When precisely the same information is seen as damning or exculpatory depending on your ideology, I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no meeting of minds.
When precisely the same information is seen as damning or exculpatory depending on your ideology, I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no meeting of minds.
James Silk Buckingham was an Englishman who visited the US in 1838, and observed about the media:
“Everything is distorted to serve party views. If the largest meeting is got up on one side, the opposite party declares it to be a mere handful in numbers. If the parties are ever so wealthy and respectable, they are pronounced to be a set of needy vagabonds. If the talent of the speeches should be of the highest kind, they would call them mere drivellings; and if the order was disturbed for a single moment, they would describe it as a beer garden . . .. When a writer of the Whig party has to describe a meeting of their own side, however, he can find no terms sufficiently swelling and lofty in which to express himself. . . . Their ‘thunder’ is not like any other thunder that was ever heard before, and the very globe seems to be shaken to its centre by their gigantic powers.”
London Press was not that different, but Great Britain did not purport to be a democracy, and I do not believe journalism was the path to government employment. The main issue to me though is most of what Buckingham describes is not news, but whatever it is, it sells.
Or vice versa.
I wonder if the direction is only one-way today. In the antebellum period, journalism wasn’t a stable occupation, papers folded too often, so ingratiating yourself with a political party or individual provided the opportunity to get appointed to an office with a salary and pension. Similarly, I’m not sure that the bulk of journalism jobs today are that attractive, particularly compared to getting a job in a law firm, lobbyist or public interest group.
How much is feigned?
For anyone still wondering why Middle America’s so angry, just take a look at the guest list for the annual bash thrown by Washington Post heiress Lally Weymouth, currently the paper’s senior associate editor, in the Hamptons last week.
It was full of politicians and power brokers — the ones who pantomime outrage daily, accusing the other side of crushing the little guy, sure that the same voter will never guess that behind closed doors, they all get along.
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner partied with billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, who rubbed shoulders with billionaire GOP donor David Koch.
Chuck Schumer and Kellyanne Conway were there. So were Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Ronald Lauder, Carl Icahn, Joel Klein, Cathie Black, reporters Steve Clemons and Maria Bartiromo, columnists Richard Cohen and Margaret Carlson, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, Ray Kelly, Bill Bratton and Steven Spielberg.
To paraphrase another, it’s like there’s a ruling class who play hate-theatre to fool the rubes.
http://nypost.com/2017/07/10/why-ordinary-americans-hold-politicians-and-media-in-contempt-all-in-one-hamptons-party/
Good question, Ben.
Yes, no meeting of the minds. However, in the issue of the moment for example, there are objective standards. While public pronouncements range from hysterical to politically opportunistic to ignorant, I’ve focused on what the lawyers have to say.
Ratings seeking talk shows, agenda driven blog sites and commenters can all be easily understood and thrown over in one pile. And the news media seems to have become irretrievably the first in that list. But I was disappointed to see Doug M playing along with the gag over at OTB. I usually have a lot of time for the blog writers, as opposed to commenters, at these two sites because it seems a very difficult task to write as prolifically as you all do, and your remarks are always more tempered. However, when you see the likes of those noted crazed right wing legal minds like Dershowitz and Turley dismissing with disdain the claims being made in this situation as a simple matter of law (forget that Junior made a boneheaded judgment; or that hypocrisy abounds with the other party having engaged in worse and more evidence based) you have to ask “what the hell is anyone plying this storyline thinking?”
They’re thinking that the end justifies the means.
Ben –
I’m sure I sound like a broken record, but if people don’t trust the motivations of the political class then why do people advocate government solutions to social issues except in extreme cases? With every program comes the opportunity for mischief.
Has the regulatory framework in the US really protected us? Somewhat, but at what cost?
Is public education working? No.
Is the public pension system working? Only because we keep taxing and funding over its problems.
Is government administered and reimbursed health care working? No.
And on it goes. IL is the poster child for government intervention in an unchecked manner. In a perverse sense, you might even call it the blessed bipartisan approach, since there have basically not been opposing factions. How’s that working out?
Obviously, but you know what, in my infinite wisdom I’ve decided that progressives should all be imprisoned. I know better, you see. We don’t need no stinking laws. We don’t need no stinking checks and balances.
Don’t worry, vote for me and I’ll spare you, and you will love living under S American rule. Oh, wait, you already live under IL rule.
I think that the pure food and drug laws and the attendant system of inspections that were instituted at the turn of the last century helped a lot. Not only did they help consumers, they raised public confidence in industrially-produce food which made large food companies possible.
However, the Prime Directive of a bureacracy is to perpetuate and extend itself; consequently, the government bureaucracies (and the party that supports them) always seeks to do more. Limiting the functions of government to what we really want, need, and are prepared to pay for is what I refer to as “prudent stewardship”. That should be the emphasis rather than any anti-government sentiment.
It’s also why Congress acting as a rubberstamp for the actions of the executive or the bureacracies is so pernicious. Congress’s most important job is negotiating what we want, need, and are prepared to pay for.
Additionally, the environmental laws put into place in the late 1960s and early 1970s have helped enormously. I remember the changes in air and water quality that took place.
However, there is such a thing as decreasing returns to scale and that’s what I think we seen over the last 25 years.
I could go on like this forever. Child labor laws. Workplace safety. Building construction regulations.
The world isn’t black and white. No regulations might be better than everything being either forbidden or compulsory. Choices are hard but rather than going for the extremes we should be striving for prudence. Neither no regulations nor everything regulated.
If you think that my mentioning “everything regulated” is a strawman, you should try reading the EU code.
The adoption of the Boiler & Pressure Vessel code has saved many lives. The FAA has worked, and the EPA used to work. Everytime I eat at a new restaurant, I am thankful for the Board of Health.
The problem is that Congress gives too much power to the Agencies to determine how much regulation is needed. Furthermore, a bureaucrats should not be paid as much as they are. At one time, civil service meant being paid less with more job security, but that time is long gone.
Just to be clear, a puddle is not a navigable waterway, and if Congress had to vote on it, I suspect that they would agree.