A great piece by Mark Green at Huffington Post that the media is engaged in some pretty appalling false equivalence since the Paris attacks.
Krugman coined the term the Very Serious People-and I often use the variation of that, the Very Serious Pundits. What the VSP do is engage in false equivalence in the fanatical attempt to be evenhanded between the two parties.
In their mind for instance if they talk about the rise of Islamophobia on the Right they have to come up with a criticism of the Left that they give equal weight.
This makes sense if the two sides are roughly equal. But this is hardly the case right now. Here's Green:
"There's a new false equivalence -- "Sure, GOP's gone overboard in anti-Muslim rhetoric, but Obama's tone is too defensive." Reagan and Cooke actually reach consensus how to combine "both sides" and what this scare will mean for 2016. Answer: No October surprise, but October inevitability when GOP yells that: "The X are coming!" (fill in blank)."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/panic-room-politics-on-sy_b_8625554.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media
In this way, the media gives with one hand and takes it back with the other. Consider:
"Who has the better argument? Obama saying our military could clear out ISIS, but then they'd reconstitute unless populations took up the fight, or the U.S. occupied Syria/Iraq, or Chris Christie attacks the President as a "joke" who created a problem he now can't solve it?"
"Ron Reagan agrees that our armed forces and armaments can defeat some 30,000 ISIS fighters "but then?" Surely we've learned lessons from our two decade-long occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Charles CW Cooke says "joke" overstates it, but "it's indisputable that Obama's reluctance and inaction led us to this place." He acknowledges that invading Iraq was a mistake (and presumably disbanding the army creating a pool of armed, unemployed men to join ISIS) but "that's what Obama inherited when he became president and irrelevant now."
"Again, what about Obama's long-term concerns, including that our greater presence will serve as a recruitment tool for jihadists? Charles concludes that we're haggling over details, and that sometimes you have to "respond in the short-term and then work it out." Ron agrees that it'd be hard for any President and our political system to resist calls for an escalated effort... especially if there are attacks within a country with a John Wayne warrior image."
Notice how this argument self-cancels itself. Also interesting: isn't CW Cooke saying that it's 'indusputable Obama's inaction got us here' editorializing? Yet CNN suspended a reporter last week for expressing sympathy with the Syrian refugees as 'editorializing.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/cnns-perverse-definition-of.html
This kind of makes the point of this article here.
http://theweek.com/articles/590165/cnns-deplorable-mainstreaming-antimuslim-bigotry
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-2016-politics-of-fear-obama-213387#ixzz3sPc7p9wh
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-2016-politics-of-fear-obama-213387#ixzz3sPdeQSNO
Krugman coined the term the Very Serious People-and I often use the variation of that, the Very Serious Pundits. What the VSP do is engage in false equivalence in the fanatical attempt to be evenhanded between the two parties.
In their mind for instance if they talk about the rise of Islamophobia on the Right they have to come up with a criticism of the Left that they give equal weight.
This makes sense if the two sides are roughly equal. But this is hardly the case right now. Here's Green:
"There's a new false equivalence -- "Sure, GOP's gone overboard in anti-Muslim rhetoric, but Obama's tone is too defensive." Reagan and Cooke actually reach consensus how to combine "both sides" and what this scare will mean for 2016. Answer: No October surprise, but October inevitability when GOP yells that: "The X are coming!" (fill in blank)."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/panic-room-politics-on-sy_b_8625554.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media
In this way, the media gives with one hand and takes it back with the other. Consider:
"Who has the better argument? Obama saying our military could clear out ISIS, but then they'd reconstitute unless populations took up the fight, or the U.S. occupied Syria/Iraq, or Chris Christie attacks the President as a "joke" who created a problem he now can't solve it?"
"Ron Reagan agrees that our armed forces and armaments can defeat some 30,000 ISIS fighters "but then?" Surely we've learned lessons from our two decade-long occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Charles CW Cooke says "joke" overstates it, but "it's indisputable that Obama's reluctance and inaction led us to this place." He acknowledges that invading Iraq was a mistake (and presumably disbanding the army creating a pool of armed, unemployed men to join ISIS) but "that's what Obama inherited when he became president and irrelevant now."
"Again, what about Obama's long-term concerns, including that our greater presence will serve as a recruitment tool for jihadists? Charles concludes that we're haggling over details, and that sometimes you have to "respond in the short-term and then work it out." Ron agrees that it'd be hard for any President and our political system to resist calls for an escalated effort... especially if there are attacks within a country with a John Wayne warrior image."
Notice how this argument self-cancels itself. Also interesting: isn't CW Cooke saying that it's 'indusputable Obama's inaction got us here' editorializing? Yet CNN suspended a reporter last week for expressing sympathy with the Syrian refugees as 'editorializing.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/cnns-perverse-definition-of.html
This kind of makes the point of this article here.
http://theweek.com/articles/590165/cnns-deplorable-mainstreaming-antimuslim-bigotry
The lie of wholly 'objective journalism' that is a fetish particularly of CNN. In truth CNN is 'biased all over the place.' Wolf Blitzer is clearly a huge hawk, for example.
This morning Politico shows perfectly what I mean by 'giving with one hand and taking away with the other.'
"Getting the Politics of Fear Right."
"Trump exploits our fears, while Obama underestimates them. Why can’t someone just deal with them?"Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-2016-politics-of-fear-obama-213387#ixzz3sPc7p9wh
Is there a better example of self-cancelling points in an effort to criticize both sides equally? Trump is to be criticized for exploiting our fears yet Obama is criticized for not exploiting them.
The media has continued to msiterpet Obama's point.
"Meanwhile President Obama has tacked sharply in the other direction, playing down the public's anxiety, defiantly continuing to downgrade the possibility of an attack on the U.S. and the capabilities of Islamic State. “They're a bunch of killers with good social media,” Obama told reporters on Sunday as he finished out his 10-day overseas trip. Secretary of State John Kerry continued the theme, telling NBC from Abu Dhabi, “ISIS is not 10 feet tall.” Obama's dismissiveness is no doubt one reason for Trump’s popularity; clearly many voters believe our current crop of leaders—starting with the president—have been too inattentive to their fears."Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-2016-politics-of-fear-obama-213387#ixzz3sPdeQSNO
Got it. Obama is to blame for Trump. What the President is not saying here is there is no chance of another attack on the US-though it's welcome to not play the fearmongering of so many officials who declare there definitely will be another attack we just don't know when.
But what Obama is actually trying to do is sort of what some of the families of the victims of mass shootings have advocated: don't give these killers so much attention after they do their grisly deeds as that inspires the next one.
In a way POTUS is saying let's not give these guys what they want. They want us to fear them and overreact.
But of course that's no different than Trump and Ben Carson say they saw thousands of Muslims cheering 9/11.
One too many "u" in the title.
ReplyDelete