noteworthy wrote:
Martin Kaplan writes in today's LA Times:
We've had plenty of shouting matches on the war; what we need are better leaders and more capable media.
So I guess, by Decius's First Law of Political Leadership, he is implicitly asking for things to get worse in Iraq. I don't know if I like that idea ...
But I did like this turn of phrase on the upcoming primaries:
... the scene of multi-candidate cattle calls in which entrants will moo canned messages ...
If that wasn't enough to make you see Kaplan more as a comedian than a man of nuanced policy, the article loses all sense of seriousness when we get to this:
Newt has been calling for a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates across the nation. I'd like that. I'd also like a pony, an end to racism, a cure for cancer and a date with Scarlett Johansson.
Speaking of Scarlett, did you know she has five films on tap for 2007? Now there's a hard-working woman in show business. Do you think after that, we could get her to run as a VP in `08?
Here's his pitch for civil war in Iraq:
Maybe we don't need a national debate. Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in.
I really like that last thought there, but it's incredibly difficult to achieve through the contemporary model of a "free" press forever at the mercy of fickle, demanding advertisers. If more people were willing to pay their own way for news they didn't want, but, like vegetables and fiber, knew they should have, then perhaps the products of that press would be more useful.
Echoing Kaplan, Mike wrote:
Less "balance," more "fair," meaning make a damn call.
adam
wrote in reply:I disagree completely; it is for journalists to report points of view, not judge. My ideology tells me -- my liberal bias says -- let reporters report in as balanced a manner as they can and let we the jury decide.
The issue is one not so much of the reporter as of the editor. In any newspaper of significance there is room for a variety of content, from "just the facts" basic street beat reporting, to in-depth profiles, to news analysis, to investigations, to editorials, to letters, to opinion pieces, to regular columnists, and more. Any "balanced" newspaper ought to have all of these, in the same way that a "balanced" investment portfolio will have a little of everything.
What distinguishes a great newspaper from a merely average one is two-fold: first, the quality of its content, and second, the editor's skill in selecting and organizing a small subset of the available content. The requirement for good content goes without saying; even the best editor would be hard-pressed to turn crap into a great newspaper. (Nonetheless, let it be noted that a talented editor can still make crap sell like hotcakes.) The editor's role is perhaps less widely appreciated, but I'd argue it's essential to a top quality product.
An editor, in attempting to "balance" views, relies on internal scales to do so. What is equal? Is it based on word count? How do you equate photographs?
I measure them this way. If I see a picture of the Saddam statue being pulled down among cheering crowds like here but then I find out that was bogus, as demonstrated by the photos shown from farther back then I wonder who was pushing the first version. I also want to know why the media was complicit in pushing that version.
If you have a story about someone sailing around the world, some dolt might think it is "balanced" to trot out a spokesman for the flat earth society to balance the person who says they sailed around the world. That is obviously stupid.
Frankly, at this point the only people still debating about whether Iraq was a good idea, are the ones in the White House and the 20% of the sheeple that still buy their snake oil. Everyone else has pretty much figured out they lied to us to get the people behind them to start the war, lied to us about why, lied to us about what the results would be, lied to us about the planning that had been done, lied to us about what it would cost, lied to us about when it would be over, lied to us about what has been happening inside Iraq, and I could go on, but I think the meaning is clear. The current administration no longer has any shred of credibility that what they are saying has any relationship with reality.
On this topic, the debate ended a long time ago. The only reason people are still talking about it is because the emperor wasn't listening and doesn't give a damn what the people think. We can eat cake.
