The Crowbar

NRO’s Mark Steyn covers a WaPo editorial by Dino-Defender Michael Gerson:

Michael Gerson has lousy timing. In The Washington Post, in one of those now familiar elegies for old media, he writes:

And the whole system is based on a kind of intellectual theft. Internet aggregators (who link to news they don’t produce) and bloggers would have little to collect or comment upon without the costly enterprise of newsgathering and investigative reporting. The old-media dinosaurs remain the basis for the entire media food chain.

That’s laughably untrue in the Warmergate story. If you rely on the lavishly remunerated “climate correspondents” of the big newspapers and networks, you’ll know nothing about the Climate Research Unit scandals – just the business-as-usual drivel about Boston being underwater by 2011

Steyn’s point is that Climategate and stories like it prove the legacy media is not the basis for the entire media food chain.

I would add that Gerson is being an arrogant elitist snob. The truth the legacy media doesn’t want to face is that ANYBODY can be a journalist. The reign of the legacy media is coming to an end because they’ve compromised their journalistic principles. The moment the legacy media decided to stifle debate and convey only the liberal point of view is the moment they lost their legitimacy.

Then there’s another story on Patterico about the LA Times’ James Rainey’s weird assertion that the ACORN stings by O’Keefe and Giles were not journalism: 

The duo certainly has caused a stir — and raised questions about an organization that in the past had received substantial government funding — but, sorry folks, please don’t call this journalism.

AND

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

Can you believe this guy? If a non-media liberal had gone undercover with camera to expose illegal advice-giving at Catholic Charities, who received at least $17.8 Million in taxpayer money in 2003, would Rainey likewise condemn the individual as un-journalistic? Please.

The legacy media has clearly betrayed any pretense of objectivity in favor pro-liberal activist journalism. Embracing your bias and using your position to further your agenda is the signature maneuver of Postmodernism, which metastasized in journalistic circles in the 1990’s: From Philip Gold’s 1996 article Postmodern journalism offers the wrong end of the shtick:

Postmodernism” is a wondrous word. Everybody uses it; nobody’s sure what it means. Still, we know it when we see it. Academia’s gone postmodern. So have politics and culture. And now, journalism’s heading down the same dreary road.

Gold goes on:

The postmodernist shtick has four elements.

First, it denies the existence of objective reality, as opposed to saying that reality’s out there but we never can get fully at it. To the postmodernist, everything in the universe, from comic books to galaxies, is “text” to be “interpreted” by the “self-referent,” that is, people whose only frame of reference — dare we say, only reality — is themselves.

Second, postmodernism denies the existence of firm boundaries. Everything flows into, affects and becomes everything else. (“The personal is political”; “The planetary is personal”; “Insanity is just another lifestyle”; etc.)

Third, postmodernism denies the validity of standards — of truth, morality, excellence, competence. All are arbitrary at best and tyrannical at worst.

Finary, postmodernism views all human relationships as power struggles. Words are weapons, not carriers of truth or meaning.

Sounds a lot like our friends in the legacy media, no? Gold predicted the outcome we’re seeing today:

So what’s the answer? Thy tighter editorial control and the prompt stockading of any senior executive who claims that serious journalism inevitably must go the way of Hard Copy and pompous-pundit screamathons. Still, the ultimate fix must rest with the larger society. In the end, our civilization will junk postmodernism. Neither truth, boundaries nor standards can be denied forever, and life is more than power games. There already are signs that it’s happening, especially in the schools and universities where it began. So, in the short term, perhaps the interesting question is not “How will journalism escape from postmodernism?” but, “How will it cover the demise?”

Thirteen years later we know that the legacy media still desperately holds on to it’s postmodernist worldview and derides all others as non-journalists. The new media has provided the outlet for the anti-postmodernism backlash and the legacy media thusly treats the new media with extreme contempt. 

Journalism will survive the postmodernist legacy media because journalism is not dependent on any institution. Journalism belongs to those who are willing to seek the truth, find it, and tell it to those who want to hear it. And, nearly everyone wants to hear it.

Ultra-hardcore liberals like former Jimmy Carter speechwriter James Fallows are on the defensive as of late. On his Atlantic blog, Fallows submits to his readers some screen-captured headlines as proof-positive that the “dominant narrative” about Obama’s failed Asian trip is wrong because he wants it to be wrong. 

For example, there’s this screen capture:

However, Fallows implication that this somehow indicates success on Obama’s part is embarrassingly easy to debunk.

Firstly, the article changed significantly since Fallows’ screen capture. This is what it says now:

BEIJING — The Chinese government announced Thursday that it had set a target to slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a day after the Obama administration set a provisional target for reducing United States emissions.

The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions. [bold mine]

BEIJING — The Chinese government announced Thursday that it had set a target to slow the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a day after the Obama administration set a provisional target for reducing United States emissions.

The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

LOL. Yeah, that’s REAL success for ya! China hasn’t jumped on the green bandwagon, it’s just promised to increase it’s efficiency which happens to coincide with reducing emissions. But, then there’s this:

It was unclear whether the timing of China’s announcement was coincidental, though the Chinese have been preparing an opening position ahead of international talks on climate change in Copenhagen next month. In the past, Beijing has tried to avoid looking as if it has been directly influenced by American decisions.

LOL again. So China was going to do this anyway and it had little or nothing to do with Obama’s useless trip. 

But, we’re not done yet. The Atlantic Wire box on Fallow’s blog had a link to this report: Environmentalists Fume Over China Emissions Pledge which says that while it’s technically a tactical “win” for Obama, it’s pathetic compared to what the commie-environmentalists want:

Treehugger’s Daniel Kessler laments the odd strategy. “[I]ts emissions will actually increase over time because its economy is expanding so rapidly. As the world’s Number 1 Polluter (but far down when it comes to per capita emissions), China’s goal is not enough,” he writes. “It should be noted, however, that China is making massive investments in renewable energy and increasing its standards for efficiency.”

The Chinese pseudo-communists see right through the commie-environmentalists. The communist Chinese will never murder their economy in the name of environmentalism, they will only reduce emissions when it’s to their advantage. How foolish our government must appear to them.

The other screen-captured headlines Fallows submits are of a similar nature. I guess even a Rhodes Scholar can’t eek out a good defense of Obama’s Asian Flop.

Greg Sargent of the blog The Plum Line gives us a great example of the broken reasoning process of the intellectually hollow modern liberal. Referring to new CBS/New York Times poll, Sargent concludes:

There’s a truly weird disconnect underlying public opinion right now: Americans are overwhelmingly convinced that Republicans are not pursuing a bipartisan health care compromise in good faith, but the public wants Obama to keep trying to find common ground with them anyway.

The poll finds that an overwhelming majority of 64% think Republicans are opposing Obama’s health care plans mostly for political reasons. But it also finds that an equally large number, 65%, say Democrats shouldn’t pass a bill without Republicans — even if they think it’s right for the country — and should instead compromise to win over some GOPers.

This shows, I think, that Democrats have convinced the public that the GOP wants Obama and Dems to fail at all costs. But they’ve failed to make the case to the public that GOP obstructionism may leave them no choice but to go it alone in order to realize reform.

Should Sargent’s conclusions be trusted? Unfortunately for Sargent’s credibility, he conveniently overlooks some pertinent factors.

Factors

First I submit this statistic: RCP poll average Congressional Job Approval, retrieved 9/25/2009: 26.8% Approve, 64% Disapprove. Secondly, I submit RCP’s poll average for President Obama’s Job Approval, retrieved 9/25/2009: 52.5% Approve, 40.7% Disapprove.

Thirdly, I submit the fact that the CBS/NYT poll, regarding Health Care, framed the debate as Obama vs. Republicans in Congress. Two poll questions mention Democrats in Congress, Seven mention Republicans in Congress, Four frame Republicans in Congress vs. Obama, Zero mention Democrats AND Republicans in the same question.

Fourthly, I submit that the CBS/NYT poll found that 53% of those polled believe Democrats support Obama’s Health Care plan for “political reasons.” The difference is 11% between Republicans and Democrats who are believed to be motivated by politics. Politicians being political – imagine that!

Without doubt, the reality of the situation is that the leader of the liberal side of the healthcare debate is Obama and that the Republicans have no readily identifiable elected leader; they’re just generic “Republicans in Congress.” Who doesn’t hate Congress? The pollmakers could safely take advantage of American’s general disgust with Congress and their general approval Obama and still appear to be honest in their methodology. What this poll avoids is pitting the ideas against each other; it instead focuses on the personalities, where Obama has the overwhelming advantage. For those polled who want full coverage for all, why not ask them whether they are willing to foot costs of significantly higher taxes, drastically reduced quality-of-care, and the possibility of manipulation of their health care in the name of “social justice?”

Sargent’s Sophistry

So then, Sargent believes this poll is evidence that the public “overwhelmingly” believes that the  GOP wants “Obama and Dems to fail at all costs?” LOL. If you’re a deeply partisan hack reflexively spinning poll results in your favor you may believe such a thing.

Sargent fails to realize (or is psychologically unable to fathom) that what appears to be cognitive dissonance (public wants Obama to cooperate with EVIL politically motivated Republicans) has other, more plausible explanations – like the poll questions skewed the results against “Republicans in Congress” or asking whether politicians do things for “political reasons” is just a dumb question.

If Democrats follow Sargent’s advice to “go it alone” and force a ‘public option’ (or ‘co-op’) through budget reconciliation, the likely result will be an angry public, of whom 84% are already covered, according to a new CBS/NYT poll.

Update: Hotair has more on how the CBS/NYT is skewed but telling.