John Cloud, author of the Time cover story on Ann Coulter (via Atrios):
David Brock, who knew Ann Coulter from years ago, goes to a book that’s years old, and prints some mistakes from that book, and of course [there are] mistakes. And a lot of them are corrected. If you go out and you buy a copy of Slander now, you won’t find those mistakes in it, because the publisher has corrected them.
I know that Ann Coulter had admitted to one mistake, but I didn’t realize how absurdly dishonest her “correction” was. From the Daily Howler:
COULTER, ORIGINAL MISTAKEN VERSION (page 205): The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!
In fact, the New York Times had run a straightforward front-page story on Earnhardt’s death the next day. Acknowledging this would weaken her thesis, so instead her readers got this:
COULTER, CURRENT “CORRECTED” VERSION (page 205): The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the New York Times front-page article on Earnhardt’s death three days later began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!
I doubt that many of our readers would argue with me when I say that Coulter is a bad influence on both punditry and conservatism. But that’s just ridiculous.
{ 63 comments }
KCinDC 04.20.05 at 5:26 pm
Well, what do you expect when a book tells you on the cover that it’s slander?
Carlos 04.20.05 at 6:59 pm
This is like that “self-correcting nature of the blogosphere”, right?
rilkefan 04.21.05 at 1:06 am
Note that Somerby uses this story as a way of bashing Tapped (too busy talking about the nuclear option and foreign policy and the threats to the constitution to bother with the important stuff, apparently), Josh Marshall (ditto), and Kevin Drum (who only directs readers to the issue and to an old thrashing of Coulter – if you don’t write something new, obviously you don’t care). I think The Daily Howler is a great thing, but Somerby seems to have some issues.
Paul Brömmer 04.21.05 at 1:25 am
Regardless of the frightening amount of bile that animate liver pumps, I wish she would just go away. Coulter’s just a nuisance.
What I find frustrating is that a number of conservatives have referred to her habits of breathing sulphurous flames and bleeding acid as, “her schtick,” and generally consider her harmless.
MFB 04.21.05 at 3:46 am
Somerby’s issue is that he thinks the most important thing in politics is to make sure that journalists tell the truth. Thus exposing the lies of journalists is more important than anything else. (Also, if a journalist says something which is actually true, but for which s/he has inadequate evidence, Somerby doesn’t like it.)
In short, Somerby thinks that journalists ought to have standards. What a clown!
tom 04.21.05 at 3:55 am
Of the millions of words she’s written, the countless limbs she’s climbed out on, and this is the best they got on Coulter?
C’mon, this is foolishness. This makes her look good, not bad.
Before I read one of her books, I conscientiously hit the internet to read the criticisms of it first, so as not to get hook, line & sinkered. But like Cloud, I found nothing of significance, and this sure ain’t it, either.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 8:41 am
Somerby’s issue is that people in the journalism biz grumble feebly, but don’t admit how bad that journalism really is overall, and specifically will not name names (particularly not the names of anyone who might have influence over hiring at some point, or someone who might be a social peer.) Recently Confessore from TAPPED got hired by the Times (a worse, more influential, better-paying publication), and Somerby and I have had disagreements specifically with him on these questions.
Lots of people deplore Drudge and the other freelance Johnny-come-lately internet hacks. But Somerby points out that a lot of the worst stuff cames from the Times, the Post, and the major networks. (The Clinton impeachment, Gore-Bush, and the runup to the Iraq war are the major cases, and they were all unquestionably major. People tell Somerby to “get over it”, but he’s describing a problem which still exists; there will certainly be another major case of media malpractice soon enough to add to these four.)
I’ve more or less given up trying to convince people, though I still vent, as I’m doing here. Movement conservatives, organized as a disciplined force, control the Republican Party, and Bush has been moving them into controlling positions in the federal administration and the judiciary. (The Party becomes the State). The judiciary hasn’t moed fast enough and is under attack. Increasingly the media have been neutralized, intimidated, or recruited by the conservatives. Coulter and Limbaugh are now respected members of the profession.
But if Somerby or I say these things, we’re rude, no fun, uncool, uncivil, paranoid, shrill, and God knows what else. For liberals, maintaining an urbane demeanor is Rule One.
About Coulter: take her at her word. She says liberals are traitors, and she means it. She wants to purge the universities. She wants people jailed. She would not be upset to see thugs spontaneously attacking liberals, and has said so many times. She always explains that she’s joking, but none of her jokes are actually funny.
Uncle Kvetch 04.21.05 at 8:46 am
Rilkefan and mfb are both right, IMHO. Somerby is wrong to take potshots at Tapped, Josh Marshall, & Kevin Drum for not following his lead in focusing on the patently ridiculous Ann Coulter and the patently worthless Time magazine. Different blogs, different foci. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
On the other hand, as mfb points out, Somerby is very rightly driven to distraction by the howling dishonesty of mainstream journalism in this country today. George W. Bush is, at this point, a singularly unpopular president whose administration is unraveling in a dozen different places. Watch cable TV news (not just Fox, but any of them) and read the “respectable” pundits and you’d barely have an inkling that this is the case. Somerby is absolutely right to “howl” about this on a daily basis.
Uncle Kvetch 04.21.05 at 8:48 am
John E’s comment slipped in while mine was still in redaction. 8^) He says it better than I ever could. Tell it like it is, John.
Scott 04.21.05 at 9:24 am
Dale Earnhardt died?
rilkefan 04.21.05 at 11:23 am
“Coulter and Limbaugh are now respected members of the profession.”
Uhhh, what?
In my opinion, what Somerby does is important, and it’s possible that Marshall should stop spending 99% of his time doing great blogging on SS and Washington politics and only 1% on thrashing the press. But when Somerby says Marshall’s priorities are distorted by his position in the media, and that Drum’s are, and that Yglesias’s are, when he says that they don’t bash Judith Miller or mock Okrent or pillory the Sunday morning gasbags enough because they’re compromised, well I think he’s being more than cranky.
abb1 04.21.05 at 11:25 am
But of couse all these people: Coulter, Limbaugh, Confessore, Russert, etc.; they are only doing what they are supposed to do in a free-market liberal economy: marketing and selling their stuff (aka ‘creating wealth’), pursuing their interests, their happiness.
And we all know that appealing to conscience against fiscal interest doesn’t work well, if at all.
So the outrage seems to be misplaced somewhat.
We need to embrace Miss Coulter as a successful and productive member of our free society. Which is exactly what the successful and productive Time magazin did.
F**k off, you wicked followers of Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.
aretino 04.21.05 at 11:28 am
Yeah, Dale died. He was apparently a Florida stockbroker — a bigwig in the National Association of Securities whatevertheycallit.
Max 04.21.05 at 1:09 pm
John Emerson’s distillation:
I’ve more or less given up trying to convince people, though I still vent, as I’m doing here. Movement conservatives, organized as a disciplined force, control the Republican Party, and Bush has been moving them into controlling positions in the federal administration and the judiciary. (The Party becomes the State). The judiciary hasn’t moed fast enough and is under attack. Increasingly the media have been neutralized, intimidated, or recruited by the conservatives. Coulter and Limbaugh are now respected members of the profession.
One of the most concise, dead-on things I’ve read about this toxic environment. Though I’d dispute the term “respected.”
jeffk 04.21.05 at 1:27 pm
I glanced at the John Cloud link, wandered briefly into the comments, read a comment response by Mr. Cloud, and was immediately struck by one thought: This guy is another Jeff Gannon!
Which leads me to wonder
(a) Who’s paying him, besides Time?
(b) Is John Cloud his real name?
(c) What other “career options” has he been or is he currently engaged in?
mikez 04.21.05 at 1:28 pm
Pointing out errors of fact by Coulter, while it may be a comforting exercise, is somewhat futile. She’s a vile, mealy-mouthed harridan. Simple, declarative statements of fact (true or false) are few and far between. It’s far more effective to expose the ugliness and stupidity of her beliefs and opinions.
abb1;
Liberals, at least this liberal, are far more outraged (disappointed is more accurate) that what she does is considered of value by society, not that she is personally (monetarily) successful. As Eric Alterman has repeatedly said, she should just be ignored. But from your last sentence I take it your not serious, so I’ll stop.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 1:30 pm
“‘Coulter and Limbaugh are now respected members of the profession.’
Uhhh, what?”
Yeah, they are, rilkefan. Wake up and smell the coffee. That’s what the Time cover was all about. Howie Kurtz gave his blessing to Limbaugh a year or so ago. To me they’re vicious frauds, but to the profession they’re successful role models. Same with Drudge, or almost.
“But when Somerby says Marshall’s priorities are distorted by his position in the media, and that Drum’s are, and that Yglesias’s are, when he says that they don’t bash Judith Miller or mock Okrent or pillory the Sunday morning gasbags enough because they’re compromised, well I think he’s being more than cranky.”
Marshall and Yglesias know that there’s no future for an aggressively liberal writer of their type. Conason deadended. Ivins deadended. Palast works in England. Si Hersh is a magazine writer. None of them rake in the bucks making TV appearances.
It’s a real problem, and Somerby is right to talk about it. He talks a lot about how even generally-good liberals like Dionne or Rich perform feebly on TV, when they should be performing aggressively the way conservatives do. (To say nothing of faux-liberal stooges like Cohen and Colmes, whose whole job is to fold up).
Getting invited back is the killer. There’s a lot of money involved. My solution is an entirely new media which would provide alternative careers paths for real, frank-spoken liberals. My estimate is that it would only cost about half a billion, and my belief is that that doesn’t happened, we can just forget about America’s political future.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 1:33 pm
“As Eric Alterman has repeatedly said, she should just be ignored.”
I’m not sure Alterman says that, but it’s utter bullshit. Coulter sells lots of books, she’s on the cover of Time, and she’s on TV a lot. She’s a political factor, like Joe McCarthy, and cannot be ignored. She won’t go away anymore than Limbaugh did.
Too many liberals really have no idea what it is we’re facing.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 1:47 pm
“Marshall and Yglesias know that there’s no future for an aggressively liberal writer of their type.”
Clarification of bad writing: “Marshal, Drum, and Yglesias know that in their line of work there’s no place for an aggressive liberal”. Aggressive in the sense of calling colleagues to account.
Miller is/was the member of an ideological neo-con group and she relayed unchecked disinformation from her political allies (Chalabi and the DoD). Multiple instances in one of the biggest story of the decade. She should be drummed out of the profession, but anyone who says so out loud will alienate not only her, but the big guys at the Times who accepted (and probably commissioned) her bad work, and who have never acknowledged their error. (Don’t tell me about the lame mea culpa they printed.)
P ONeill 04.21.05 at 2:19 pm
On top of all the things that Howler points to (e.g. Millionaire Pundit Values”) it doesn’t help that lame-ass journalists and editors love anything “counterintuitive.” So blonde spouting reactionary trash = counterintuitive. Same for minority (Armstrong Williams), ex-liberal (Hitchens), alleged liberal (Kaus), toesuckers (Morris), etc. This thinking is so ingrained that we do indeed need an entirely new media to weed it out. Any ideas on where the half-a-bill could come from?
abb1 04.21.05 at 2:21 pm
…in their line of work there’s no place for an aggressive liberal
What is their line of work? If it’s some kind of a socio-political science, serious commentary — or is it kitsch, like what Judith Miller, Thomas Friedman and Ann Coulter do? They have to decide.
Uncle Kvetch 04.21.05 at 2:22 pm
So blonde spouting reactionary trash = counterintuitive. Same for minority (Armstrong Williams), ex-liberal (Hitchens), alleged liberal (Kaus), toesuckers (Morris), etc.
Don’t forget everybody’s favorite “GayCatholicTory”…
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 2:25 pm
Marshall, Drum, and Yglesias are political journalists. Sometimes more toward opinion, sometimes more toward reportage. To get anywhere in that biz, they can’t bite the hand that might feed them.
abb1 04.21.05 at 2:59 pm
Frankly, I can’t share this concern about Marshall, Drum and Yglesias. They’ll do just fine, like, say, Michael Kinsley. They are a part of the establishment, they don’t really bite. They wouldn’t bite even if they could.
Those who can bite probably won’t even make it thru a college, because they don’t have rich fathers, not to mention their Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 3:22 pm
Abb1, are you trying to top me? Hmph.
It is still possible to make it through college without a rich father.
mq 04.21.05 at 5:30 pm
“Of the millions of words she’s written, the countless limbs she’s climbed out on, and this is the best they got on Coulter?”
Tom, click through to the Somersby piece. Halfway through he starts going through her book for factual errors, and finds them at a rate of about one per page before he gets tired of it and has to stop.
True she does not even make that many assertions that could be wrong though. More just raw bile. Presumably you agree with her belief that the only thing wrong about Timothy McVeigh was that he didn’t blow up the NY Times building.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 5:46 pm
Tom — the idea that fact-checkers found “one little mistake” is Coulter’s spin. Factcheckers found tons of errors, to say nothing of a lot of venomous nastiness. If someone were to try to name them all, they would then be accused of being tiresome, harping, using overkill, etc.
Keith M Ellis 04.21.05 at 7:07 pm
John once again demonstrates his complete mesmerization by the punditocracy.
rilkefan 04.21.05 at 7:32 pm
The paranoid style gets Somerby a long ways, but if Tapped and Yglesias and Drum and Marshall are pre-bought and afraid to speak out, some prominent leftie blogger – Atrios? Kos? or The Crooked Timber Collective? or Mark Kleiman? Mark Schmitt? – should be convinced to call them on it. It would be a big to-do in the left blogosphere – corruption at the core! Lots of links and controversy to be had, folks.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 7:57 pm
Come on, Keith.
“Keith once again demonstrates that he lives in a bubble, and is unconcerned by crass political events taking place in the mundane world of people less refined than himself. He might as well be a goddamn critical theorist, for all the reality-sense he is willing to allow himself to have. He should probably go back to explaining how Krugman debased himself by dirtying his hands with politics.”
I no longer get your point, rilkefan, if you ever had one. (Ten points off for kneejerk use of the cliche “paranoid style”. At least you didn’t use last decade’s smear, “conspiracy theorist”.)
I’m not sure about Kleiman or Schmidt, but Atrios and Kos are on about the same page as Somerby. Crooked Timber by and large seems intent on retaining the obligatory urbane demeanor, though good things do slip through now and then.
Somerby has a point, and he’s either right or wrong. He can’t be refuted with Rilkefan fluff. He believes that the punditocracy and media have been absorbed or intimidated by the movement conservatives, and that certain liberals, including some bloggers, are reluctant to admit this point, in part because they still hope to be part of the media clique, and in part because they socialize with people who are part of that clique.
rilkefan 04.21.05 at 9:09 pm
john emerson, either you’ve got something, in which case you should push it, or you’re smearing good people, in which case you should be ashamed. Go confront Matt et al. They’ll fess up, they’ll change their behavior, they’ll convince you you’re wrong, or they’ll refute you and you’ll look dumb (which you’ll survive). The only other way to prove Somerby right or wrong is to use telepathy, and you’re not making a very convincing argument on that basis so far.
Re “cliche”, either the Hofstadter reference is applicable or it’s not.
tom 04.21.05 at 9:36 pm
Thank you to mq for responding. I didn’t track down Somerby, but I did find this concerted effort from American Prospect.
Not much more than nitpicking there. Coulter’s argument is unrefuted—the NYT has a half-dozen liberal columnists to half-a-Safire and a wobbly David Brooks. It did mock NASCAR America on its front page with a snarky reference to WalMart.
And the left did cover up for Stalin. Bigtime.
Coulter’s refusal to withdraw her remark that Muslim leaders should be killed and the people converted to Christianity bars her from serious politics. But as a writer, she can say what she wants.
Except for that one point, Maureen Dowd is no less egregious, and in my opinion cites fewer facts and is far less clever.
Since Ms. Dowd is a nothing, she’s seldom at the heart of conservative furor. It’s only her post at the Newspaper of Record that gets her any notice at all, a post which perhaps properly, Coulter does not hold herself.
John Emerson 04.21.05 at 10:18 pm
Rilkefan, I do communicate my point to Yglesias from time to time. Whether he cares, I don’t know. He’s not beyond hope, I don’t think. I spent a full year communicating to Drum by email, but it was a waste of time. Actually, I don’t feel so much that way about Marshall, though I’ll defend Somerby.
They’re problem is excess civility in an uncivil time. The moderate, sane Republicans barely exist and are powerless. Much of the media is completely corrupt. What may have been appropriate in 1985 (collegiality) doesn’t work 20 years later. I think that 1994 (Gingrich’s accession) was the turning point.
Sieh in der Schüssel, auf heiter bereitetem Tische,
seltsam der Fische Gesicht.
KCinDC 04.21.05 at 11:36 pm
Yeesh. First this, and today two Volokh conspirators have posts crediting LGF. I don’t think I can continue to read any blog once it’s contained the text “hat tip Little Green Footballs” (I know, I should have stopped after the endorsement of cruel and unusual punishment by Volokh himself a few weeks back).
When is CT or Washington Monthly or TPM going to start linking to Democratic Underground?
rilkefan 04.21.05 at 11:38 pm
Well, if you’ve got a year’s-worth of wasted corresspondence with Drum, and he couldn’t justify his posting choices, then you have more evidence than I do on this issue – but I’m still skeptical. Will pay a bit more attention.
And no, there’s nowhere where people speak the language fish would speak if they spoke.
abb1 04.22.05 at 2:42 am
In every society you need to demonstrate loyalty and conformity to become a part of the elite, it’s always been and will always be like this. Without it society would collapse, obviously. Discipline is always maintained by a combination of bribes and threats. Stalin said: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” Indeed.
In the US is not that bad, it’s mostly bribes; hasn’t been much violence against journalists until recently in Iraq.
Some people wrote about it long before it became fashionable: McChesney, Chomsky, etc. Somerby is furious about Russert having a $4 million house and dinner parties with politicians, that’s fine, but his problem is, IMO, that he makes it sound like this is some kind of perversion, bug in the system. In fact, this is the system.
Uncle Kvetch 04.22.05 at 8:34 am
the NYT has a half-dozen liberal columnists
The notion that Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof could be considered “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination is patently absurd.
mq 04.22.05 at 8:50 am
From Tom:
“And the left did cover up for Stalin. Bigtime.”
In the 1930s. At that very same time, the right wing was covering up for Hitler and Franco. A very bad period, the 1930s. To associate e.g. the Clintons today with what some guy was going 70 years ago is silly.
And on the NY Times. Any assessment of that paper has to include their pushing the basically false Whitewater story, which almost destroyed a Democratic administration, their very harsh coverage of Al Gore in 2000, and their pushing false WMD stories in the lead up to Iraq. Against those *major* issues on the news pages, scrimping up a mention of Wal-Mart is really absurd to my mind.
And would it really be that scandalous if their editorial/opinion page had a slant? It’s an opinion page. Like some others here, I would also argue that people like Tom Friedman are certainly not liberal. Neither is Maureen Dowd, except on some cultural issues — she’s kind of an equal opportunity airhead.
Uncle Kvetch 04.22.05 at 9:04 am
Coulter’s refusal to withdraw her remark that Muslim leaders should be killed and the people converted to Christianity bars her from serious politics. But as a writer, she can say what she wants. Except for that one point, Maureen Dowd is no less egregious
Y’know, there’s one Coulterism that has stuck in my mind that I’ve never seen subjected to scrutiny.
On some cable TV shoutfest not long after 9/11, Coulter ended a rant with the words “Liberals want there to be lots more 9/11’s.”
Think about those words, Tom. Not “liberals are trying to rationalize 9/11” or “liberals don’t take 9/11 seriously enough” or even “liberals are minimizing 9/11.” No: liberals must have been happy about 9/11, because they want there to be “lots more.” They want more innocent Americans to die, because that’s how liberals are.
I call bullshit on your casual dismissal of Coulter’s “invade/kill/convert” remark as an isolated incident. It’s part and parcel of her discursive strategy, as was her remark that the preferred way to talk to a liberal is “with a baseball bat.” (Unless of course, that was meant as a “joke,” in which case I guess it’s OK, right?) The woman is a fucking monstrosity. Your attempt to compare her to Maureen Dowd is ridiculous on its face.
Tom 04.22.05 at 10:56 am
bravo, uncle kvetch!
not to belabor a stupid point, but re: the WalMart-NASCAR comment. i doubt that it would take much digging to find comments very similar in spirit uttered by, say, Karl Rove, Cal Thomas, NASCAR and WalMart sales executives, etc. – not to mention a lot of people who love NASCAR and love WalMart. why? because there are big overlaps in the demographics of who follows NASCAR and who patronizes WalMart. to point that out isn’t to patronize anybody. if you choose to read that comment in the NYT as a put-down, it’s because you’re picking a fight.
which is what Coulter does for a living. and, echoing lots of comments above, the really troubling thing about her success is that there’s such a lucrative market for fight-picking in a society & political culture that already strikes most of us as too acrimonious. i think that defusing the likes of her will probably require some on the left who can fight fire with fire, but ultimately we need to get back to some kind of civil, informed discourse.
John Emerson 04.22.05 at 11:35 am
Coulter was bad enough before, but as she gains respectability it becomes reasonable to become alarmed. Take her at her word. She wants prosecutions, firings, and assaults. The Republicans and media have been playing footsie with her for 10+ years, but she’s just been promoted. The comparisons to Dowd and Michael Moore, to Stalinists 50 years ago, or to very marginal New Leftists 35 years ago are really confusing the issue.
Sometimes the hard right gives the feeling that they regret missibng the fun of the Sixties and want to have their own Weathermen, Yippies, Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. LaRouche and Horowitz have actually played both sides of the hoodlum game.
rilkefan 04.22.05 at 1:02 pm
Today Drum criticizes the LATimes’s new columnist (“juvenile tirades don’t make either the Times or conservatism look good.”) and Marshall calls the Note “bootlicks to power”.
Is that worth any credit?
tom 04.22.05 at 1:13 pm
Uncle Kvetch, I don’t dismiss Coulter’s Muslim remark at all. In fact, I think it has permanently hamstrung her influence, and rightly so.
She remains an agent provocateur, yes, like Michael Moore. She will occasionally be correct, and champion a point that “polite” media won’t broach.
Therefore it’s entirely proper to fact-check her assiduously. She does far better than Michael Moore. But she is not a mainstream Republican, just as Michael Moore isn’t the mainstream of the Democrats (or so you tell us now).
The question is, is Coulter really very influential, or is she being put forth as a bogeyman?
My answer would be the latter, but that might assume a liberal bias in the media, which I’m told doesn’t exist. That discussion has become a matter of religious faith, then, impermeable to reason.
The New York Times isn’t biased. OK.
abb1 04.22.05 at 1:22 pm
Like some others here, I would also argue that people like Tom Friedman are certainly not liberal.
What does the word ‘liberal’ mean, anyway? If Thomas J. Friedman is not a liberal, then who is he? He is certainly for democracy, definitely for the free markets, secularism, internationalism, progress, you name it.
Uncle Kvetch 04.22.05 at 1:45 pm
Uncle Kvetch, I don’t dismiss Coulter’s Muslim remark at all.
You’re right, you didn’t, and I stand corrected. It did seem to me, perhaps wrongly, that you were suggesting that it was a one-off, a departure from her usual style. It is nothing of the kind; it exemplifies her writing.
She remains an agent provocateur, yes, like Michael Moore.
I must have missed the part where Michael Moore, either seriously or “jokingly,” advocated violence against those who disagree with him.
mq 04.22.05 at 2:37 pm
“What does the word ‘liberal’ mean, anyway? If Thomas J. Friedman is not a liberal, then who is he? He is certainly for democracy, definitely for the free markets, secularism, internationalism, progress, you name it.”
He is a classical liberal, a good representative of the Whig consensus in Britain circa 1820-1870 — free trade, gunboat diplomacy, not too fundamentalist in religion, etc. In the current environment he is a “center-right” type, who are able to accomodate themselves to a variety of policies both moderate Democrat and Republican. Those types in the current environment tend to lean slightly Republican.
“Therefore it’s entirely proper to fact-check her assiduously. She does far better than Michael Moore.”
Ridiculous, a statement that shows you spend most of your time in the right wing echo chamber. The most important difference is that Moore doesn’t issue constant calls to violence and hatred against Republicans (hatred and strong opposition are two different things). Beyond that, Moore’s factual and interpretive record is much better than Coulters, although still far from an ideal standard of perfection.
John Emerson 04.22.05 at 2:48 pm
Rilkefan, maybe Marshall and Drum are learning! But the LA Times and The Note are definitely not prime-time targets.
JACK SHAFER (4/8/05): I started writing press criticism at Washington City Paper back in 1986, because as editor I couldn’t get anybody else to do it. Writers were frightened that if they penned something scathing about the Washington Post or the New York Times they’d screw themselves out of a future job.
That’s just one more opinion I suppose, but Schafer was in a position to know, and he’s not especially partisan and works for a centrist publication.
ON COULTER: I realize that it’s beneath anyone here to actually read Somerby, but today’s Howler details one single, especially egregious Coulter smear. It’s another two-step smear; what seems to be a dishonest slam at the Times turns out really to be an equally dishonest slam at Jocelyn Elders. This is just NOT comparable to Michael Moore, especially because this kind of thing can be accumulated until centrist skeptics switch over to complaining about “piling on” and “tedious detail”. The parity is bullshit.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
HOWLER
ABB1:P Friedman is strongly anti-union and anti-labor, and generally in favor of American military adventures. He’s at best an “even the liberal Tom Friedman”-type liberal. There are actual liberals who are pro-union, anti-war, and free trade skeptics. He strikes me as a centrist Democrat like Lieberman, but flakier.
rilkefan 04.22.05 at 3:13 pm
“I realize that it’s beneath anyone here to actually read Somerby”
Dunno what your deal is here, but “not agreeing 100% with everything Somerby says, including the unsubstantiated bits” is not equivalent to the above.
Jftr, I haven’t read him for a long time after a period of reading him daily. Every once in a while I check back in just to see that nothing has changed at the Daily Howler. I think everyone ought to read it for a month or so to learn what he has to say and how he analyzes a story.
Re Friedman, I wouldn’t say he’s anti-union or labor – he’s a centrist Democrat in the liberal interventionist mode. He’s not a liberal, but he’s on the left in the American politcal spectrum.
John Emerson 04.22.05 at 3:39 pm
Friedman said once that the greatest thing that Reagan ever did was to bust the Air Traffic Controllers union, which sent a signal that he would weaken unions generally, which he succeeded in doing, thus keeping wages down and freeing up money for investment, making the high-tech revolution possible, and making it it easy to whip Saddam (the first time) with high-tech weapons. He said all this in two or three articles around the time of Iraq War I. I say it makes him anti-union, and if anything to right of Lieberman. But he is flaky, for example on Israel, and he’s not a conservative.
abb1 04.22.05 at 3:47 pm
There are actual liberals who are pro-union, anti-war, and free trade skeptics.
Can they still be called ‘liberals’, though? Aren’t we intruding into the domain of democratic socialists (Marxists, Leninists, sata.. OK, I’ll shut up now).
And BTW, your precious Yglesias, Drum and Marshall – aren’t they pretty much the same: anti-union, pro-war, pro-globalization? That’s liberal, isn’t it? Let the businesses do what they want and then take a bit off the top of their pile and redistribute to the widows and orphans – so you can feel good about yourself.
Uncle Kvetch 04.22.05 at 4:43 pm
He’s not a liberal, but he’s on the left in the American politcal spectrum.
Perfect. That says it all.
John Emerson 04.22.05 at 7:57 pm
ABB1, you must be pretty young. The dominant people in the Democratic party are centrists, but while Limbaugh calls them liberals, there still do survive actual liberal Democrats.
And then there is also an actual Left, which is pretty small, but to the left of the liberal Democrats. Two slots to the left of Yglesias and Drum, in other words, not just one.
When Yglesias calls himself Left, that’s just centrist triumphalism. He’s not even liberal.
BUT — the thing that I am saying is wrong with the centrist Democrats is that they’re still trying to cut deals with the centrist Republicans (while continuing to condemn and marginalize the liberals and leftists) — even though the centrist Republicans are almost extinct and the survivors, eg McCain, are totally whipped.
And also, as I’ve been saying, Drum and Yglesias are keeping the option open of succeeding in the present corrupt, center-right media.
abb1 04.23.05 at 3:40 am
I just want to understand what the word ‘liberal’ means today. Not according to Limbaugh and not ‘liberal Democrat’.
When someone says: ‘I am a liberal’, I intuitively understand that this person is for
1. democratic capitalism on a global scale
2. variety of social programs for the poor…
3. …financed by progressive taxation
4. secularism
5. identity politics – protecting interests of various minority groups
This person may be pro- or anti- war, so this doesn’t seem like one of the defining characteristics. This person is probably neutral towards the unions and pro- international ‘free trade’ (see #1).
Do you think this is correct, John?
John Emerson 04.23.05 at 10:31 am
Free trade as it’s been instituted is not really an especially liberal position. Probably the majority of the Democrats opposed or resisted Clinton’s free trade initiatives.
Liberals are divided on interventionism and militarism, but militarist liberals are generally more centrist on other things too (New Dems, New Republic). I would just call them centrists.
But I think that it’s Friedman’s anti-union conviction that makes him a non liberal.
The center has moved right and liberals as I define them are scarce, but they’re not extinct. I’m just not willing to allow someone like Yglesias take over the term. Especially because the weakness of liberals and Democrats both, in my opinion, comes in part at least from the abandonment of some of the old liberal issues and from the savage attacks by centrist Democrats on the old liberals.
rilkefan 04.23.05 at 11:36 am
Josh Marshall, today: “Republicans are now making a concerted push at a whole slew of news organizations, trying to convince them to stop using the term [“nuclear option”] in their coverage, on the argument that it’s an attack phrase concocted by the Democrats. And it would seem the editors and producers are either too ignorant or too lily-livered not to let them have their way.”
tom 04.23.05 at 2:11 pm
Mq, Coulter isn’t discussed in the right-wing echo chamber at all, which was my point.
She remains a guilty pleasure, is all. That she actually advocates violence toward political opponents is specious. An unfunny joke at the worst.
As for the definition of center, there’s a bit of echo chambering on that going on here. Rhetorically, everyone attempts to claim the center, but to actually believe it’s true is another matter entirely.
John Emerson 04.23.05 at 5:36 pm
I’m not trying to claim the center. I’m trying to claim the left.
Rilkefan, I’ve been leaving JMM out of my criticisms. I’m pretty impressed with what he’s been doing. I think that he’s working himself around to committing himself to an independent free-lance opertion.
rilkefan 04.24.05 at 1:28 am
True, I saw that above. So you think Somerby’s just overly crotchety in criticizing him?
Drum has a new post up in re “journalists cravenly knuckling under to the GOP’s version of Social Security political correctness”.
abb1 04.24.05 at 5:59 am
An unfunny joke at the worst.
I concur. The problem with Coulter is that she has no talent; being sarcastic, hyperbolic and shocking is not necessarily a problem. But she is just not funny (I don’t think I’ve actually read a whole piece of hers, but I saw her on TV), and neither is Limbaugh. They are less funny than Howard Stern. Even PJ O’Rourke is head&shoulders above these folks.
rilkefan 04.24.05 at 11:28 am
Marshall beats up on David Broder and “various other DC mandarins” today – he says they don’t know what’s going on in Washington and they don’t know what’s going on outside Washington.
rilkefan 04.24.05 at 8:11 pm
And Yglesias offers to post the internal memoranda JMM refers to – he has no doubt they make the managers look bad.
John Emerson 04.24.05 at 10:54 pm
Maybe Somerby’s finally having an effect.
The mixed feelings people have about Somerby has puzzled me for over a year. One thing is that he’s not much fun, but that’s precisely because he’s actually doing original reporting and research. Some of the same people who make snide remarks about blogging as mental masturbation and light entertainment also sneer at Somerby because he’s NOT entertaining.
Somerby has a searchable database of his past issues and it is a valuable research tool for someone looking up something in his area of interest.
rilkefan 04.25.05 at 1:59 am
Maybe Somerby’s simply been unfair to these guys, out of jealousy, monomania, or just faulty analysis. But drop me a line if he claims the posts I refer to above are the result of his influence or takes them as reason to ease up.
A couple of things to note about him – every once in a while he gets a bee in his bonnet about something liberals think and then he becomes (to me at least) exceedingly unfunny – tiresome, self-righteous, uninterested in dialogue or being challenged. And as I wrote above, a month or two of his work seems to give more than just the flavor of the whole. And I found that the two previous points combine to make his tone much less enjoyable after a while.
And of course there’s the current case, and my opinion that Somerby sometimes strains for simplistic explanations for complex phenomenon and won’t admit either human stupidity or chance as possible contributors.
His archives are certainly useful – if I wanted to find an example of a particular reporter’s saying something asinine, I’d put the reporter’s name and “Gore” into the Howler’s search engine.
Comments on this entry are closed.