Quote of the Day

Palin is a circus, but you are following Newsweek down the rabbit-hole of sneering elitist cheapshots. I prefer good grammar too, but pretending that her facebook statement doesn't make an easily discernible point is disingenuous.

The lazy triumphalism of media outlets knocking Palin by “exposing” her running clothes, her funny syntax – it discredits you all, and only feeds into Palinism. Even if you're explicitly on a partisan soapbox, it's like an Al Gore sigh – it imparts no meaning and converts no one.

“How do you judge a book by its gender?” Give it's shoulders alittle squeeze and see if it Merkels.

I'm a bit confused by Palin. She was there for the photo shoot, wasn't she? Was she forced to pose in that outfit, and why is it not sexy for runners world and is sexy for Newsqueek? And, anyway, what's so wrong with being sexy? (with a nod to Nigel).

Palin is a circus, but you are following Newsweek down the rabbit-hole of sneering elitist cheapshots.

Yeah, using a photo the woman posed for, in order to promote herself, is just sneering elitism!

I prefer good grammar too, but pretending that her facebook statement doesn't make an easily discernible point is disingenuous.

He didn't pretend it didn't make a point, he pointed it out that books have no gender. It's not a grammatical issue.

The lazy triumphalism of media outlets knocking Palin by “exposing” her running clothes,

Nothing was “exposed.” She posed for the photos.

her funny syntax

Should just be ignored by you dumb elitists. Who cares if she talks gibberish, she wants to be famous! Only an elitist would criticize.

it discredits you all, and only feeds into Palinism. Even if you're explicitly on a partisan soapbox, it's like an Al Gore sigh – it imparts no meaning and converts no one.

You're mistaking the media for a political group that seeks to “convert” people. Reporting her stupidity is just that. Reporting. It's her fault she's stupid and won't stop proving it.

I'll make it easy for you. When the media harps on style, the primary result is to make the media look lazy and in the tank. It also aggravates those who might happen to like that style.

It also begs the question, is the media's main knock on Palin simply that she doesn't look and talk like the media? She says yes, and various media outlets fall over themselves to give credence to her complaint.

This blog post is a minor example of this. The Newsweek cover – picture and text – is a major example. But what do they care – this will solve their circulation woes for a few days.

Final example – I doubt that Andrew Sullivan has much praise for what Plain wears or how she talks. But he has gained enough discipline to talk about substantive issues where she has been wrong and/or dishonest, because that's what works. And he is in the tank!

“Gibberish?” You sound like a robot who should be yelling: “This does not compute!” Yes, she's mixing metaphors (loosely), and you do need a bit of maturity to get past that, but is that really so tough?

When the media harps on style, the primary result is to make the media look lazy and in the tank. It also aggravates those who might happen to like that style.

Ah, “The Media.” I see you've moved well beyond what we're talking about here and have decided to attack the apparently homogeneous “media.” Guess what? It's not “the media's” job to embrace every public person's “style” (read: stupidity), just because there are some people who like that “style.” Some people like the style of white supremacists. Should writers and reporters ignore their “style,” too?

By the way, being an idiot isn't a “style” issue, and addressing the idiocy of public figures goes directly to the question of whether they are qualified for the responsibilities they have or seek.

It also begs the question, is the media's main knock on Palin simply that she doesn't look and talk like the media?

No. She's in way over her head and completely obsessed with herself. That strikes me as very similar to many in the media, especially on TV. She does look and talk like them, in that she is perpetually dressed up for the cameras, and she talks about things she doesn't understand as if she were an expert.

She says yes, and various media outlets fall over themselves to give credence to her complaint.

Ah, so all a person has to do is accuse their detractors of having an ulterior motive, and that makes it true? Fine, you attack the media because you are jealous of them. If you respond in any way that means you've given “credence to my complaint.”

This blog post is a minor example of this.

David's amusement at Palin's general stupidity, and many others in news media ignoring it, is not an example of anything but David's willingness to call attention to stupidity, because he's not afraid he will lose access.

Yes, she posed for the picture. Does the fact that a front-page pic is not actually doctored or taken covertly preclude any criticism of its context? Do explain.

No, you explain how it's an elitist cheap shot to use a photo the subject of which posed for. What's wrong with the photo?

Final example – I doubt that Andrew Sullivan has much praise for what Palin wears or how she talks.

Sullivan's obsession with Palin's pregnancy has been extremely creepy, and he's your example of substantive media coverage? What a weird perspective you have.

You make my point for me. White supremacists, whatever they wear, say and whatever their fave bands are, are objectionable for completely separate and somewhat more substantive reasons. Seeing your failure to grasp the distinction, I think I understand where you're coming from. Anyway, that failure by the national commentariat is exactly what irks me here.

Speaking of which, the Media, yes – it is homogenous, and there is a definite groupthink going on. That is the bulk of my complaint right there.

You want to argue about “is Palin stupid?” – but my point is more meta than that. Most of your response is to bash Palin, as if that was the subject. Rather, it's, how does the aforementioned homogenous media get to sizing up people, or issues, that impact society? By grammar and rhetoric? Note that the same media was scared enough of getting “traitor” hung around its neck that it stood mute 2003 to 2006 or so, as Dubya's handlers manufactured a casus belli and bungled us into Iraq in plain sight. Digby has labeled the beltway media the kewl kids, and she's on the money. Let them do their damn job, and THEN they can take a day or two off and take potshots at whatever nice fat target they want.

And to get specific, “judging a book by its cover” is itself a metaphor, which she mixes with the boilerplate equal rights phraseology of creed, color, etc. Whether you can tolerate mixed metaphors, or dismiss it as gibberish, probably has a lot more to do with your feelings about the speaker than some kind of objective rhetorical metric. And your feelings are plain; no need to quote every line of this comment followed by you venting your spleen. I get it.

Finally, I am not a daily Sullivan reader and I know about his Trig obsessions, but get the impression that he has reined it in, i.e. “gained some discipline”. He has at least acknowledged where he stands…as have you.

lol exactly.

Ok, if your complaint is how the homogeneous media focuses on topics or angles that you find irrelevant, or distracting from the “real issues,” fine. I agree with you that much of the news media does have a tendency towards obsession with trivial subjects.

However, I don't agree with you that the media are homogeneous (except for TV news, for the most part). There is incredible variety in news reporting in opinion, for those who wish to look beyond their network and cable news stations. I also object to the demands from readers/watchers that media outlets pay attention to the wrong things, often accompanied by the demand that they “do their damn job.” They are in business. They're job is trying to attract readers/watchers in order to sell enough advertising space to turn a profit. The problem is the public, who are more than happy to digest meaningless gossip, endless discussions of style and appearance, etc. If the public didn't want the tripe they're pushing, they would find new avenues to pursue. If the public were more interested in realistic policy discussions among thoughtful and informed people, and turned to media outlets that provided such, you would see more of it. Sadly, they aren't.

So basically, if you don't like what David writes, or you don't like what other media outlets talk about, don't watch or read them. If no one is listening, they will change the subject, because audience numbers are their bottom line, not truth, relevance, or fairness. And if you want to avoid potshots, snark, and other nasty discussions of style, maybe the internet isn't for you. This place is full of that stuff.

“do their damn job.”

That is a crotchety demand to make, as you point out, but I'm not asking for special boutique coverage of my pet issue. I'm saying there is a media tendency toward laziness, and when facing off against major institutions, cowardice. Public demand and business needs are a driving force, but the main business “need” for the press to merely be a stenographer to power, or a megaphone to the already-loudest voices – except that it's cheap to manufacture, not that it pleases the customers most.

Your fallback “argument” on the web as a marketplace of ideas, e.g. “if you don't like it, go elsewhere”, is the coda of many a losing argument in blog comments. Tell you what – if you didn't like my comment, you shouldn't have responded. Life's too short to trouble yourself with this unpleasantness.

Actually, I like a good argument, which is why I wander the comment sections of blogs and news sites. The difference is I don't think I am some authority, pronouncing the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of writers' chosen subject matter. I prefer to point out lack of facts, poor reasoning, faulty logic, and outright lies, and offer different perspectives or theories, rather than tell people they shouldn't be writing about this or that. If someone writes about things I'm not interested in reading about, I don't read their writing. It's just that simple.

Have fun resting on your laurels, knowing you won whatever argument you think you were having, because I used “the coda of many a losing argument.”

I don't recall pronouncing what should or shouldn't be written about. In your free market theory, I guess hypocrisy is a valuable commodity because people read it, or else they wouldn't it, therefore it wouldn't exist, so better not to talk about it…or something like that.

In any case, enjoy rooting out poor facts and faulty logic across the ether. Don't forget to use “stupid” in every other sentence to back up your superior logic.

Palin is a circus, but you are following Newsweek down the rabbit-hole of sneering elitist cheapshots.

Yeah, using a photo the woman posed for, in order to promote herself, is just sneering elitism!

I prefer good grammar too, but pretending that her facebook statement doesn't make an easily discernible point is disingenuous.

He didn't pretend it didn't make a point, he pointed it out that books have no gender. It's not a grammatical issue.

The lazy triumphalism of media outlets knocking Palin by “exposing” her running clothes,

Nothing was “exposed.” She posed for the photos.

her funny syntax

Should just be ignored by you dumb elitists. Who cares if she talks gibberish, she wants to be famous! Only an elitist would criticize.

it discredits you all, and only feeds into Palinism. Even if you're explicitly on a partisan soapbox, it's like an Al Gore sigh – it imparts no meaning and converts no one.

You're mistaking the media for a political group that seeks to “convert” people. Reporting her stupidity is just that. Reporting. It's her fault she's stupid and won't stop proving it.

I'll make it easy for you. When the media harps on style, the primary result is to make the media look lazy and in the tank. It also aggravates those who might happen to like that style.

It also begs the question, is the media's main knock on Palin simply that she doesn't look and talk like the media? She says yes, and various media outlets fall over themselves to give credence to her complaint.

This blog post is a minor example of this. The Newsweek cover – picture and text – is a major example. But what do they care – this will solve their circulation woes for a few days. Yes, she posed for the picture. Does the fact that a front-page pic is not actually doctored or taken covertly preclude any criticism of its context? Do explain.

Final example – I doubt that Andrew Sullivan has much praise for what Palin wears or how she talks. But he has gained enough discipline to talk about substantive issues where she has been wrong and/or dishonest, because that's what works. And he is in the tank!

“Gibberish?” You sound like a robot who should be yelling: “This does not compute!” Yes, she's mixing metaphors (loosely), and you do need a bit of maturity to get past that, but is that really so tough?

When the media harps on style, the primary result is to make the media look lazy and in the tank. It also aggravates those who might happen to like that style.

Ah, “The Media.” I see you've moved well beyond what we're talking about here and have decided to attack the apparently homogeneous “media.” Guess what? It's not “the media's” job to embrace every public person's “style” (read: stupidity), just because there are some people who like that “style.” Some people like the style of white supremacists. Should writers and reporters ignore their “style,” too?

By the way, being an idiot isn't a “style” issue, and addressing the idiocy of public figures goes directly to the question of whether they are qualified for the responsibilities they have or seek.

It also begs the question, is the media's main knock on Palin simply that she doesn't look and talk like the media?

No. She's in way over her head and completely obsessed with herself. That strikes me as very similar to many in the media, especially on TV. She does look and talk like them, in that she is perpetually dressed up for the cameras, and she talks about things she doesn't understand as if she were an expert.

She says yes, and various media outlets fall over themselves to give credence to her complaint.

Ah, so all a person has to do is accuse their detractors of having an ulterior motive, and that makes it true? Fine, you attack the media because you are jealous of them. If you respond in any way that means you've given “credence to my complaint.”

This blog post is a minor example of this.

David's amusement at Palin's general stupidity, and many others in news media ignoring it, is not an example of anything but David's willingness to call attention to stupidity, because he's not afraid he will lose access.

Yes, she posed for the picture. Does the fact that a front-page pic is not actually doctored or taken covertly preclude any criticism of its context? Do explain.

No, you explain how it's an elitist cheap shot to use a photo the subject of which posed for. What's wrong with the photo?

Final example – I doubt that Andrew Sullivan has much praise for what Palin wears or how she talks.

Sullivan's obsession with Palin's pregnancy has been extremely creepy, and he's your example of substantive media coverage? What a weird perspective you have.

[...] David Weigel at The Washington Independent: It’s early, but it’s got to be this from Sarah Palin’s Facebook reaction to Newsweek’s cover, which uses a photo of her clad in workout duds from her Runners World photo shoot: [...]

You make my point for me. White supremacists, whatever they wear, say and whatever their fave bands are, are objectionable for completely separate and somewhat more substantive reasons. Seeing your failure to grasp the distinction, I think I understand where you're coming from. Anyway, that failure by the national commentariat is exactly what irks me here.

Speaking of which, the Media, yes – it is homogenous, and there is a definite groupthink going on. That is the bulk of my complaint right there.

You want to argue about “is Palin stupid?” – but my point is more meta than that. Most of your response is to bash Palin, as if that was the subject. Rather, it's, how does the aforementioned homogenous media get to sizing up people, or issues, that impact society? By grammar and rhetoric? Note that the same media was scared enough of getting “traitor” hung around its neck that it stood mute 2003 to 2006 or so, as Dubya's handlers manufactured a casus belli and bungled us into Iraq in plain sight. Digby has labeled the beltway media the kewl kids, and she's on the money. Let them do their damn job, and THEN they can take a day or two off and take potshots at whatever nice fat target they want.

And to get specific, “judging a book by its cover” is itself a metaphor, which she mixes with the boilerplate equal rights phraseology of creed, color, etc. Whether you can tolerate mixed metaphors, or dismiss it as gibberish, probably has a lot more to do with your feelings about the speaker than some kind of objective rhetorical metric. And your feelings are plain; no need to quote every line of this comment followed by you venting your spleen. I get it.

Finally, I am not a daily Sullivan reader and I know about his Trig obsessions, but get the impression that he has reined it in, i.e. “gained some discipline”. He has at least acknowledged where he stands…as have you.

lol exactly.

Ok, if your complaint is how the homogeneous media focuses on topics or angles that you find irrelevant, or distracting from the “real issues,” fine. I agree with you that much of the news media does have a tendency towards obsession with trivial subjects.

However, I don't agree with you that the media are homogeneous (except for TV news, for the most part). There is incredible variety in news reporting in opinion, for those who wish to look beyond their network and cable news stations. I also object to the demands from readers/watchers that media outlets pay attention to the wrong things, often accompanied by the demand that they “do their damn job.” They are in business. They're job is trying to attract readers/watchers in order to sell enough advertising space to turn a profit. The problem is the public, who are more than happy to digest meaningless gossip, endless discussions of style and appearance, etc. If the public didn't want the tripe they're pushing, they would find new avenues to pursue. If the public were more interested in realistic policy discussions among thoughtful and informed people, and turned to media outlets that provided such, you would see more of it. Sadly, they aren't.

So basically, if you don't like what David writes, or you don't like what other media outlets talk about, don't watch or read them. If no one is listening, they will change the subject, because audience numbers are their bottom line, not truth, relevance, or fairness. And if you want to avoid potshots, snark, and other nasty discussions of style, maybe the internet isn't for you. This place is full of that stuff.

“do their damn job.”

That is a crotchety demand to make, as you point out, but I'm not asking for special boutique coverage of my pet issue. I'm saying there is a media tendency toward laziness, and when facing off against major institutions, cowardice. Public demand and business needs are a driving force, but the main business “need” for the press to merely be a stenographer to power, or a megaphone to the already-loudest voices – is that it's cheap to manufacture, not that it pleases the customers most.

Your fallback “argument” on the web as a marketplace of ideas, e.g. “if you don't like it, go elsewhere”, is the coda of many a losing argument in blog comments. Tell you what – if you didn't like my comment, you shouldn't have responded. Life's too short to trouble yourself with this unpleasantness.

Actually, I like a good argument, which is why I wander the comment sections of blogs and news sites. The difference is I don't think I am some authority, pronouncing the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of writers' chosen subject matter. I prefer to point out lack of facts, poor reasoning, faulty logic, and outright lies, and offer different perspectives or theories, rather than tell people they shouldn't be writing about this or that. If someone writes about things I'm not interested in reading about, I don't read their writing. It's just that simple.

Have fun resting on your laurels, knowing you won whatever argument you think you were having, because I used “the coda of many a losing argument.”

I don't recall pronouncing what should or shouldn't be written about. In your free market theory, I guess hypocrisy is a valuable commodity because people read it, or else they wouldn't read it, in which case it wouldn't exist, so better not to talk about it at all…or something like that.

In any case, enjoy rooting out poor facts and faulty logic across the ether. Don't forget to use “stupid” in every other sentence to back up your superior logic.