Miller and Brock
In his acclaimed book Blinded by the Right, David Brock tells the story of how he turned flimsy evidence into a compelling article, and later book, arguing Clarence Thomas victim Anita Hill was a delusional sex-crazed feminist.
He got evidence from untrustworthy, partisan sources. He took quotes out of context. He came up with the worst motives to explain the facts. He stretched the truth. And he wrote it all up in sensational language (Hill was “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” in Brock’s famous phrase).
In short, Brock says, he ignored the cardinal rule of journalism: Be skeptical.
Not surprisingly, it turned out to be all wrong. Brock has since disavowed it, apologized, and left the right-wing to join the left.
Brock’s article, written over a decade ago for The American Spectator, a magazine with little credibility outside Rush Limbaugh’s listeners had comparatively little impact. His book, which took off after a positive review from The New York Times, had a little more, but was eventually discredited.
But recently, the exact same thing has happened again. Only this time it wasn’t unknown David Brock and untrustworthy Spectator. It was Pulitzer Prize-winning Judith Miller and the most trusted source for news, The New York Times.
Miller did all the same things Brock did, but the consequences were much more severe. Her claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were trumpeted by the Bush administration and treated credibly by numerous papers. And, at least partially as a result, we were misled into a war where thousands died.
At the time, Brock convinced himself what he wrote was correct, and apparently so did Miller (“I had no reason to believe what I reported at the time was inaccurate”). And even when all the evidence fell apart, he struggled to keep his world together by finding a way to continue to believe. Miller apparently is doing the same. She recently told Salon: “You know what? I was proved fucking right. That’s what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, ‘There she goes again.’ But I was proved fucking right.”
And through it all, Brock was treated as a hero by his bosses on the right. They gave him a cushy job where he could write whatever he liked, and a $500K bonus. Miller’s bosses at the Times are doing the same. When forced to apologize, they buried a weak-worded statement on page A10 and refused to blame anyone in particular. In case this wasn’t clear enough, they sent a letter to staff saying “[the] note is not an attempt to find a scapegoat or to blame reporters … For those of you who are wondering about the next chapter of this ordeal, the next chapter is, we keep reporting.”
Is the Times better than the right-wing rags which commissioned attack pieces? I don’t know, but I sure hope so. But I do know this: they certainly aren’t acting any better.
One final irony: Jill Abramson, one of the reporters who conclusively debunked Brock’s book on Hill, now appears to be the New York Times editor publishing Judith Miller’s bogus stories. And Brock is now the one debunking things over at his new organization, Media Matters for America.
posted May 30, 2004 02:23 PM (Politics) (4 comments) #
Conservative Losers
Progressives want to move the country forward, making things better for its inhabitants and the world. Conservatives want to take the country back, tossing out regulations and entitlements and liberty. But they never seem to win. Instead, progressives drag conservatives along kicking and screaming, trying their best to slow things down.
Have conservatives actually ever succeeded in taking us backwards? There was prohibition, but that was a major failure and didn’t last particularly long. Such an idea would be unthinkable today. Sure, they’re always finding new fights to pick (abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc.) but they never really seem to be winning. Let’s look at some conservative proposals over the years:
A large portion nobody serious proposes anymore:
- Continuing slavery
- Continuing segregation
- Outlawing alcohol
- Outlawing mixed-race marriages
- Disenfranchising women
- Disenfranchising African-Americans
- Outlawing birth control
- Keeping federal funds from schools
On others conservatives have been forced to (pretend to) take the opposite position:
- Stopping environmental regulations
- Not going to war for humanitarian reasons
- Reducing the size of the government
- Stopping Medicare/Medicaid
- Stopping social security
- Fighting states instead of terrorists
- Restricting immigration
Some are still somewhat controvertial but no longer the case in America:
- Permitting discrimination against African-Americans
- Permitting discrimination against women
- Stopping welfare
- Stopping progressive taxation
- Outlawing sodomy
- Outlawing abortion
And we can extrapolate to the controvertial issues of our time:
- Outlawing gay marriages
And conservatives have lost on all these issues, despite massive funding, a huge media and political apparatus, controlling the presidency and the Congress, a largely obedient press, and a large group (up to half the country) of dedicated partisans!
If conservatives can’t win anything expcept part of one issue (gay marriage) when they have over half the country, what hope do they possibly have?
(Methodology note: I wish there was some list of conservative positions that I could use, but instead I’ve had to ask around and come up with things. If you have suggestions for specific proposals I’ve missed, please submit them in the comments.)
posted May 19, 2004 06:24 PM (Politics) (32 comments) #
Brown and Goodridge
Today is quite a day. Fifty years ago today, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required integrated schools. Half a year ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required same-sex marriage — today is the day their ruling goes into effect.
I am one of the very few people who disagrees with the first decision and agrees with the second.
The question underlying Brown is quite simple: when the Constitution requires “equal protection of the laws”, does it outlaw separate but equal protection of them? Imagine two identical classrooms, with two identical teachers. One classroom has twelve black-haired kids, the other has twelve blond-haired kids. Now I can see why this might be a bad decision, but I don’t see how one can argue the situation is at all unequal. It’s separate but still equal. Black-haired kids don’t get to see blond ones, and vice versa.
But Brown held “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” I simply don’t see how this is so. Equal is equal, separate or not.
Now, as a practical matter, the schools at that time were not equal. Black kids went to some truly terrible, disgustingly-run schools, while white kids went to nice ones. And I think the Court’s result may have been correct: the schools were so unequal at the time that the only effective way to equalize them would be to integrate them.
But even on this score, I think following the Constitution might’ve been better. As many have noted, a “de facto” segregation remains in America — city public schools have black kids while suburb public schools have white ones. This comment is often followed with the absurd suggestion that the courts should step in and require the schools to bus kids to far-away schools so that the schools would be integrated. (Notice how mistaking integration for equality leads to such an absurd result.)
However, had Brown followed the other line of reasoning, that equality not integration was the goal, the Courts might reasonably be able to require that each school in a state received equal per capita funds and was of equal quality.
Call me crazy, but I think having the money to build a decent school might be more helpful to the kids than bringing in busloads of white folks.
As for Goodridge, it’s more clear why this decision is correct. Not letting gays marry who they love is simply unequal. Many have tried to rationalize otherwise, but I still have heard no convincing reasons.
Today we celebrate the Constitution. May we do our best to live up to its awesome requirements.
posted May 17, 2004 12:23 PM (Politics) (20 comments) #
Completely Outrageous
Bush runs an ad which says that Kerry voted against “Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles,” as well as “Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.”
The truth is that Kerry did no such thing, he just voted against general Pentagon spending bills 3 times out of 19 years. Kerry did say he opposed the AH-64 Apache helicopter…when he ran for Senate in 1984. But when he was elected, he did not oppose the weapons.
However, Dick Cheney did! Then Secretary of Defense under the first Bush, he said: “I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out.” He also specifically proposed eliminating the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the F-14, and the F-16 aircraft (compare with Kerry’s vague votes against Pentagon spending).
No newspaper mentioned this.
But the New York Times lied to make Kerry look bad. Commenting on the ads, Jim Rutenberg wrote that “Mr. Kerry has said many defense bills he voted against later were ridden with pork. Still, although he has complained that Mr. Bush’s campaign has taken his votes out of context, he told The Boston Globe last year that some of his stances were ‘stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I’ve learned since then.’” It sure sounds like Kerry is regretting a 2000 or 2001 vote in light of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Nope, Kerry was talking about 1984 campaign proposals!
To sum up: Bush/Cheney says Kerry did X. Kerry did not-X, Cheney did X. Newspapers don’t mention it. The New York Times lies and says Kerry feels bad about doing X.
Completely outrageous!
posted May 12, 2004 05:59 PM (Politics) (10 comments) #