The problem to a certain degree rests with the contsruction and intent of the speech. It seeks to stroke two political nerves at the same instant. “We are winning the War on Terror!” (Because I’m doing a hell of a job as a War Leader) and “The War will be long and hard.” (It would be unwise to alter such leadership.)
Got two bits that says that every recent and impending Bush speech as regards the War on Terror follows the same formula.
Sorry, but I don’t think Dowd and Coulter can be likened on the basis of this one example. I read most of Dowd’s columns and while they’re fluff and mostly playing for laughs, they’re not chockful of lies. I’m already on record as saying that Dowd’s way of editing the quotation distorted its actual meaning by exaggerating the extent of one of its claims. But it’s actually possible to make that kind of mistake inadvertently. And even if, as is more likely, she did it on purpose, Dowd just doesn’t write books full of lies like Coulter does, or make outlandish claims. Read her column more regularly, and you’ll see what I mean.
[sub]Not that it matters PS, but way back on page 1 of this thread there’s a post of mine which (among other things) stresses the difference between an op-ed and reporting. I don’t think that entirely exonerates Dowd though.[/sub]
The major premise is stated in the first sentence. “Al Qaeda is on the run.” That’s a flat statement of fact, that was directly contradicted by both the attack in Saudi Arabia and perhaps the one that just occurred in Casablanca.
The rest is just supporting arguments. Dowd takes the major premise, backs it up with some statements from the supporting arguments, altering the thrust of the argument not one bit, and you and Andrew Sullivan agree that she is hopelessly distorting the President’s message.
Truly amazing. Even more so that you got most everyone to agree with you.
december, you were given, at the top of this thread, a neat rhetorical analysis by Randy Spears of precisely what tools were being used to make the point of the major premise which you completely ignored, as is your style, because it flatly proved you wrong, instead addressing Daniel Withrow’s comments, thereby turning the agenda away from an actual debate about the rhetoric being used, and towards an ad hominem (the “harpy” comment) attack on Dowd. You succeeded in persuading people of your propaganda point in this way, as everyone followed you in ignoring that analysis.
This person, who scored in the 99th percentile on the English portion of the SAT, who minored in Linguistics in college, and who deals with logic every day because it’s my job, knows a thing or two about language and logic. You were refuted. It shows that you know it because you ignored the post that refuted you. It’ll snow on my birthday in Washington DC before I’ll agree with you on this one.
My birthday is in July.
Umm, December, there are a couple of things wrong with your statement.
First, Limbaugh/Coulter. etall get by with a free pass, and there is no villifying of them by anyone, let alone the liberal press.
Second, to throw Maureen Dowd out and creuicify her, when she’s doing the exact same thing that Limabugh/Coulter etall did for the 8 years of the Clinton admin at which time I have no doubts that you were suspiciously silent shows quite the double standard.
The major premise is stated in the first sentence. “Al Qaeda is on the run.” That’s a flat statement of fact, that was directly contradicted by both the attack in Saudi Arabia and perhaps the one that just occurred in Casablanca.
The rest is just supporting arguments. Dowd takes the major premise, backs it up with some statements from the supporting arguments, altering the thrust of the argument not one bit, and you and Andrew Sullivan agree that she is hopelessly distorting the President’s message.
Great analysis, pantom. There’s no denying that the overwhelming thrust of Bush’s speech is that Al-Qaeda isn’t much of a problem anymore, and that Dowd’s paraphrase of what he said is pretty close to what his speech actually meant. Only some really tortured grammatical wrangling allows any other reading of Bush’s speech, which the Usual Suspects were happy to indulge in for Dubya’s sake.I think a lot of posters were led down the garden path by December’s rhetoric because they fell into the trap of False Objectivity, a practice much beloved of news magazines.
False Objectivity involves presenting both sides of an issue, closig in a way that seems to reach a conclusion but is acgtually just a summary of both positions. It takes an almost ritual form in magazines like Time and Newsweek: “While theres much evidence that blah blah blah, it would be wise to remember that blah blah blah.” Or “Analysts agree that the most likely result is blah blah blah, however, blah blah blah must always be taken into account.”
What a lot of posters have said on this thread is: “Yes, Maureen Dowd did overstate Bush’s position, but Bush’s speech was garbled in its meaning.”
The intent of False Objectivity is to seem wise and objective without committing yourself to anything more than a paraphrase. The problem with False Objectivity is that when one side is clearly in the wrong and the other is clearly in the right, you wind up looking fatuous and clueless. You clearly have not followed the argument with any real understanding, but you want to be congratulated for your wisdom.
Far better to take a partisan stance and be wrong, IMHO, though maybe not as often as December is wrong.
Liberal are particularly attracted to False Objectivity. Conservatives nowadays tend to take a raw partisan stance and to use any trick of rhetoric, sophistry or misrepresentation they can come up with to advance their position. They love it when liberals go for False Objectivity, because it tends to nullify the content of their assertions – they aren’t really objective liberals, they’re washouts whose positions are easily overrun by a strong partisan attack.
Could you please just make your own point without suggesting that the people who disagree with you are mindless zombies, unable to read the quotes for themselves?
Must. Believe. Everything. December. Posts.
Am. Automaton. Programmed. To. Believe.
Sheesh.
Julie
“The intent of False Objectivity is to seem wise and objective without committing yourself to anything more than a paraphrase.”
I agree with you, Evil, that objectivity is, strictly speaking, impossible. But striving to achieve it is a lifelong discipline. It’s also true that some of the people who fancy themselves as the most objective are, in actuality, the most blinded by prejudice.
There is, however, no special contradiction in a stance that blends objectivity (e.g. truthful reportage of the views of others) and partisanship (belief in one’s own principles). Liberals can’t detach themselves from commitment to truthfully reporting the views of others without ceasing, in effect, to be liberals, because that kind that of commitment has always been central to their principles.
Dowd’s editing pales in comparison to some howlers I’ve seen in the work of other columnists. It is silly to single her out on the basis of this one sentence as one of the worst offenders of her day. The truth is she no worse than most, and much better than some; and, by all accounts, anyone who reads the WJS’s columnists and then complains about this Dowd pecadillo goes well beyond the pot who calls the kettle black.
Over in the France debate we have people on the liberal or liberalish side of the spectrum asserting (rightly) that Chirac’s speeches have been misrepresented to the British and American publics. As a result of those misrepresentations, most Americans and many Britons have a false idea about France’s actual position just prior to the war. Do you find the people who are trying to rectify this problem guilty of “false objectivity”?
If Dowd had represented the actual speech–which was sufficiently lame–more accurately we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and her column would have been no less humorous and pungent. As it stands now, inadvertently or not, she has opened the door to comparisons with charlatans.
The WSJ can print its distortions and make my day: that’s precisely why I feel under no compulsion to read it. Conservatives who love her can read Ann Coulter’s lie-studded books to their hearts content: I’d rather spend my precious time with an author who doesn’t need to cheat to make a smart point.
I wasn’t saying you believed December, but I was agreeing with Pantom’s point that some of you (I’m not gonna name names) were fooled by December’s rhetorical tricks. It wasn’t that you bought December’s arguments, it was that you agreed to argue on his terms. As pantom points out, December’s post was refuted early on. December ignored the post that refuted his point, preferring to argue on other grounds, and so did a lot of people who disagreed with him.
If I want to call you a zombie I’ll call you a zombie. You have not as yet exhibited zombie-like behavior, in fact, you are not undead at all so far as I can tell. You maybe did get taken in by a rhetorical trick. Happens all the time, and to the best of us.
Ultimate objectivity may be an impossible goal, but I think it’s possible for most folks to be a hell of a lot more objective than they are, and that it’s possible to be within 75 percent of true objectivity without any superhuman effort.
I consider False Objectivity to be a specific sort of intellectual trap, I’m not criticizing objectivity, or attempts to be objective, at all. I consider that it’s possible to look at Bush’s speech objectively, and that the only reasonable result of doing so is to conclude that the gist of his speech was that “Al Qaeda isn’t much of a problem any more, we’ve pretty much whupped their butts and all that’s left is a mopping-up operation which we’re gonna proceed with.”
I think Dowd’s paraphrase was a fairly reasonable summary of the gist of Bush’s speech, and that all the people who felt they somehow had to reach a “balanced” and “objective” point of view by taking issue with Dowd’s paraphrase were in fact distorting the facts of the case themselves. Hence, false objectivity.
**There is, however, no special contradiction in a stance that blends objectivity (e.g. truthful reportage of the views of others) and partisanship (belief in one’s own principles). Liberals can’t detach themselves from commitment to truthfully reporting the views of others without ceasing, in effect, to be liberals, because that kind that of commitment has always been central to their principles. **
I think you should be as objective as possible in evaluating the news but that when you go up against an the monolithic, attack-dog conservative press with your “balanced” viewpoint, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight and you are gonna lose. As has happened a lot lately. When will liberals realize that when a conservative asks questions, he’s not grappling for truth, he’s grappling to get a better grip on your head so he can dig his thumbs deeper into your eye sockets?
Over in the France debate we have people on the liberal or liberalish side of the spectrum asserting (rightly) that Chirac’s speeches have been misrepresented to the British and American publics. As a result of those misrepresentations, most Americans and many Britons have a false idea about France’s actual position just prior to the war. Do you find the people who are trying to rectify this problem guilty of “false objectivity”?
I’m not familiar enough with the France debate to speak to that one. If the conservatives are flat-out lying about what Chirac actually said, then pointing out the truth is not just objectivity, it’s good rhetoric, too. False objectivity would be saying, “It’s correct that some statements by the French have been ignored or misrepresented in part, but you must also take into account the fact that they did not contribute to Gulf War II.”
**If Dowd had represented the actual speech–which was sufficiently lame–more accurately we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and her column would have been no less humorous and pungent. As it stands now, inadvertently or not, she has opened the door to comparisons with charlatans. **
I disagree. It is hard to imagine any expression of sentiment that conflicts with Bush that the cons wouldn’t jump on with both feet, even if they had to largely make something up to do it. That’s what I think has happened to Dowd’s column here.
The WSJ can print its distortions and make my day: that’s precisely why I feel under no compulsion to read it. Conservatives who love her can read Ann Coulter’s lie-studded books to their hearts content: I’d rather spend my precious time with an author who doesn’t need to cheat to make a smart point. **
[/QUOTE]
Doh! All you RealfirstnamenospaceReallastname guys are confusing me. Nonetheless:
Correction:
Due to an editing error (specifically, the complete lack of them) a recent post about Maureen Dowd’s lies incorrectly ran the responses of two posters as if they were one. The manny regrets the error.
See how easy that was? 
“Them” being editors, of course. Guess I need a grammarian, too.
Only if you believe that there is no way to interpret “on the run (and) being slowly but surely decimated” except as exactly equivalent to “al-Queda will never pose a threat to anyone again”. Which is what Dowd wanted to distort the President’s speech into claiming, and why she distorted it as she did.
I thought we were generally in agreement that it was dishonest to misquote the President so as to imply that he was guaranteeing that al-Queda was completely harmless.
Granted that I am partisan. But if it is partisan of me to interpret the speech as I do, is it not equally partisan (and therefore equally wrongheaded) to interpret the speech as if Bush were saying what Dowd wanted?
Shoot, my barbecued ribs are burning. Gotta vent the grill.
Regards,
Shodan
No. We are not in general agreement, Shodan. Bush’s speech contained a series of phrases that, when taken together, gave the impression that he was saying Al-Qaeda wouldn’t be much of problem in the future. It also contained a few weasel words later on that did little or nothing to change the overall meaning of his speech.
If Bush’s speech were a painting, and his statements about Al-Qaeda being on the ropes were painted in red, while the weasel words later on were in blue, the painting would be about 75 percent red and 25 percent blue. The objective thing to say about such a painting is that it’s “mostly red.” Dowd wanted to say it was “almost all red.”
You want us to believe the painting is “mostly blue.” Or that because Dowd said it was “almost all red” that that’s the same as saying it’s “mostly blue.” It’s just not the same. One is a minor exagerration that still conveys the facts. The other is a flat-out misrepresentation.
Granted that I am partisan. But if it is partisan of me to interpret the speech as I do, is it not equally partisan (and therefore equally wrongheaded) to interpret the speech as if Bush were saying what Dowd wanted?
Partisan statements that reflect the truth should reasonably be given more weight than partisan statements that are complete misrepresentations, shouldn’t they?
Just out of curiosity, does Chirac’s “this evening” count as “weasel words” as well?
You seem to be suggesting that we can safely ignore any qualifiers people might add to their statements.
Julie
JSGoddess, no offense, but “this evening” is hardly just any old qualifier. It’s a statement as to the timing of one’s position. Although Chirac probably said “Ce Soir” (“this evening”), his words could have been translated to mean “Right now.”
Imagine that you and I are friends at college and you want to go on vacation in the middle of the term and I want to wait until after we’ve studied a few more weeks. We’ve been arguing for days about this with you saying, we’re ready to go now, and me saying, we’ll only be ready once we’ve finished studying. Finally, you say, “Well if you’re not ready to go now I’m going without you.” So I say,“I still think we need to study more before we go, though I might feel differently in a couple of weeks. That’s my decision. This evening I’m just not willing to go.”
Then you translate it to the rest of the world by saying: “I asked Mandlestam to go on vacation with me repeatedly, but she said she’s just not willing to go.”
In other words, France was not trying to obscure or spin its position (as Bush was the the extent to Al Qaeda’s defeat); France’s position was simply different than that of the US which was insisting on war within “days not weeks” at a time when France wanted a minimum of one or two more months for inspections. Chirac’s words were then distorted to make him seem resistant to war under and circumstances–and his offer of a compromise just a day or so later was hardly reported by anyone.
Evil Captor, I appear to have misunderstood what you meant by “false objectivity” and, to be honest, I’m still not 100% sure what you mean. I think you mean it’s when a person feels they have to be balanced and objective towards an opponent who is too deceitful to warrant such treatment. Is that right?
I think you should be as objective as possible in evaluating the news but that when you go up against an the monolithic, attack-dog conservative press with your “balanced” viewpoint, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight and you are gonna lose. As has happened a lot lately."
I don’t know what your examples are, but the liberals I read are are doing a very good job of defending their position against conservative BS. Krugman, in the Times, and several columnists in the Nation are very forthright and do not pussyfoot around. The problem is that they’re not getting as much publicity as the conservatives, b/c they’re not on TV, and they’re also numerically fewer (the big lie about “liberal media” notwithstanding).
It’s widely said that the TV pundits who supposedly represent the liberal position are deliberately chosen because they’re weak or namby pamby: so perhaps that’s what’s given you the impression.
Again, since a “balanced” assessment of the world is part of what it means to be a liberal, I don’t see how liberals can abandon their allegiance to balanced assessments. A balanced view does not require a softening of the facts as one finds them.
In any case, I thought that you and some others in this thread (including I hope the conservatives) might enjoy reading this article, What Liberal Media?.
Thanks for the cite, Mandelstam. I kind of like Alterman, as liberal pundits go. He’s smart and honest, and he’s a good writer. However, his thesis that the media tilts conservative only makes sense from his far-left POV. The media are tilt conservative, compared to Alterman.
E.g., he says, " How to explain the entire career there and on NPR of Cokie Roberts, who never met a liberal to whom she could not condescend?" My wife was friendly with Cokie in college, and I met her once, so I’ve followed her career with some interest. It’s true that she was more moderate than Sam Donaldson, when they shared a show. But, she and her whole family are dyed-in-the-wool, active, Democrats. Her father, mother, and sister have been elected Democrats, and her brother has been a big-time Democratic fund-raiser.
Similarly, Alterman says that Howard Kurtz “loves conservatives but has little time for liberals.” Yet, IIRC Kurtz is a Democrat.
Alterman’s article ignores the most influential Sunday talk show pundit, Tim Russert. I think he does an outstanding job, and I think he is quite fair. Nevertheless, Russert himself is a Democrat, who was active in the Democratic Party at one time.
Here’s a quote that sums up Alterman’s POV.
In fact,
George Will is the only conservative commentator on this show. However, from Alterman’s POV, the ABC liberal commentators aren’t ideological hard-liners, they’re just correct.
I hold the Presidency to a still higher standard – or I would like to.
When I heard the speech, I had the definite impression that he was saying that al Qaeda was not a problem anymore. I was surprised that he would say anything so ridiculous.
In reading exactly what he said, I am convinced of two things:
He was actually saying that those in jail or prison are no longer a problem. (Stating the obvious)
The speech writer either intentionally made the reference ambiguous or the sentences were poorly crafted.
I used to teach Speech and Communications. If he slipped this by in a debate, I would give him credit for being clever. If he said it in a speech, he would get low marks his lack of clarity.
Repeating an earlier post, the transcript of the speech left out three key words, which I listened to at the link provided by Manhattan. Unfortunately, the link is no longer operative. However, on the actual recording, after saying half of al Qaeda were jailed or dead, Bush said, “In either case, they’re not a problem any more.” There was no ambiguity at all.
I would say spin, and if Dowd just writes editorials, then no prob. Editorials are always filled with half-truths. That’s what makes them fun to pick apart. Sometimes I think reputable (don’t laugh) papers purposely publish obviously spun editorials so they can get a lot of angry replies to print. Maybe heat sells.
**december **: I agree that Alterman represents liberal punditry at its best. I disagree, though, that he is “far-left.” Not only is Alterman not far-left in terms of a national perspective, he’s not even far-left within the The Nation itself. (For example, during the 2000 elections some Nation columnists were pro-Nader and others pro-Gore; Alterman was in the latter camp.)
The perception that Alterman is “far-left” is clearly something that comes from your own conservative perspective. But there is also some confusion about this issue in the media in general where (as you imply) Democrats are automatically judged to be “liberals” (many Democrats these days are not at all liberals, and most Democrats in Congress/the Senate are definitely not liberals on economic issues).
Yes, Cokie Roberts is not a Republican, but that’s not in itself proof that she’s a liberal. And while I suspect that Cokie’s personal politics fit the liberal bill on some issues, her reporting reflects a slant that Alterman feels works in favor of a conservative bias in the media. (In fact, Cokie may well be an example of what Evil means by problematic “balance” b/c she tends to give both “sides” of an issue without bothering to point out when and if one side happens to be lying or distorting. Alterman argues, and I agree with him, that it’s a journalist job to point out if particular assertions that one is repeating via reporting are false or otherwise problematic.)
“Nevertheless, Russert himself is a Democrat, who was active in the Democratic Party at one time.”
This is really missing the point december. Alterman’s argument has nothing to do with who’s a registered Democrat or not. Wasn’t Russert the guy that Bush was so eager to have moderate the debates? That ought to be enough to indicate that he’s not someone who can be held up as an example of liberal bias in the media.
"However, from Alterman’s POV, the ABC liberal commentators aren’t ideological hard-liners, they’re just correct. "
Right, whereas from your point of view, no one in this example is either correct or incorrect–they’re just Democrats or Republicans. That’s why I object so strongly when you produce one OP after another alleging error or bias on the part of non-Republicans only. (Although conservatives are supposedly against identity politics, in actuality your brand of conservative outlook is riddled with identitarian thinking: the first thing you seem to consider is whether someone is a Democratic or a Republican.)
The bottom line is that sometimes pundits are not just partisan, they’re also incorrect. Alterman feels that conservative pundits are getting away with a lot of “incorrection”: falsehoods, distortions, etc. He feels that many of the non-conservative pundits–the ones who get called liberals whether they actually are or not–are generally more truthful. He also feels that some so-called liberals, such as Cokie, play into this imbalanced situation by neglecting to draw distinctions between truthful and misleading positions.
To those who haven’t read Alterman’s article: this summary doesn’t do justice to the sophisictation of his argument.