Leaving that aside, some distinction should be drawn between op ed writers and guest editorialists. As we know, there are many bad-faith regulars, from Ross Douthat, who continues to embarrass himself with counterfactual claims about the federal administration's COVID response (or lack thereof) , to Bret Stephens' at this point lifesaver-clinging climate change denials. The real question is what does it take to get thrown out the front door, as seemed to happen to Bill Kristol as he bumbled his way through opinion after opinion with a weekly fact check correction.
There's perhaps more to be said about bad-faith opinions, although these are challenging since it always possible for someone to draw truly stupid conclusions--bad inferences--from good (but usually selective) data. Many religious opinions from the truly pious operate in exactly this way. I'm not sure how much this kind of thing can be policed from the top since the criteria for what's in and out are not entirely stable. In the end, it may well be the case that the best way to kill a truly lousy opinion maker is to do something quite antithetical: don't respond, read, listen, or watch.
Nothing kills a column than lack of response/interest. Not sure if that is always the wisest measure, but it may well be. It is a lot like my thoughts about listening to Trump. I don't. I already know the content of his contribution--and there's nothing there. In fact, I go out of my way disregard it. For example, any public health announcement from him I immediately disregard because it it is uninformed or disingenuous. In other words, entirely useless (and possibly dangerous).
In that light, his press briefings should be the easiest thing not to attend since there's no there there. Sadly reporters still attend not to gather any news but to play gotcha--which as we now know is also pointless since Trump supporters rationalize all gotchas away and the rest of us don't need more gotchas.
Bad punditry should be met sometimes by cricket. Sort of like Trump in Tulsa.
We also have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, which while it does not absolve the media or pundits of their blame for poisoning the discourse and placing their personal interests first and foremost ahead of the country's wellbeing: NYT subscriptions have increased and FB is booming. We have limited power as citizens, and yet, few people I know will even close their FB accounts. If enough of us did this small action, it would immediately strengthen our democracy, but we won't. If enough people canceled their NYT subscription as a rebuff to their idiotic headlines and both-sides political reporting, we would see changes, but we won't. Not everyone can protest or run for office, but everyone can make small choices that, in the aggregate, can effect positive change, but we don't. I'm very grateful for the hard work of many grassroots organizations and independent journalists, but I also think citizens need to ensure that they are doing everything that they can...even if it causes temporary inconveniences If everyone who expressed concern about the survival of our democracy closed their FB account, it would do more to rouse Zuckerberg to repress conspiracy theories than 10 Congressional hearings. Why aren't we doing this?
In response to 2016, I upped my monthly contribution to ACLU, added several new groups to my regular support. I'd already stopped using FB, so that couldn't do much, although I suppose I've never deleted my account. I canceled my NYT subscription when they outed the Ukraine whistleblower (but dreadfully miss some of the good writing and feel guilty any time I bypass their paywall for something I just *have* to read.)
I served in local politics for many years, and after some time away I will probably do so again next time around. I picked up more letter-writing to the local weekly and spent more time than before on political Twitter, trying to rebut nonsense.
But it's not enough. I don't think I can do enough. I don't know if anyone can. I haven't entirely lost hope over the future of our nation, but I feel that hope slowly waning.
So you're right, there are things to do, most importantly right now involving voting and helping reasonable candidates win their contests with our time and money. I still fear that our country may have sunk so far into the partisan mire and the idiocy of the current leadership that none of these activities will make a permanent dent in it.
But it's the only chance we have. We have to do our best to make it work.
John writes, "The goal isn’t genuine engagement in free speech. It’s exploiting free speech to sow confusion, cast doubt, and otherwise discredit the Democratic nominee. Moving the bar is what serial abusers do. "
I've known how useless it is to try to engage in political discussions while living in Mobile, Alabama, the home of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. Last week saw an extreme example that even I couldn't have fathomed.
Undergoing cataract surgery while under sedation, the surgeon began discussing all the corrupt ways Hunter Biden was put on the board of directors for that Ukrainian company and the point seemed to be that putting Hunter on the board was a corrupt action on the part of Joe Biden.
I became lucid enough, because of shock, to know that I was truly uncomfortable with the discussion and asked for a change of subject. That request only brought out more "reasons" about the so-called corruption, to which I responded, "Y'all need to watch other channels than Fox News."
Now mind you my left eye is held open with a clamp of sorts and I'm trying my best not to move because I don't have any knowledge about the progress of the surgery, and I'm frightened that any movement on my part could ruin my eye.
After more remarks being made from the white surgeon to defend his point of view, I said, "I'm a Democrat and now I don't feel safe."
He patted my shoulder and said, "I'll pray for you." I once again pleaded with the personnel in the room, "I don't feel safe. I need to get out of here."
I have switched doctors and will have the right eye's cataract removed at a different facility, which may take some time because that facility was in the path of Hurricane Sally. It's okay, I'll wait. I can't face such a situation or that doctor ever again.
And if you are wondering, yes, I did try to leave against medical advice once I was back in recovery; however, I was told that doing so might mean my insurance wouldn't pay for the procedure. I was rational enough to understand this and the recovery room nurse told me she wasn't in the O.R. so I laid there another half hour.
My rationale for writing about my experience is to highlight the phenomenon of some white, professional class Trump voters in finding some way to justify their choice of Trump in 2020.
It doesn't matter that Hunter Biden is not running for office. Facts have nothing to do with choices in this campaign. My doctor may or may not be a closet racist. I've seen many African-Americans in his office when I've had appointments.
I suspect what's motivating him is to keep the status quo in American medicine--he probably actually fears "Medicare For All."
In this region, Trump ads focus more on the socialism and "radical" leftist ideas of AOC (who is not running for president), than they do about "law and order," which is a message that doesn't need to be highlighted in this area.
This insight as to the fears of monetary setbacks if Biden gets elected is probably going to be very effective across the South. It may be just as effective elsewhere in the U.S., with medical professionals and those in related fields.
John has written in the past about the sadism of the conservatives.
I had always believed that the sadism was more in thought than in deed, but now, I know that even the people I believed to be above such thought are, on the contrary, NOT above putting such thoughts in action.
I can't think of a better illustration of exploiting "free speech" than a surgeon spouting conspiracy theories to staff and a patient in an operating room and feeling so emboldened in his opinion that he'd continue even when the patient asks for a change of topic and laters states she isn't feeling safe.
Has anyone ever thought that an O.R. would be a venue for poisoning public discourse?
Which opinion piece of late is being referenced? Might it be this guest piece from AEI, right-wing shill Danielle Pletka. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-cant-stand-trump-but-democrats-may-force-me-to-vote-for-him/2020/09/14/1cf10518-f6c4-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html. Mind you, this is someone who supported the Iraq War (and never looked back) doesn't believe in climate change as Oregon burns, and advocates the use of torture (which, well, never works). She was senior staff for Jesse Helms. Seriously does anyone need to know more?
Leaving that aside, some distinction should be drawn between op ed writers and guest editorialists. As we know, there are many bad-faith regulars, from Ross Douthat, who continues to embarrass himself with counterfactual claims about the federal administration's COVID response (or lack thereof) , to Bret Stephens' at this point lifesaver-clinging climate change denials. The real question is what does it take to get thrown out the front door, as seemed to happen to Bill Kristol as he bumbled his way through opinion after opinion with a weekly fact check correction.
There's perhaps more to be said about bad-faith opinions, although these are challenging since it always possible for someone to draw truly stupid conclusions--bad inferences--from good (but usually selective) data. Many religious opinions from the truly pious operate in exactly this way. I'm not sure how much this kind of thing can be policed from the top since the criteria for what's in and out are not entirely stable. In the end, it may well be the case that the best way to kill a truly lousy opinion maker is to do something quite antithetical: don't respond, read, listen, or watch.
Nothing kills a column than lack of response/interest. Not sure if that is always the wisest measure, but it may well be. It is a lot like my thoughts about listening to Trump. I don't. I already know the content of his contribution--and there's nothing there. In fact, I go out of my way disregard it. For example, any public health announcement from him I immediately disregard because it it is uninformed or disingenuous. In other words, entirely useless (and possibly dangerous).
In that light, his press briefings should be the easiest thing not to attend since there's no there there. Sadly reporters still attend not to gather any news but to play gotcha--which as we now know is also pointless since Trump supporters rationalize all gotchas away and the rest of us don't need more gotchas.
Bad punditry should be met sometimes by cricket. Sort of like Trump in Tulsa.
Hi Bennett, I added some links pointing to the genre I'm talking about. Yes Pletka.
We also have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, which while it does not absolve the media or pundits of their blame for poisoning the discourse and placing their personal interests first and foremost ahead of the country's wellbeing: NYT subscriptions have increased and FB is booming. We have limited power as citizens, and yet, few people I know will even close their FB accounts. If enough of us did this small action, it would immediately strengthen our democracy, but we won't. If enough people canceled their NYT subscription as a rebuff to their idiotic headlines and both-sides political reporting, we would see changes, but we won't. Not everyone can protest or run for office, but everyone can make small choices that, in the aggregate, can effect positive change, but we don't. I'm very grateful for the hard work of many grassroots organizations and independent journalists, but I also think citizens need to ensure that they are doing everything that they can...even if it causes temporary inconveniences If everyone who expressed concern about the survival of our democracy closed their FB account, it would do more to rouse Zuckerberg to repress conspiracy theories than 10 Congressional hearings. Why aren't we doing this?
In response to 2016, I upped my monthly contribution to ACLU, added several new groups to my regular support. I'd already stopped using FB, so that couldn't do much, although I suppose I've never deleted my account. I canceled my NYT subscription when they outed the Ukraine whistleblower (but dreadfully miss some of the good writing and feel guilty any time I bypass their paywall for something I just *have* to read.)
I served in local politics for many years, and after some time away I will probably do so again next time around. I picked up more letter-writing to the local weekly and spent more time than before on political Twitter, trying to rebut nonsense.
But it's not enough. I don't think I can do enough. I don't know if anyone can. I haven't entirely lost hope over the future of our nation, but I feel that hope slowly waning.
So you're right, there are things to do, most importantly right now involving voting and helping reasonable candidates win their contests with our time and money. I still fear that our country may have sunk so far into the partisan mire and the idiocy of the current leadership that none of these activities will make a permanent dent in it.
But it's the only chance we have. We have to do our best to make it work.
Thank you, Scott. If tens of thousands did half as much as you have done, I would be far less worried about the outcome in 48 days.
John writes, "The goal isn’t genuine engagement in free speech. It’s exploiting free speech to sow confusion, cast doubt, and otherwise discredit the Democratic nominee. Moving the bar is what serial abusers do. "
I've known how useless it is to try to engage in political discussions while living in Mobile, Alabama, the home of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. Last week saw an extreme example that even I couldn't have fathomed.
Undergoing cataract surgery while under sedation, the surgeon began discussing all the corrupt ways Hunter Biden was put on the board of directors for that Ukrainian company and the point seemed to be that putting Hunter on the board was a corrupt action on the part of Joe Biden.
I became lucid enough, because of shock, to know that I was truly uncomfortable with the discussion and asked for a change of subject. That request only brought out more "reasons" about the so-called corruption, to which I responded, "Y'all need to watch other channels than Fox News."
Now mind you my left eye is held open with a clamp of sorts and I'm trying my best not to move because I don't have any knowledge about the progress of the surgery, and I'm frightened that any movement on my part could ruin my eye.
After more remarks being made from the white surgeon to defend his point of view, I said, "I'm a Democrat and now I don't feel safe."
He patted my shoulder and said, "I'll pray for you." I once again pleaded with the personnel in the room, "I don't feel safe. I need to get out of here."
I have switched doctors and will have the right eye's cataract removed at a different facility, which may take some time because that facility was in the path of Hurricane Sally. It's okay, I'll wait. I can't face such a situation or that doctor ever again.
And if you are wondering, yes, I did try to leave against medical advice once I was back in recovery; however, I was told that doing so might mean my insurance wouldn't pay for the procedure. I was rational enough to understand this and the recovery room nurse told me she wasn't in the O.R. so I laid there another half hour.
My rationale for writing about my experience is to highlight the phenomenon of some white, professional class Trump voters in finding some way to justify their choice of Trump in 2020.
It doesn't matter that Hunter Biden is not running for office. Facts have nothing to do with choices in this campaign. My doctor may or may not be a closet racist. I've seen many African-Americans in his office when I've had appointments.
I suspect what's motivating him is to keep the status quo in American medicine--he probably actually fears "Medicare For All."
In this region, Trump ads focus more on the socialism and "radical" leftist ideas of AOC (who is not running for president), than they do about "law and order," which is a message that doesn't need to be highlighted in this area.
This insight as to the fears of monetary setbacks if Biden gets elected is probably going to be very effective across the South. It may be just as effective elsewhere in the U.S., with medical professionals and those in related fields.
John has written in the past about the sadism of the conservatives.
I had always believed that the sadism was more in thought than in deed, but now, I know that even the people I believed to be above such thought are, on the contrary, NOT above putting such thoughts in action.
I can't think of a better illustration of exploiting "free speech" than a surgeon spouting conspiracy theories to staff and a patient in an operating room and feeling so emboldened in his opinion that he'd continue even when the patient asks for a change of topic and laters states she isn't feeling safe.
Has anyone ever thought that an O.R. would be a venue for poisoning public discourse?