Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
As Claire prepares to dive into Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America, the newest volume from Encounter Books, I direct her attention to a comment that our own Paul Rahe posted earlier this day:
[I]t is time to give up on The New York Times. Years ago, when it became company policy to call Angela Davis a "political activist," it had already become clear that the paper should be renamed Pravda on the Hudson and that it was engaged in a disinformation campaign....The appropriate posture for its critics should not now be disappointment; it should be hilarity. Pravda on the Hudson is almost as entertaining to read as MSNBC is to watch.
Since Claire and I have discussed the matter often and at some length, I happen to know that, like me, Claire can't quite bring herself around to Paul's point of view. Even now, the New York Times--well, it matters. That's the way I still see it, anyway--and I know Claire does, too.
What I can't figure out--what I look to Claire to explain for me--is why. Is it because I grew up in upstate New York, looking yearningly to Manhattan for so many years? (Claire grew up everywhere, so that argument won't work for her.) Is it simply generational? Are Claire and I simply artifacts of a time, and a certain kind of education, in which everyone simply took it for granted that the New York Times was the most important journalistic outlook in the country? Are those days gone? Do kids on Ivy campuses simply shrug at the thought of the Times and reach for the Wall Street Journal instead? (At Dartmouth three decades ago, a bunch of undergraduates would go in together on a subscription, then pass the Times around each day. It was a precious object--not an object of devotion, exactly, but important. Here at Stanford the other evening, I happened to pass a newstand on which the Times is given away each day for free. It was still half full.) Is it that the Times is still so much of New York--and that New York, even now, remains the capital of a certain kind of intellectual and cultural life?
Claire, what is it? Why are we thus afflicted? What can't we bring ourselves to follow Paul's sensible prescription and simply laugh the New York Times to scorn?
Here in Palo Alto, I await you in Istanbul.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
In contrast, I cringe when Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are cited as if they say something about everyone on the right: the former is a charlatan...
Look, I understand disliking Glenn Beck. He's pretty far from my cup of tea, too -- goofy, repetitive, treats as conspiracy that which is just as well explained by simple incompetence and unconscious bias... gives off an awkward spiritual-patriotic vibe that many find off-putting...
But why charlatan? What's he pretending to be that he isn't?
And can someone who's motivated masses of people to read our founding documents, to read up on intellectuals like Hayek -- to just plain read and inform themselves -- really be all that bad?
So he's a hyper-emotional goof. Does that make him a charlatan?
Aug '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
Though I disagree with both of them often, I regard Brooks and Douthat both as smart, intellectually honest writers whose demeanor makes them particularly effective at communicating to people who don't share their ideology.
Actually, I don't find David Brooks a terribly effective communicator of ideas on the right to those on the left.
A lot of times when I read Brooks, I'm left with the feeling, "If I were a leftist, what Brooks is saying right now would only reinforce my prejudices towards the right -- it wouldn't get me to reconsider."
Brooks may make leftists feel comfortable, but I don't think he does a particularly good job of enticing them to try to see things from another side.
It's not that he's too nice -- one can be at least as nice to leftists as Brooks is and still do a better job of getting them to acknowledge a right-leaning take on an issue as potentially legitimate. I know, because my husband has this particular talent.
No, Brooks is not too nice. But he lacks a vital vision, one capable of attracting. Or so it seems to me.
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
I'd also say that it reflects better on the right to be represented by David Brooks and Ross Douthat than Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Disagree?
As conservative spokesmen, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity both leave something to be desired, but I will cheerfully accept them over David Brooks any day.
Read this and discover why:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-courtship
And it is wrong to refer to Glenn Beck as a "charlatan." I believe he is absolutely sincere — in an earnest, doofy, 50s crewcut sort of way.
Edited on December 1, 2010 at 9:15amRe: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Wow, I'm seriously late to this party. Well, Peter, tell you what--let me finish the book first, as well as The New York Times.
Oct '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
I used to read the NYT Opinion columns. Friedman, Kristof, Safire then Brooks.
Oct '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
FOXNEWS is more influential than the NYT at this point.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf:
Paul,
I agree that the WSJ weekly review section is quite good. I disagree that the NYT's news coverage is less and less reliable, and I don't really know what you're basing that on. On the op-ed page, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Nick Kristoff are very much worth reading. I don't care for the rest. Especially Charles Blow, my least favorite. The online opinion stuff, The Opinionator especially, is quite good.
You say that if you read The NY Times only, you don't know what's going on. I agree that it's a folly to read just one source, but I am curious: what exactly don't you know if you only read the NYT? · Nov 30 at 8:29pm
Months passed before the NYT said anything at all about the scandal revealed by the e-mails concerning the global-warming hoax. That was a huge event -- covered extensively by the Guardian in England, and ignored by the Times. There are other similar examples.
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Lady Kurobara
As conservative spokesmen, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity both leave something to be desired, but I will cheerfully accept them over David Brooks any day.
...
And it is wrong to refer to Glenn Beck as a "charlatan." I believe he is absolutely sincere — in an earnest, doofy, 50s crewcut sort of way.
Agreed.
What troubles me is that so many conservatives continue to regard it as the epicenter of American journalism. Conservatives support the paper by linking to articles they find preposterous, thereby supporting those authors and the liberal editorial board.
Conor is correct that the Times has a vast and well-connected network of journalists worldwide that is rivaled only by the BBC. There is a lot of talent and value in the paper. But it's not like the admirable journalists would quit journalism altogether just because the Times died.
The Times is kept afloat by conservatives. Avoid it. Starve it. The Leftist editors will hold onto reporters of their own ideology. The sensible reporters will gradually be let go and, like workers of any industry, will seek similar employment.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Look, I understand disliking Glenn Beck. He's pretty far from my cup of tea, too -- goofy, repetitive, treats as conspiracy that which is just as well explained by simple incompetence and unconscious bias... gives off an awkward spiritual-patriotic vibe that many find off-putting...
But why charlatan? What's he pretending to be that he isn't?
If you read up on Glenn Beck's rise -- there are several profiles, but I think this one is he most thorough -- I think you'll agree with my assessment.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Paul A. Rahe
Months passed before the NYT said anything at all about the scandal revealed by the e-mails concerning the global-warming hoax. That was a huge event -- covered extensively by the Guardian in England, and ignored by the Times. There are other similar examples.
Paul,
As far as I can tell, you're wrong about this. Wikipedia dates the beginning of the ClimateGate scandal 17 November 2009.
And on November 20, 2009, The New York Times published this story. Subsequently the NYT published numerous other items on the controversy. Here is John Tierney writing on November 30, 2009:
As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers... seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.
If you search the papers archives or look in the Wikipedia external links you'll find plenty more stories.
The Guardian, which you cite as the better source, seems to have published its first story the same day.
So I'd say you're dead wrong.
What accounts for this?
Sep '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
I cringe when Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are cited as if they say something about everyone on the right:
And who cites them as if the say something about everyone on the right Connor? Is it the same New York Times? ABC? NBC? The Daily Beast? It seems to me that you're a little too spooked by the establishment press and trying to appease their incessant cravings for cardboard conservative cut-outs to make fun of.
When I try to sell a product or service to a potential customer, I can yammer away at them for an hour, or I can simply show them a prototype or example. To me, Ricochet is the example.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
And who cites them as if the say something about everyone on the right Connor? Is it the same New York Times? ABC? NBC? The Daily Beast? It seems to me that you're a little too spooked by the establishment press and trying to appease their incessant cravings for cardboard conservative cut-outs to make fun of.
When I try to sell a product or service to a potential customer, I can yammer away at them for an hour, or I can simply show them a prototype or example. To me, Ricochet is the example. · Dec 1 at 8:22pm
I'd love it if Ricochet replaced Hannity and Beck, but for the average American, this is an obscure Web site whereas those guys have a legitimate claim as among the most beloved conservatives – and many people here are complicit.
Once upon a time the right had Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley out front. Not it's got Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. This is a problem! It results in bad information, and mistaken beliefs. In the echo chamber that results, intelligent guys like Professor Rahe believe, eg, that the NYT ignored Climate-gate for months.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Despite the fact that the Reagan Revolution proceeded without Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, or Fox News, the right has persuaded itself -- absent any compelling evidence -- that the entrepreneurial success of these profit-motivated entertainers is both necessary for and synonymous with the advancement of conservatism.
As a result, extremely intelligent conservatives who'd never permit themselves to be as factually misleading, intellectually lazy, or crude as these entertainers end up acting as their apologists and enablers. Read Charles Kessler. The man is a tour de force of intellect. Yet the Claremont Institute, a place that knows quality, honors Rush Limbaugh with its Statesmanship Award. Defensible?
You say that I'm spooked by "the establishment press and trying to appease their incessant cravings for cardboard conservative cut-outs to make fun of." Nonsense. I merely want everyone who secretly believe these people are cardboard conservatives to join me in speaking out. Otherwise the right's rallies on the mall will continue to be led by men like this.
Believe it or not, it's possible to spread conservative ideas to a mass audience without being a blowhard. But history won't repeat itself until we demand better than what we've got.
Aug '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
But why charlatan?
If you read up on Glenn Beck's rise -- there are several profiles, but I think this one is he most thorough -- I think you'll agree with my assessment.
Well, I read -- all three Salon articles -- and I'm still not convinced that "charlatan" is the mot juste:
That Beck tells differing versions of his youthful family tragedy doesn't surprise me. It's tough to remember these tragedies -- even to date them correctly -- and what really happened is often so tangled that there's no way to explain it to an outsider. So you make up a simplified narrative to fit your audience, and hope it's not too big a lie. That's life.
That Beck spent a lot of time a piss-nasty, evil, drug-fueled jerk is something he freely admits. No surprises there.
That his transformation from whatever he was to whatever he is now didn't happen overnight, and that the transition got pretty raw sometimes, is also not shocking.
That Beck has emotional issues and some mental abnormality ("ADD") is also not something he hides.
Freak? Sure. Charlatan? I vote between ehhh and nyet.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Okay Midget, one more try.
Sep '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
I merely want everyone who secretly believe these people are cardboard conservatives to join me in speaking out.
And, if no one joins you, this is evidence of what, exactly? By the way, what do you think of FrumForum and the latest FrumBloombergapalooza that is being launched in New York which calls to mind the Stay Puft Marshmallow man raging through the streets of New York in the original Ghostbusters movie?
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor, you are right that I erred in asserting that the Times never reported the matter. What they did back in November, 2009 is, however, precisely what they did just now with the story that in the city of New York 200,000 votes were “found” one month after the election. They engaged in news management, mentioning the event, burying the story in a back section, not treating it with any seriousness, and moving on.
Compare its treatment in The Guardian blog maintained by climate-zealot George Monbiot in the immediate aftermath of the release of the Climategate e-mails. Then look at the piece published in The Guardian in February, 2010 by Fred Pearce. I mention The Guardian because it is well to the left of The New York Times and much more passionately committed to the global-warming cause. Its news coverage was nonetheless much better. Nor in the Times did one ever get a story that put together the series of scandals that have taken place regarding the false claims advanced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the sort found in Der Spiegel – another news outlet long committed to the global-warming cause.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Let me add that The Guardian eventually did a twelve-part series on Climategate while The New York Times dismissed it as much-ado about nothing – a “manufactured controversy.”
"Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on," the Times tolds its readers, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.”
Aug '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
The function of people like Hannity within conservatism is the function of a lot of Hollywood entertainers within liberalism. They create a sense among the masses of their viewers that their philosophy is culturally normal and acceptable. That process is somewhat orthogonal to any substance that may be conveyed or obscured in the process. The fact that someone can pick apart this or that claim made by someone in that role is almost irrelevant, because the truth or falsity of conservatism or liberalism is a much larger question that the truth or falsity of what is said by any particular conservative or liberal. Just because Joy Behar can say "Ahah!" about some bogus comment made by Sean Hannity doesn't disprove conservatism any more than saying "Ahah!" about some Joy Behar comment disproves liberalism. The substantial truth versus falsehood battles occur elsewhere, on a different plane.