STUNNINGLY BAD! Charlie Rose rolled over and died. Kopp seemed like a music man: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008
WEISMAN REACTSTO THE REAGAN RULES: On the third day, the Post has respondedgrotesquely; ineptlyto John McCains bizarre presentation about Social Security. The New York Times still hasnt said boo. First, a bit of background:
The Reagan Rules have been in place for roughly thirty years now. Theyre widely accepted by the DNC; by liberal journals and intellectuals; and of course, by the mainstream press.
Under terms of these Reagan Rules, Republicans and conservatives can say whatever they please, no matter how ludicrous, about major budget issues. The grand-daddy of all such howlers is this: If we lower tax rates, we produce extra revenue! But under terms of the Reagan Rules, Republican pols are expected to make bizarre statements about Social Security too. McCain performed this task on Monday, in Denver. This morning, Thursday, on the third day, the Post finally tries to respond.
The Posts attempt is worse than pathetic. Jonathan Weisman was asked to hack out a treatment. Heres how he begins:
Too funny! Reaction was slow to build, Weisman writes. In fact, our reaction started building on Monday, as we watched McCains presentation. (We watched on TV, a technological device now available to millions.) But apparently, no such reaction took place at the Post. Michael Shear reported McCains town meeting on Tuesday morningand he failed to note that the Republican candidate had wildly misstated a string of key facts about our most important retirement program. Remember: Under terms of those Reagan Rules, workers like Shear dont notice such howlers. Republican pols are expected to misinform votersthe people who attended that town hall event, the thousands who watched on TV. They can tell us rubes whatever they like. Journalistic workers, understanding these rules, dont react to such statements.
According to Weisman, reaction finally got started on Wednesday, when Reed Hundt offered this short post at TPM about what McCain had said. In fact, Todd Gitlin had offered this more informative post ninety minutes earlier. But Weisman was apparently waiting for something a bit shorter and easier to bungle. And sure enough! Hundt mentioned only one of McCains many groanersa number that seemed to work for Weisman. Following Hundts reaction, Weisman finally had a question he could pose to McCain.
So heres Weismans question, posed in Hundts words: If Senator McCain doesn't want payroll taxes to fund Social Security (as has long been the case), then how does he propose to pay for it? This fails to capture the sheer stupidity of McCains remark on this matter, and it omits all the rest of his howlers about Social Security. But Weisman at least had a question to throw at McCain. And then, incredibly, he hacked out what follows. Please note: There is absolutely no reason, except propaganda, to throw in the name of that bus:
Yes, that appears in todays Postand yes, thats the end of Weismans report. And that is why we state the obvious: Its time for Weisman to go.
Is it true? Have the trustees used the word bankrupt? If so, theyve surely used it in some technical way. That statement by McCain is, at best, grossly, deeply misleading; presented in the Post without challenge, it serves to disinform voters again. Meanwhile, McCain seems to say, two separate times, that young people are currently pay[ing] into a system that they won't receive benefits from. That is an astounding claim about the future of Social Security; absent an asteroid hitting Manhattan, the claim is utterly ludicrous. But so what? Weisman simply quotes the claim, twice, without any comment. And we rubes get misled once again.
So its time for the hackworthy Weisman to go (and he should take his editor with him). And people like Hundt might get off their keisters and behave like sentient humans for once. This has gone on for thirty years, since the Reagan Rules started to clunk into place. But in his two-days-afterwards post, Hundt was puzzled by the fact that reporters werent asking McCain about his groaners. In this way, our highest-ranking liberal leaders keep refusing to tell the public the truth about a game thats three decades old. Does Hundt not know how this game is played? Has Hundt not noticed this pattern for the past thirty years? If so, its time for him to go away too. Its time to get some people in place who will get off their over-paid, perfumed rear ends and tell the truth about the way our system has workedon the watch of leaders like Hundt.
By the way, the New York Times still hasnt said a word about McCains presentation. But then, after reading Weismans report, perhaps were all better off.
Bottom line: The DNC and the career liberal world have accepted these rules for the past thirty years. It takes them days to react to such nonsense; when they finally get off their keisters, they send weak arrows into the air. For this reason, the United States is full of people who think Social Security is going bankrupt (wont be there for them)who know that, if wed cut tax rates, the revenues would come pouring in.
These rules have been in place for three decades. You still cant get liberals to say so.
Also this: According to last evenings Countdown, McCain grossly misstated his record on veterans issues at that same town hall event. Sadly, we no longer have confidence in Countdowns treatment of facts, and the program posed a few of its claims rather poorly. (And the laugh track can get in the way. First news program to have one!) But if Countdown is right, this matter should have been reported too. Sadly, though, its as weve long told you: The very notions of accuracy and fact play little role in modern press culture. The press corps claims that its culture is built around fact. In truth, its built around narrative. Journalists memorize group story-lines. All else follows from there.
TOMORROW: Why did McCain seem so much better back then? A remarkable TPM confab. (For the first of several posts, just click here. For a semi-related Post op-ed, be our guestclick this.)
On July 1, Rose interviewed Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach for America, for roughly forty minutes. Kopp has run TFA for the past nineteen years, to major acclaim; indeed, Time magazine named her one of the hundred most influential people in the world in its May 12 issue. In 1989, while a senior at Princeton, Kopp had a wild idea, Time saida wild idea that turned out to be a very good thing for millions of kids. A professor called her deranged, Time said. But that was thenand this is Kopp now:
That account of the studies is profoundly selectivebut well discuss that in Part 3 of this series. For today, lets just say this: Among our corporate and journalistic elites, Kopp is considered a very big deal. Thats why Roses question, asked early on, was so perfectly sensible:
What do we need to do to make better schools? The question was sensibleobvious, even. In Part 4 of this series, well look at the remarkable answers Kopp gave to this obvious questionto a question Rose had to ask again and again and again. For today, well only say this: Youd certainly think a person like Kopp would have a lot to say to that question. But Kopp seemed to have very little to sayso little that this session struck us as perhaps the worst interview ever. Kopp seemed to have virtually nothing to say about the topic on which shes considered an expert. And as she fumbled, flailed and killed time, her interviewer failed to challenge her in the most obvious ways. What do the studies say about the success of Teach for America? Like most people who interview Kopp, Rose seemed to know that he mustnt ask. But then, Kopp has long been a darling of upscale elitesand under our broken-souled modern regimes, such darlings get this sort of treatment.
For ourselves, our fascination with this interview began about half-way in. We turned on the TVand there was Kopp! Within moments, she was explaining what her programs alumni have learned about low-income schools. Why do our low-income schools struggle so? The public thinks one thing, Kopp explained. Her programs alumni think another.
What is wrong with our low-income schools? Kopp described a Gallup poll which asked the two groups to answer that question. Shown a list of twenty answers, respondents were asked to pick three:
Why do our low-income schools struggle so? The public picked three reasons off Gallups listand TFA alumni picked three others. But as we watched, we were struck by a single word in Kopps statement. The word we were struck by was this word: Knowing. TFA alumni come out of this knowing whats causing the problem, Kopp told Rose.
Fascinating! After spending two years in low-income schools, Kopps teachers know what the problem is. They know it isnt lack of student motivation. They know it isnt parental involvementor, presumably, home-life issues. Kopp didnt say they believe these things; she stressed the fact that they come out knowing. What do our low-income schools struggle so? Because the question is so important, lets scan those two lists again:
The public thinks one thing; the alums think another. But according to the confident Kopp, the alumni know theyre right.
Our basic idea of what is wrong would differ from both those groups. But we were so struck by Kopps confident tone that we went back and watched the whole programand were not sure weve ever seen an interview quite that awful. Rose rolled over and died throughout, refusing to challenge Kopps claims and statisticsand ignoring the studies which suggest that her program hasnt been the huge big deal described in that fawning Time profile. Kopp, meanwhile, was stunningly bad. After nineteen years as an education guru, youd think shed have something to say to Roses question. Once again, here it is, the most obvious question on earth:
Rose asked that question again and again. Kopp seemed expert at one thingshe seemed expert at refusing to answer.
Were not sure weve ever seen an interview as bad as this. How broken are our intellectual elites? Rose rolled overrefused to perform. Kopp seemed like a music man.
TOMORROWPART 2: Accepting the anecdotes.
Mondaypart 3: Avoiding the studies.
Tuesdaypart 4: Gruesome answers.