is little doubt that it has sat there for a good long while. it is actually really valuable to know that. but try to keep in mind, this is not a liberal/conservative thing. this is obsequiousness.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Oct 25, 2016 17:25:16 GMT -5
Neibauer felt that common people were incapable of properly concerning themselves with the welfare of themselves, let alone others. before this election, i really disliked these two men. but now, i have a bit more sympathy. So did the founding fathers, which is why we have an electoral college instead of popular vote for determining the President.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 25, 2016 18:25:46 GMT -5
Neibauer felt that common people were incapable of properly concerning themselves with the welfare of themselves, let alone others. before this election, i really disliked these two men. but now, i have a bit more sympathy. So did the founding fathers, which is why we have an electoral college instead of popular vote for determining the President. Hell, they didn't say have a popular vote for the Electoral College selection either. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2016 19:23:53 GMT -5
Neibauer felt that common people were incapable of properly concerning themselves with the welfare of themselves, let alone others. before this election, i really disliked these two men. but now, i have a bit more sympathy. So did the founding fathers, which is why we have an electoral college instead of popular vote for determining the President. precisely. but keep in mind that there are two conceptions of democracy. one is the one MOST people see: that it is "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", and that people have a meaningful input in that governance. the second, which i have called "the prevailing view in WDC" above, is the one you expressed. that the little people are too stupid to govern ANYTHING, and that it needs to be left to a specialized class of intellectuals who i call "the political class". and this, in essence is why Clinton is two faced. it is WEIRD that the NYC saw fit to expose that to the public, but there it is.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 26, 2016 9:33:18 GMT -5
When the public is into Jerry springer and the Real Housewives, you think there's an informed public? Even DS says he has to read 5 different sources if he wants an inkling of the real truth
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 26, 2016 10:40:14 GMT -5
When the public is into Jerry springer and the Real Housewives, you think there's an informed public? Even DS says he has to read 5 different sources if he wants an inkling of the real truth The people are ignorant because the media feeds us entertainment instead of substance, and the media denies us substance because we're ignorant and unfit to criticize our leaders. Somehow I don't think the founders of western democracy saw it turning out like this.
|
|
Waffle
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 11:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,391
|
Post by Waffle on Oct 26, 2016 11:02:36 GMT -5
I don't read the NYT often enough to know if it's true of them, but I have often seen opposing editorial viewpoints in the opinion pages of newspapers. This discussion has made me curious about who wrote the piece.
From Wikipedia: Jonathan Charles Rauch (born April 26, 1960 in Phoenix, Arizona)[1] is an American author, journalist and activist. After graduating from Yale University, Rauch worked at the Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina, for the National Journal magazine, and later for The Economist magazine and as a freelance writer. He has in the past described himself as "an unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual".[2]
Rauch is currently a contributing editor of National Journal and The Atlantic. He is the author of several books and many articles on public policy, culture, and economics.[3] He is also a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in Governance Studies and a vice president of the Independent Gay Forum.
As for politicians displaying two faces - the concept dates back to at least the 1500's (See Machiavelli's The Prince).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 26, 2016 11:28:26 GMT -5
I don't read the NYT often enough to know if it's true of them, but I have often seen opposing editorial viewpoints in the opinion pages of newspapers. This discussion has made me curious about who wrote the piece.
From Wikipedia: Jonathan Charles Rauch (born April 26, 1960 in Phoenix, Arizona)[1] is an American author, journalist and activist. After graduating from Yale University, Rauch worked at the Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina, for the National Journal magazine, and later for The Economist magazine and as a freelance writer. He has in the past described himself as "an unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual".[2]
Rauch is currently a contributing editor of National Journal and The Atlantic. He is the author of several books and many articles on public policy, culture, and economics.[3] He is also a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in Governance Studies and a vice president of the Independent Gay Forum.
As for politicians displaying two faces - the concept dates back to at least the 1500's (See Machiavelli's The Prince).
A far left, Ivy-League-educated, unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual activist writing for the NYT? Be still my beating heart. I suppose we'll just have to wait for the NYT to print a counter piece by a far right, state-college-educated, straight, low-profile, unrepentantly fundamentalist Christian minister on whether Machiavellian politics are a good thing. It could happen. If the NYT servers were hacked. Maybe.
|
|