www.radaronline.com/features/2007/01/betting_on_iraq_1.php
jpg MERITOCRACY OF DUNCES David Brooks A few years ago, David Brooks, New York Times columnist and media pundit extraordinaire, penned a love letter to the idea of meritocracy. perpetual improvement, and permanent exertion," he effused, and is essential to America's dynamism and character. Fellow glorifiers of meritocracy have noted that our society is superior to nepotistic backwaters like Krygystan or France because we assign the most important jobs based on excellence. This makes us less prone to stagnancy or, worse yet, hideous national clusterfucks like fighting unwinnable wars for reasons nobody understands. At Radar we are devoted re-readers of the Brooks oeuvre and were struck by this particular column.
two), we wondered if America hasn't stumbled off the meritocratic path. More specifically, since political pundits like Brooks play such a central role in our national decision-making process, maybe something is amiss in the world of punditry. Surely those who warned us not to invade Iraq have been recognized and rewarded, and those who pushed for this disaster face tattered credibility and waning career prospects. So we selected the four pundits who were in our judgment the most influentially and disturbingly misguided in their pro-war arguments and the four who were most prescient and forceful in their opposition. and found that something is rotten in the fourth estate.
Today's Top Stories 01/10/07 File Under: Fareed Zakaria, Geroge Bush, Iraq War, Jeffrey Goldberg, Peter Beinart, Robert Scheer, Saddam Hussein, Scott Ritter, Tom Friedman, Vernon Chatman, William.
Register Maybe Im crazy but on PBSs News Hour I couldve sworn David Brooks claimed he was always against the invasion of Iraq. Then you have those who say they werent originally for the war. But well since were there now we cant just get up & leave (O really?
Several times over the course of the 15 years that I wrote a col for the NY Observer I pushed the idea that pundits should be licensed just as drivers are, that punditical violations (egregious predictions, gross hypocrisy, slimy backtracking and verminous sinking-ship abandonment) be subject to a penalty-points system that could result in short- or long-term suspension of media access. It was a serious idea lightly-framed, but because no one reads/takes NYO seriously it got nowhere. Reed's piece eloquently makes the case for just such regulation.
There is one other extremely influential media mogul who is more of a gadfly than a pundit on political topics, but nonetheless, wields enormous power to shape opinion -- Oprah Winfrey. on a moral level, however, she is sort of a self-crowned saint. In the run-up to war, she had a whole hour devoted to the pros. After vociferous criticism from her viewers (including myself at that time--no more), she had an hour on the con side of the argument. After we were committed to war, her advice was to "make the best of it."
I tivo'ed Matthews daily and can attest that he was against invasion, saying again and again, invasion would simply create more enemies and history showed we would be repelled. Every single time he was a guest the preface was, "So, you said this but now you say this!" Pat Buchanan, an interesting voice, was openly against invasion and never budged an inch.
He is still flapping his mouth after all his "astute" comments on the middle east before the war. He knows nothing and the more he knows nothing the more people seem to listen to him.
Being a political junkie @ this time is not a good thing. I heard Vice President Cheney say yesterday on Fox News Sunday say regardless on what Congress or the American people think, He and President Bush or moving full speed ahead. If that is the case, the House and Senate needs to move full speed ahead and impeach them both. What over solution is there but to remove the people from office before they get us all KILLED!
I've been hoping to see more of this type of article, and hope I see more of them. You nailed it with Tom Friedman, but I'm with wigcon -- William Kristol should have topped this list. For any TV news show or newspaper to take these guys seriously anymore should be doing serious harm to its own credibility, yet for some reason, they continue with their bullshit and are revered.
In his trashing of Jimmy Carter's "Peace: Not Apartheid" the War-without-end-lobbyist, Jeffrey Goldberg labels Jimmy "famously pro-Palestinian" and even goes so far as to say he was critical of the saintly Golda Meir! However, what Jeffrey really wants to call Jimmy, but isn't quite sure if the word still has any meaning, is "anti-semite." He should ask David Brooks, who, in one of his New York Times columns, said that his critics used the word "neocon" as a code word for "Jewish."
In his trashing of Jimmy Carter's "Peace: Not Apartheid" the War-without-end-lobbyist, Jeffrey Goldberg labels Jimmy "famously pro-Palestinian" and even goes so far as to say he was critical of the saintly Golda Meir! However, what Jeffrey really wants to call Jimmy, but isn't quite sure if the word still has any meaning, is "anti-semite." He should ask David Brooks, who, in one of his New York Times columns, said that his critics used the word "neocon" as a code word for "Jewish."
campeador, you point to the 'white elephant in the room', the topic no one in the media wants to confront directly for fear of getting the cr*p beat out of them (figuratively speaking).
the ad for timeselect--the pay service that gives you access to op-ed writers brooks et al-- boasts classic david brooks. and each time i see the ad on line i think--yes let's hear more from the neocon who cheered us on to war in iraq and then told us when things were going badly that the war in iraq had very little importance in the relative scheme of things. when offered the nyt promo deal to subscribe to timeselect i emailed the nyt and suggested they would certainly make more money by introducing timesdeselct--in other words more readers would pay not to read the likes of david brooks! time for the times to get rid of david brooks, its in family failed publisher.
The talking head generals should also be taken to task and then the "terrorism experts". Most of these think-tank babies were pushing for a department of homeland security BEFORE 9/11 and predicted the Y2K disaster. The biggest turnaround, though, seems to be MSNBC's Joe Scarborough who, last November, asked "Is George Bush an idiot?"
briggs, you've identified the reason the Washington Post will never charge its readers for access to its own op-ed section. Readers quickly lose the daily habit of following the dissemblings of neocons like Jim Hoagland and the very nasty Charles Krauthammer.
The arragant, blundering and completely incompetent manner in which this operation has been directed masks any objective judgement on the merits of pre-war commentary. One can only say adequate warning and caution was offered and ignored by our leadership.
OTOH there is Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, who put in plugs for this war and can still be seen on the CNN pundit circuit. Not to mention CNN itself, still plugging away like nothing has happened.
RE: Iraq Gamble My observation is that when a government effectively controls "leaks" it has much great influence on reporting. Without any leaks the more selective distribution of information in a manner of "scoops" amounts to $ to those who receive this information before their colleagues. Under the current system all leaks are actually calculated news distribution to curry favoritism and control reporting. This of course raises the reporters stock with their employer and the stock of the reporting outlet itself. So favorable reporting of the Administration reaps great benefits as those reporters or news outlets get scoops through exclusive interviews, early copy on breaking news etc. Those that do not provide favorable reporting are likewise intentionally isolated from receiving early reports of breaking news. These methods further feed into the national talking points phenomenon as illustrated by the Rush Limbaugh types. By regurgitating the party or Administration's line these "boots...
|
http://csua.com/feed/