WHICH PART OF NO! The New York Times took dictation from Rick. Why didn’t your leaders fight? // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 2011
Schools for hate/Hapless professors division: You know it’s summer when the Times gets around to printing its shark attack story. This morning, the brilliant newspaper goes round the world in search of those seasonal bites.
The Times spends 800 words in this morning’s paper reporting two shark bites off the east coast—off the east coast of Russia! In its “news reporting,” this same newspaper never explained what would have happened on August 3 had the debt ceiling stayed where it was, the way Michele Bachmann wanted.
We’re just saying.
Bachmann has now been replaced by Rick Perry—but can your culture survive this level of Dumb? We very much doubt it. One problem in this cultural suicide pact: We liberals can easily spot The Big Dumb when it appears on the other side. But we generally can’t see it over here, among our own low achievers.
We can spot the Big Dumb—even perhaps the Big Sociopathic—when a fellow like Allen West expresses it, as he seems to have done in the past few days. We may not be able to spot it when an apparent sociopath like the repurposed Chris Matthews keeps feeding us garbage like the following, from last night’s Hardball:
“All those times?” There’s nothing this man won’t do and say to “earn” that $5 million.
From anything like a liberal perspective, Perry is a horrible candidate. It’s amazing to think that a hack like Matthews has to lie to build a case against him. But Matthews has been playing that constantly-talking-secession card for more than two years at this point. He isn’t trying to inform you—he’s trying to whip you on up, to send cheap thrills up your leg.
That highlighted phrase would make you think that Perry persistently talks up secession. He simply doesn’t do that, of course. But Chris has been playing that card for two years, treating you like fools in the process—and for some dumb reason, our side seems to like it! Somewhat weirdly, Chris has been lying about this point for two years, just as he did for two years against Candidate Gore, in the employ of Jack Welch.
Matthews sent Candidate Bush to the White House. Today, reliable liberal fluffer Joan Walsh instructs us in how great he is.
It’s amazing that the liberal world would tolerate Matthews for even ten seconds. But then, there’s a great deal of crap that gets pimped on your side. Consider the crap the professors wrote in Wednesday’s New York Times.
One of the professors—Campbell, the scrub-faced Notre Damer—was featured on Wednesday night’s Hardball. For ourselves, we don’t think much of a pair of professors who start you out with obvious garbage, as these two did in Wednesday’s column. As they started, they (pretended to) explain why many more people now think poorly of the tea party:
For the record, it has been sixteen months since April 2010, not the professors’ alleged “14.” But people! When professors have to type 800 words, complex math errors will follow!
At any rate, hacks like these will play you quickly, even when they’re professors. Did the professors make a true statement? “Among most Americans,” was the tea party brand becoming toxic “even before the furor over the debt limit?” If “most” still means more than half, the toxicity claim still seems untrue. But if you look at the polls to which the professors link, you will see that the tea party’s negatives only took a big jump after April of this year. From April 2010 through April 2011, the polling was relatively stable; the large jump in the tea party’s unfavorable rankings only appeared in this month’s poll. (Click here, see question 31. This is the polling to which the professors link.)
Presumably, the rise in the tea party’s negative ranking did result from the debt limit matter. But just that fast, the Professors 2 were handing you obvious crap.
In fact, there’s so much crap in that one little column the Times building ought to be fumigated. Having misled you with funny facts, the professors now do so with puzzling logic:
We’re puzzled by the logic. Presumably, the same “kinds of people” have supported the tea party all along. Why then did the group’s negatives jump in the last four months? The professors never address this question, having already told us what the answer simply can’t be. It almost seems they had a story they wanted to tell—and they went on to tell their story in a manner we would regard as ugly and unprincipled, and as highly unscholarly. The New York Times really shouldn’t publish garbage like this:
Wow. That’s a very serious type of charge, and it’s offered in a sweeping manner. It’s the type of charge that should be offered with great care and supported with actual data. But the professors haven’t released their data, so no one can evaluate their sweeping claim—though Chris and Joan, perhaps not knowing, praised Campbell on Wednesday night’s Hardball for his wonderful research. And uh-oh! At one point, Chris put his foot in his mouth! He asked Campbell a very good question—and got a gruesome reply:
Good God—that is horrible. On the basis of that one pathetic question, these professors were willing to say in the Times that “Tea Partiers” (no attempt at qualification) “had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.” By the way: How many people answered which way? No data have been released!
That is ugly, brain-dead stuff; the Times should never have printed it. Did someone drop a bowling ball on these professors’ heads? That said, our own lynch mob was happy to praise this work on that evening’s Hardball. Early on, Campbell described his work, producing loud praise all around:
Walsh has no idea if it’s great research, since she hasn’t been able to look at the data. She just likes the outcome. It’s a shame that the “liberal” world is burdened with pitiful folk of this type.
A great deal more could be said about this particular Hardball segment, in which the East Coast Irish Catholic brigade revived old feelings about Those People. Joan’s thoughts drifted back to the way Those People tormented Us in the 1850s. Can she even brush her teeth without revisiting these stupid old Balkans-worthy grievances? But that column was an intellectual disgrace—and Campbell’s session on Hardball only made matters worse.
It will be interesting to see the data if the professors ever release them. But in their column and then on Hardball, they handed out sweeping claims encompassing tens of millions of people. We liberals cheered them for their brilliance. Good lord, how we do love to hate!
The plutocrats cheer this on, of course. People! Divide and conquer!
PART 4—WHICH PART OF NO (permalink): Just a quick guess. There will be no saving your culture.
Tuesday morning, your greatest newspaper adopted the Rick Perry narrative, telling the world, through a front-page headline, that Texas is enjoying a “jobs boom.” On MSNBC that night, the very fiery boys and girls didn’t so much as say boo. But that front-page dictation in Gotham’s Times was hardly the day’s only groaner. That same day, in an editorial, the editors sadly typed this:
Question: Can anyone remember when the Democratic Party primary system “gave far too much weight to a small coterie of true believers?” We can’t exactly remember that either. But “journalists” who are dumb enough to type that tripe will type many more things just as dumb.
Oddly, the editors got some things right in this passage. Bachmann, a truly ludicrous candidate, actually has made some “gaffes” and she does lack experience. But has she displayed a “fury” which is “volcanic?” We have no idea why the editors said that. Has she delivered “outlandish and often vicious attacks on President Obama?” We don’t understand that assertion either—and the editors gave no examples. Meanwhile, in an op-ed column, Steven Rattner tried to explain the problem with one of Bachmann’s most ludicrous views. For our money, he didn’t get there:
Had Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling, what would have happened on August 3? In its news pages, the New York Times never bothered explaining; on Tuesday, the unimpressive former car czar offered a meek account. In his very next paragraph, he told readers that “cut, cap and balance” would have forced the (gradual) elimination of a quarter of government spending—having failed to tell them that Bachmann’s proposal regarding the debt ceiling would have forced an immediate cut of 40-45 percent!
But then, very few citizens have ever been told that. In part for such reasons, there will likely be no saving your culture.
Other piffle littered this column. Do you wonder why so many misled voters pay so little attention to Times gods of this ilk? Meanwhile, on the front page of the Business Day section, David Kocieniewski seemed to discuss Warren Buffett’s proposal to raise federal taxes on the highest earners. Various numbers appeared in his piece—but this was the closest he ever came to presenting a full-blown numerical context for the various policy changes he seemed to discuss:
“It’s not going to solve the long-term budget shortfall all by itself.” That’s intriguing, but what percentage of that shortfall would Buffett’s proposal address? Would it really “put a significant dent in the nation’s budget shortfall,” as Kocieniewski said? Buffett’s proposal might generate $500 billion over a decade—but how large is the budget shortfall projected to be over that period?
Alas, poor Kocieniewski! The gentleman never said. At his web site Beat the Press, economist Dean Baker constantly notes the press corps’ failure to offer this kind of context in budget stories. He says it and says it and says it again. But nothing deters the New York Times from its D-minus reporting.
We’re sorry, but there will be no surviving a political/journalistic culture so lacking in basic brain power. And it isn’t just the New York Times; the basic lack of capability riddles the mainstream press. Example: NBC’s Lester Holt seems like a perfectly decent guy. He isn’t nasty, crazy, snarky or dumb—but then, he also isn’t competent.
How do people like Bachmann survive? In part, because editors write puzzling editorials about their non-existent volcanic fury—and in part, because million-dollar talent like Holt keep asking them questions like this on big programs like the Today show:
Amazing. What was Holt’s idea of the problem with Bachmann’s debt ceiling proposal? In his view, we’d be “in a deeper pickle with the rating agencies” had the debt limit stayed where it was; that’s a bit like saying the noise would be awful if an atom bomb hit New York. Bachmann went on to make her standard pitch about how we wouldn’t have had to default. Holt bungled his response to that statement too, though liberals and mainstream broadcasters cheered him for his bungling. Reason? He recited a script they had already heard—a script which was actually wrong but which was anti-Bachmann.
Watching interview sessions like this, average voters get no idea of the lunacy of Bachmann’s proposal. Reading editorials like that one in the Times, they may become even more convinced that the complaints about Bachmann are simply an artifact of a social elite’s famous prejudice.
At any rate, Holt’s multiply-bungled performance with Bachmann was close enough for seven-figure pseudo-journalism, at least in the view of those who cheered him. But Holt’s performance wasn’t good. In the end, there will be no surviving a D-minus culture like that.
Back to the front-page report we’ve been discussing since Tuesday. As we close, let’s offer an obvious catechism regarding its principal claims:
Question: Is the state of Texas enjoying a jobs boom?
If Texas is enjoying a “jobs boom,” what can be said about Oklahoma? How about Nebraska, just a few miles away? (4.1 percent.)
No! Texas is not enjoying a jobs boom in any sense of that term. Let’s move on in our catechism:
Question: Is the state of Texas enjoying an economic “miracle?”
Those talking-points are easy to address. This brings us to our final question: Which part of “no” don’t career liberals understand?
When big newspapers take dictation from a candidate like Perry, you’d almost think that fiery liberals would get off their asses and fight. But you will see the mewling children of MSNBC do that when the cows drive themselves to market. These horrible children are making big bucks. Within their utterly horrible culture, these serious children don’t attack the Times by name.
Conservatives do so, and they win. Your mewling children don’t go there.
Darling Rachel likes to criticize “the Beltway media,” naming no names as she does. (She then kisses the keister of every big journalist she can lure onto her program.) In this way, we liberal rubes get the impression that she is standing and fighting for us. But when our biggest newspaper takes open dictation, the darling child won’t tell you.
Chris Hayes told you the truth on Monday night. On Tuesday night, he said nothing.
Which part of “no jobs boom” don’t these liberals understand? The conservative world would never tolerate dictation like that above the fold of the Times. They have aggressively fought these wars for forty years—even when they have to pretend that the Times is doing bad work.
Rebutting that story is very simple. You don’t have to get all fancy. Just watch:
There is no jobs boom occurring in Texas. There is no miracle happening there. These claims are stupid spin. They’re pure crap from a crappy candidate, nonsense designed to deceive you.
When the New York Times takes such dictation, serious people should stand up and fight. But your side refuses to fight—and we don’t just mean Obama. Your career players make millions of bucks—and they accept the upper-class culture they’re handed. Conservatives pound away at the Times. Your “leaders” know they must not.
Our side dumbly pleases itself with stupid piss about volcanic furies. Such silly shit sends thrill up our legs—and we keep losing the fight.
Despite the stories we tell ourselves, our side is very, very dumb. There will be no surviving that Big Massive Dumb, a dumb which pervades our dead culture.