FLAT EARTH DAYS! Afraid to call Hannity what he is, John Broder made Krugman a prophet: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2010
Ken Starr didnt squint or display any tics: A very long book has now been written about the scandals (or pseudo-scandals) which drove and defined the Clinton/Gore era. The book is called The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr. The book was written by Ken Gormley, a Duquesne law professor. The book is reviewed by Janet Maslin in todays New York Times.
We havent read Gormleys book, although we certainly plan to do so. We did have a few reactions to Maslins (intriguing) review.
First: To this day, the Whitewater matter remains indecipherable at the paper which gave this scandal its start. In this passage, Maslin reviews Gormleys treatment of the matter which lent its name to an era:
Who knows? Maybe Gormleys treatment of Whitewater really is confounding, though Maslin seems to vouch for his skill in all other areas. Or maybe this is the latest example of an old pattern at the Timesthe refusal to discuss the scandal our greatest newspaper pimped.
In 1996, Harpers published Gene Lyons book, Fools for Scandal: How the media invented Whitewater. In Lyons book, the New York Times was the leading edge of those inventive media. Some fourteen years later, the Whitewater story is still too confounding to be described in the Times. Well be curious to see what Gormley actually wrote in his book.
Second point: We couldnt help noting Maslins differential treatment of Clinton and Starr, the twinned stars of Gormleys title. In this passage, a familiar novelistic trope appears in her treatment of Clinton:
President Clinton is lightly-complected (light-skinned). He sometimes rouges when he speaks. People like Maslin never tire of using this as a marker of his (slightly suspicious) indignation. Clinton also squinted at Gormley on at least one occasion, it would seem from what Maslin has written. No such bodily tics intrude when she turns to the unblemished Starr:
Thats it! Apparently, Starr never squinted at Gormley or displayed tics of any kind. This disparity may reflect Gormleys textor it may reflect Maslins novelistic preference. Because uh-oh! In her closing paragraph, she makes a statement about some participants (plural) in Gormleys drama, then instantly singles out you-know-who, not even feeling the need to make anything like clear sense:
According to Maslin, some participants (plural) managed to sustain a sense of denial. Given the rules of American journalism, was there ever any doubt who her instant example would be? Indeed, Maslin seems so eager to drop this around Clintons neck that she suspends the need for anything resembling normal clarity. What did Clinton mean in that quoted statement? To which whole ride did he refer? Did this statement really reflect something like a state of denial? We dont have the slightest idea. But in press corps novels about this era, it will always be Bill who is used to represent a group of players with some psychological imperfection. Clarity itself can just go hang when this primal need intrudes.
Finally: We were struck by Maslins semi-disinterest in this deeply consequential part of our history. In Maslins account, Gormley is writing about the dizzyingly convoluted legal and political mess that plagued the Clinton presidency. These events, which created many casualties, were a catastrophe for all concerned, including a sitting president. The books title leaves no doubt as to how much bipartisan damage Mr. Gormley thinks was done, and the price he thinks we all paid. Yet Maslin seems a bit blasé about the need to explore this crucial history. As noted, the scandal which gave the era its name is still too confounding to explain. At another point, Maslin describes Gormleys tome as a book that will surely rivet those willing to revisit such byzantine material.
The rest of us need not apply.
It may be that Gormleys text is byzantine. But Maslins air of insouciance suffuses mainstream press reaction to the persistently unexplored events of the Clinton/Gore era. By the way, the largest price...we all paid for the events in Gormleys book involved the mainstream press corps subsequent war against Clintons vice president and the resulting election of President Bush. Career liberals, insouciant like Maslin, have happily agreed to deep-six this mattera matter in which the career liberal world disgraced itself along with the mainstream press. Those willing to revisit such byzantine material can visit our companion site, How He Got There (click here). Well be posting Chapter 3, Washington (Post) at war, on Tuesday of next week.
(Final note: The use of bodily tics as markers of character is a fine practicein novels or films. When this practice gets transferred to journalism, it does tend to novelize news.)
PART 1FLAT EARTH DAYS (permalink): In August 2005, Paul Krugman repeated a jokea five-year-old joke which is now semi-famous.
I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth, Krugman wrote (click here). Hed unveiled the joke in November 2000, a few days before the Bush-Gore election, explaining why Candidate Bush had been allowed to make obvious, repeated misstatements about his proposals for Social Security (click this).
If George Bush said the earth was flat, would journalists write, Opinions differ? At this point, possibly not. But the New York Times came pretty darn close to doing just that in a news article about climate change on the front page of last Thursdays paper.
John Broder (no relation) wrote the report. It concerned the various pseudo-conservative claims about last weeks record snowstorms in Washington. Did those storms debunk climate change theorydid they debunk global warming? Opinions differ, Broder seemed to say, in a report which seemed to come straight out of Paul Krugmans joke bin.
Does snow in D.C. debunk/contradict/disprove global warming? Sadly, this is how Broder began his report:
In our view, that passage comes pretty darn close to making a prophet of Krugman. (Things get worse as Broder continues.)
Lets be clear. Theres nothing wrong with referring to the two sides in the climate-change debate. Some people think that climate change is a well-founded theory. Other people (the skeptics) do not.
But were the two sides in this debate really seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments? More specifically: Did anyone with an ounce of sense make the ludicrous claims which were widely heard last weekthis cosmically stupid claim by Foxs Sean Hannity, for instance:
Did last weeks severe winter storm somehow contradict warming theory? It takes a real flat-earther to say that. No serious climate skeptic would make such a foolish claimno serious person on either side in the climate debate.
No one but a flat-out fool would actually make such gong-show statements. It takes a flat-earther to make such claimsbut Broder wasnt willing to say so.
Did last weeks storms seem to contradict warming theory? Opinions differ, Broder seemed to say, on page one of our greatest newspaper.
At such times, it becomes more clear why our nations in headlong decline.
Whats wrong with Broders presentation? Start with his second paragraph, which confers a bit too much dignity on ludicrous hustlers like Hannity. That paragraph would be perfectly accurate if Broder had simply written this: Talk-show hosts and Republican senators are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change. That revised statement would have the advantage of being perfectly accurate; Hannity clowned on this topic all week, as did a string of Republican senators. But did Hannity reach the level of a skeptic when he engaged in this ludicrous conduct? More specifically: Was he representing one of the two sides in the climate-change debate?
Actually, nohe wasnt. Presumably, no one with any scientific credibility made such claims last week. Which brings us around to the problems found in Broders third and fourth paragraphs:
*Most climate scientists say that last weeks storms are consistent with standard climate change forecasts? Presumably, all climate scientists would say that. Whatever you think of the merits of climate change theory, its perfectly clear that last weeks storms are in fact consistent with its forecasts.
*Some independent climate experts say the blizzards dont prove the planet is cooling? Some such experts say that Vancouvers lack of snow doesnt prove that the planet is warming? Presumably, every such expert would agree with both statementswould agree that specific weather events cant prove or disprove climate change theory. Everyone knows that last statement is trueeveryone except a gang of hustlers, nitwits and con men.
Does Vancouvers lack of snow prove that warming is happening? Everyone knows it doesnt! Does Washingtons heavy snow prove that the planet is cooling? Everyone knows thats foolish too! Say it again: Everyone knows that these claims are foolish, whichever of the two sides theyre on! Indeed, you dont have to be a climate expert to know how foolish such statements are. As we noted last week, this is what Charles Krauthammer said on last Wednesdays Special Report, a program which airs on Fox:
People can argue minutia in that. But Charles understands what everyone understandsa single weather event cant prove, disprove or contradict warming theory. Responding directly, host Bret Baier (hes employed by Fox) seemed to show that he pretty much understands how this story goes too:
Supporters might not be the right word there. But Krauthammer wasnt the only all-star who understood how stupid it is to play Hannitys brain-dead game. Kondracke rolled his eyes at Limbaugh, Palin and Jim DeMint (all were named) for their various foolish pronouncements. And then, even Tucker Carlson agreed! As Charles points out correctly, this third all-star said, today's storm doesn't affect the science.
In the course of his answer, Carlson made it clear that hes a skeptic about warming theory. But duh! Even Tucker understands how stupid Hannitys conduct is, though everyone knew not to mention the clowning occurring elsewhere on Fox.
Can we talk? Hannity made a flat-earth statement last Monday night. He then kept making such statements all week. In the course of this clowning, he was disinforming the millions of people who watch his program each night. But on the front page of our mightiest newspaper, John Broder (no relation) seemed unwilling to say so. He made it sound like some climate experts really might be saying that Washingtons storms contradict warming theory. Right from the start, he made it sound like the two sides may differ on that.
Opinions differ, he seemed to say. As he continued, he kept conflating circus clowns (Senator Inhofe, the harlequin Drudge) with actual climate experts.
Alas! President Bush is gone from the scene, but kooky-con power remains strong in D.C. Broder didnt seem willing to cross it. John Broder (no relation) just made Krugman a prophet, a group of the analysts suddenly cried. Tomorrow, well look at more of Broders flat-earth-enabling piece.
Alas! In Broders front-page report, our biggest newspaper seemed to say that opinions differ, just as Krugman once predicted. In the process, a gang of hustlers, con men and clowns got conflated with climate experts. At the Times, these hustlers now constitute one of the sides, as our nation sinks into the sea. Tomorrow: More of Broders flat-earth love. Also: Global dumbing by Dana.
Coming: The need for a paradigm