LETS START WITH SOME SILLY SEMANTICS! Three liberals criticized Kurtzs piece. They started with silly semantics: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010
A day in the life: As a people, are we smart enough to run our nation? On Tuesday morning, our smartest newspaper was filled with the sorts of bizarre assessments which make us wonder and ask.
Go ahead. Make your selection:
We jerked our heads back for the first time when Monica Davey profiled Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), author of the worlds most improbable budget plan. The White House ha[s] problems with its details, Davey weirdly wrote at one point (our emphasis). But that was kid stuff compared to what happened when we read this report about Atlantas schools.
Shaila Dewan was following up on a story she wrote back in February. We were surprised a bit by her headline: Cheating Inquiry in Atlanta Largely Vindicates Schools. But we were even more surprised by that headline after we read Dewans report. What did Dewan report about Atlantas cheating probe? The city has 84 elementary or middle schools, she said. According to the probe, twelve schools had statistical evidence of a schoolwide problem. Thirteen schools showed irregularities in specific classrooms or grades. By our count, this would mean that roughly thirty percent of Atlantas schools had either a school-wide problem or a problem which might include entire grades. That seemed like a fairly large problem to usunless you were reading that headline, or Dewans opening paragraph. (The Atlanta public school system was substantially vindicated Monday when the results of an independent investigation into cheating on standardized tests were released.)
A bit later in Dewans piece, this degree of irregularity seems to be described as one or two percent of educators. By now, the analysts were openly crying and tearing out tufts of their hair.
Things got no better when we read this typically murky editorial about the use of foreign courts and their legal rulings in American jurisprudence. Weve long been puzzled by this topic; our puzzlement survived this piece. The editors followed a familiar path; they threw around favorite terms like nativism and xenophobia without arranging to shed any light on this topic. (Well assume Ruth Bader Ginsberg was much more clear in the brave speech which occasioned this editorial.)
So far, so gruesome! But we simply threw up our hands when we read Tara Parker-Popes maddening report in yesterdays Science Times section.
At last! Parker-Pope was doing a full report on a semi-ballyhooed educational study, one weve been wondering about for some time. In this study, a large number of low-income Florida grade school kids were allowed to select a dozen free books to take home over summer vacation. After three years of this treatment, their reading scores were compared with the reading scores of similar kids who didnt get the free books. Excitement about this studys results has been floating around for a while, at least since this news report in the June 1 USA Today. Six weeks later, David Brooks hailed the studys outcome:
Well give three cheers for Allingtons effortsand well give Brooks a D-minus. Could anyone but a major journalist be surprised by the finding described in that third paragraphby the news that kids from high-literacy backgrounds tend to stay in school longer? Not likely, but we were also vexed by the way Brooks described the Allington study. At two different points, Brooks used the word significant as he gushed about the studys results, but he seemed to miss a basic point: The results of a study can be statistically significant without being societally significant. In other words: Brooks never said how much higher reading scores were among the kids who got the free books. Its entirely possible that the scores were only slightly higher, while still being statistically significant. Greg Toppo also failed to deal with this point in his USA Today report.
How much higher were the scores of the kids who got the free books? Without knowing that, you dont know much. But with Parker-Pope penning a full report in the extra-smart Science Times section, we just knew that wed finally learn! Greedily, the analysts fell on her piece. And then, the analysts gnashed their teeth as they got their non-answer answer:
How much better were those kids reading scores? One-sixteenth of a standard deviation! Is that a lot? Is that a little? Why not just write in Olde Swedish?
(Careful: The fact that free books work better than summer school doesnt tell you much either.)
As a people, are we smart enough to survive? As we keep reading our smartest newspaper, the answer keeps tilting toward no.
PART TWOLETS START WITH SOME SILLY SEMANTICS (permalink): Yesterday, we criticized an incoherent discussion Howard Kurtz led on Reliable Sources this Sunday. The next morning, Kurtz wrote a column in the Washington Post on the same general topic.
Kurtzs column was somewhat murky, but it was much clearer than Sundays discussion. His headline, and his first two paragraphs, defined his general claim:
According To Kurtz, media outlets have become the purveyors of ugly attacksand theyre the targets of ugly attacks in return. The nastiness index keeps on rising, he says. All of us are getting sullied in the process, Kurtz wrote, without quite explaining who us is.
In our view, Kurtzs outlook is a bit overwrought, but its hard to say that hes wrong. As he continued, he listed some bombs which have been thrown in recent weeks; its hard to deny that a fair amount of name-calling has been in the air. But several important liberals had a different reaction to this column. For them, the problem began when Kurtz named the names of some of those involved in the ugly attacks.
Alas! When Kurtz reviewed the attacks of the past few weeks, he started with Salons Joan Walsh and with Howard Dean. For our money, that was a poor choicepossibly even a bit of payback for Walshs recent, semi-inaccurate posts about Kurtzs work. But just for the record, heres the way Kurtz named names:
Does that array of ugly attacks constitute journalism as blood sport? Again, wed say Kurtz is taking things a bit hardand we cant see why Walsh and Dean would get top billing over Breitbart. On the other hand, a lot of bombs have been flying aroundand many of these bombs have been R-bombs, dropped by big stars on our own liberal team. We wouldnt have started with Walsh and Deanand we wouldnt have been so overwrought in the face of all the mayhem. But if you read Kurtzs column graf by graf, its hard to say that its generally wrong.
Unless youre a fiery liberal, that is, exhibiting a type of tribal reaction Kurtz semi-predicts in his piece.
We dont read a lot of web sites here, but two people we do read all the time criticized Kurtz rather hard, offering similar critiques. (We refer to Walsh and Digby.) So too with Salons Ned Resnikoffthe latest college kid thrown in the stew as the liberal world dumbs itself down. In a piece in Tuesdays Salon (click here), Resnikoff kisses Walshs keister as he repeats the deathless complaints she offered in her own Monday column. Like Resnikoff, Digby linked to Walshs column as she too repeated its points.
When three liberal players all say the same things, the rule of three has been engaged, and its time to assess their critiques. Heres the way Resnikoff started his piece, linking to Walsh as he did. Gag yourselves as you see the way our children kiss their regents keistereven as they repeat their regents claims, which may not be all that acute:
Kurtz is a copyist, Resnikoff cries, as he copies several bits of prevailing dogma from Joan. Howard Dean isnt a journalist, Joan had weirdly complained, in her first direct complaint against Kurtz. And sure enough! Our college boy was there the next day, lodging the same complaint, helping us see how tribal elites reinvent themselves as Kool Kidz. In fairness to college kids worldwide, Digby had already echoed Joans point, right at the start of her own Monday post:
Just how well do we liberals reezun? Lets start with that thrice-stated claim, in which banal old Kurtz is an utter fool for daring to call Dean a journalist.
How well do we all-knowing liberals reed? In fact, Kurtz doesnt identify Dean as a journalist. As you can see in the passage above, he identifies him as a CNBC contributor, in the third paragraph of his column. (Dean has been such a critter such April 2009. For his company bio, click this.) Within the taxonomy of Kurtzs piece, this would presumably make Dean a punditmore specifically, one of the many pols-turned-pundits whose roll Kurtz calls a bit later. (Kurtz names six other such punditsfour Republicans and two more Dems.) In turn, CNBC is presumably one of the media outlets to whom Kurtz referred in paragraph 2 (see above); so is MSNBC, which invited Dean on two programs last week to declare that the Fox folk are racist. For ourselves, we wouldnt describe Deans R-bombs as blood sport, or as ugly attacks, thinking those phrases a bit overwroughtthough we did think Deans cable outings last week were hapless in many ways. But by any normal usage, programs aired by MSNBC are indeed part of our floundering journalism. Hardball and the Ed Show may not be journalism as blood sport. But these programs are certainly journalism, as conducted by a major media outlet. Dean is clearly a paid contributor to one of these outlets. Is it really so outrageous to refer to him as a pundit?
Actually no, it isnt outrageous, and Kurtz never called Dean a journalist. He certainly never called Sherrod such a thing, but our latest college savant played snide with that notion too. And here you see the childish ways our growing liberal tribe likes to reason. Rather than make real substantive claims about the column Kurtz had written, we started with a silly semantic complaintwith nonsense for the ages.
No fair! Howard Dean isnt a journalist! Can you see why were easy to beat?
By the way: Did Kurtz find equivalence between Shirley Sherrod and Andrew Breitbart? Actually no, unless youve gone virally tribal. More on that claim tomorrow.
How dare he call Howard Dean a journalist? Mommys best boy repeated the question, boot-licking royalty as he did. (Good grief! Before he was done, Resnikoff even went out of his way to kiss poor Ezra Kleins ass! But this is how leaders are born.) This helps us see the childish ways our tribe is now inclined to reezun. But then, we liberals simply arent all that, a point youll never grasp if you listen to our own endless self-praise. More specifically, this is how we got in our current groaning mess, where we have to rely on Alan Greenspan to kill the worlds dumbest idea. (More on that sad tale tomorrow.)
Sorry. We modern liberals arent all thatwe never have beenalthough we cant seem to grasp such facts. Tomorrow, well continue with Joans complaints about Kurtzs piecea piece which dealt with important subjects, though it too wasnt all that.
Question: Will our liberal complaints get better? We wouldnt have written that column ourselves. But how much sense has our tribe made in recent weeks about the topics explored in that column?
Tomorrow: Much as Kurtz semi-described