[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mandelstam * (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.)
This is exactly what I mean. By presenting both sides of an issue in your summary without examining either side’s arguments, you’re not really being objective. Real objectivity would require reporting when one side or the other is trying to get a whopper of a lie past you, or ignoring facts that are clearly germane to the issue. There’s plenty in politics that reasonable people can disagree on, plenty that’s subject to intepretation. But so often nowadays one side or the other tries to pass off what is clearly a lie as the truth, and the “false objectivity” that merely reports both sides without pointing out how distant one side is from the truth, isn’t really objective and serves no one (except the liars) well.
And I’m not talking just about pundits here, people post to discussion boards and use the same technique to seem thoughtful without really examinig the issue. Because that’s the other part of the technique’s appeal – you can sound thoughtful without being thoughtful.
You have good points, * Mandelstam *, but I take exception to one of them. Everyone who writes for The Nation is far left IMHO. I would agree that Alteman is not far far left.
Perhaps you’d like to actually respond to the Randy Spears post I alluded to, december? I have taken note of the fact that you were conspicuously absent from this thread until the conversation once again turned away from this.
Clever, and very transparent.
At this point, I’m unclear about which post you would like a response to. Please re-post the argument you’re interested in, I will take a whack at it.
BTW I’m also unclear as to who it was that scored 99[sup]th[/sup] percentile on the SATs. Are you saying that Randy Spears did? Anyhow, high SAT scores do not substitute for evidence, logic and argument. However, if high SAT scores mean one is right, then I must be right. Nuff said.
My post with the allusion is quite clear. It references the subject matter, and tells you where to find it.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want to answer, but don’t put on these false pretences, OK?
Bush’s speech contained a series of phrases that, when cut apart so as to change their antecedent references, could be distorted into giving the impression that al-Queda wouldn’t be much of a problem in the future.
What you seem to be referring to as “weasel words” are those parts of the speech which made Bush’s meaning clear. Of course you could leave those out, and give the impression that Bush said something other than what he did. You can do that with anything, and this is exactly what Dowd did. It is dishonest, just as I would be if I posted that you claimed that “weasels are mostly blue” and that “real objectivity requires ignoring facts”.
Certainly true. So Dowd’s statements about what Bush said should be given much less weight than those that accurately reflect what he said.
Bush did not say that al-Queda was no longer a threat. Dowd claimed that he did. This was a misrepresentation, and she had to resort to ideologically based distortion of the text to achieve it.
Or simply, what jsgoddess said.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - pantom, telling other people what they really think is bad form as well as dishonest. So is telling other people that they better agree with you because you got a 99 on a test. Congratulations if it really happened, and I am sure your mother is very proud of you. Others may be less inclined to fall on our faces and worship at the altar of your wonderfulness.
Shodan, you are still doing much the same thing that Dowd did, and I suspect that your motivation for exaggerating the extent of her distortion as just as “ideologically based.” The question I have for you though is why bother critiquing someone else for a willingness to depart from an ideal standard of objectivity if one is not willing to hold oneself to that standard? (And, btw, you never answered my first question.)
december" “Everyone who writes for The Nation is far left IMHO. I would agree that Alte[r]man is not far far left.”
Well, since Alterman writes for the Nation how do we characterize him if we’re to follow your prescription. According to your dictum on the Nation, is de facto “far left.” Yet I’ve explained that there are differences within the Nation’s liberal spectrum. So does that make Alterman? Far left minus?
As I said above, one’s own political perceptions are bound to shape where one believes others fall on a political spectrum. That said, one can at least try to get hold of some kind of reliable basis of comparison.
To me it seems absurd to suggest that anyone who is willing to urge others to vote for Al Gore is “far left.” At the very least someone in the “far left” ought to be a socialist, which Alterman is not.
As self-styled liberals most people who write for the Nation are, in my view, simply on the left end of the liberal spectrum. And I’d place the liberal spectrum in the left and center of the United States political spectrum at large. As individuals, I’d place Gore and Clinton dead center on most issues of the larger spectrum (in other words to right of the liberal position on some issues and slightly to the left on a few key social issues such as gay rights.) I’d also say that Bush the candidate ran his election just to the right of this centrist position but has turned out to be much further right: solidly in the neocon camp (which I don’t like to call “far right” even though I think you could make a case for that on certain issues).
My justification for this analysis is both historical and empirical. If you look at what the majority of Americans believe/want on issues from social security, taxation, the environment, education down to their position on having wanted UN collaboration in the war on Iraq, you will find the center as I’ve described it. Although it’s true that American opinion has been drifting rightward since the 1970s, and continues to do so, in such a context it’s pretty silly, IMO, to describe writers for the Nation as “far left.” To do so is either to omit the center entirely from one’s discourse and/or, as you may wish to do, to force oneself to adopt a rather bizarre language in which you’ll end up having to categorize some people as “far, far, far, right” and others as “far left and a bit.”
If you must do that, I’d rather it be far, far away from the SDMB where there are already far enough problems getting people from different political standpoints to see eye to eye. Since you are a pretty conservative person, and you find Alterman reasonable, how far left (or far left - 1) is he really likely to be, in any case?
'tWould be a far, far better thing to have done than you have ever done before…
Evil, glad we now understand each other. May I suggest a change of phrase? I think more people would get your point if you referred to it as “false balance” and then made clear that what you mean is that true balance has to include a measure of objective analysis–so that if one side is actually lying and the other telling the truth it isn’t either balanced or objective to present them as though they were two equally valid positions. By calling this “false objectivity” you seem to be making a different kind of point.
Sorry for the garbling of and typos in that post which didn’t get properly edited due to my being in a hurry only to find problems with the board.
I just wanted to make clear that I didn’t mean to say that the kind of very middle-of-the-road pro-gay rights position that Clinton had was to left of the liberal spectrum. What I meant was that it was to the left of the dead center.
If you mean that it is unfair for me to accuse pantom of saying that weasels are blue and that objectivity means ignoring facts, yes, I am doing so as a rhetorical device. I am giving examples of what we would both agree is an unfair quote, and hoping that he will see the parallels with the unfair quote created by Dowd.
If you are claiming that Dowd accurately quoted the sense of Bush’s speech, and that I am wrong to claim otherwise, you are contradicting yourself when you posted as follows:
Which seems to imply that you found her quotation to be inaccurate at best, and tending to lead to comparisons of her work with charlatans - or, as I would have phrased it, other charlatans.
So from that post, it seems that you agree that Dowd’s characterization of the speech was inaccurate, and that december had made a legitimate point (since, if he had not, “we wouldn’t be having this discussion”).
But now you have changed your mind, and feel that I am distorting what Dowd said. I disagree. By removing what pantom refers to as “weasel words” and what jsgoddess and I would refer to as qualifiers, Dowd has made it sound as if Bush had said something he did not.
Which question is that?
Your first question in the thread was a thinly veiled insult to december. You are correct in thinking that I have no intention of dignifying it with a response. It was also followed by a couple of posts to the effect that life was too short for you to get involved with this thread, so I am not sure that responses to you would not be wasted.
If you are talking about your allegation that the Wall Street Journal and Fox are equally guilty of misquotation, I did respond:
december has done his research and provided an example. If you have no response except to try to change the subject from left-wing to right-wing bias in the media, you are going to have to do more than throw out a general accusation and hope no one notices that it is no more than that.
My first reply got eaten by the hamsters, so here we go again:
Shodan:
Direct your outrage and your ad hominems elsewhere. This is the third time I’ve witnessed this brand of brazen stonewalling of a post that directly contradicts the OP’s ideology. The other two times it was left-wingers who were guilty, just in case you’re wondering.
Changing the subject is a time-honored way of attempting to win an argument; just look at the ever changing reasons for the war on Iraq, for one excellent example.
Allegedly, december opened this thread to discuss a possible distortion of the President’s words in a speech. Confronted with a rigorous and well-researched post by Randy Spears on the rhetorical tricks being used, he ignores it. Challenged on ignoring this post, he ignores the challenge. Finally forced to confront it, he stonewalls. It’s all there in black and white for you to see.
Obviously, the real reason for this thread wasn’t to discuss the column in question; it was to direct the thread until he could arrive at the conclusion he wanted, which was to question the integrity of Maureen Dowd, her employers, and the folks who give out the Pulitzer Prize: a small subset of the Eastern Liberal Establishment that he obviously despises, in other words.
The way he did it was quite a virtuoso performance, I must say. Totally dishonest and utterly transparent, but a virtuouso performance, nevertheless.
That word “allegedly” shows that you were smart enough to figure out that the OP was really about starvation in Zimbabwe.
I’m still waiting for you to reproduce whatever it is from 2 pages ago that you want a response to. Do you know how to copy text? Highlight what you want to copy and click “copy.” Then click on the spot you want to paste it to and click on “paste.” These two commands can be found in the “Edit” menu.
Shodan, you may find it fitting to stonewall here, but I am quite satisfied that if someone who lies near the center of the political spectrum looks at Bush’s speech, they’ll get the impression that he meant to say Al-Qaeda isn’t much of a problem any more. That’s the impression the speech gives to those who aren’t wearing ideological blinkers. Your attempts to share those blinkers with everyone will not succeed, at least on this board.
Oh, pantom, that goes beyond ‘weak’ into ‘pathetic’.
Are you hanging your entire argumentative hat on RandySpears’ analysis of the Bush speech, and considering that it makes your case? If so, you may want to reconsider your position, since the analysis as presented is neither rigorous nor well-argued (sorry, Randy).
I didn’t address it earlier, since it seemed too weak to bother with. Perhaps a brief analysis will make it clear why I consider it so.
So RandySpears begins by admitting that the quoting distorts the orginal argument. Not a good beginning for an argument you (pantom) seem to consider so conclusive.
Notice, first of all, that the examples quoted do not match the alleged rhetorical structure of the Bush speech in relevant part.
The quoted examples are triads, designed to create “rhythmic eloquence”. Each contains three structural elements, in succession, and referring in each case to an immediate antecedent. The “malice towards none” quote by Lincoln does not include the referent, which is “us” in “let us strive on to finish…” In each instance, the referent is quite clear, and is either part of the sentence, or immediately precedes or follows the triad.
Randy gives no examples where three statements are connected in such a way as to overrule a qualifier, and cause the concluding statement to refer to the first statement of the triad.
Here is where Randy is simply wrong.
Note the use of the word “either” in the President’s conclusion. This implies that there are no more than two cases being dealt with. Which matches exactly with the two cases contained in the previous statement - either dead, or in jail. Notice that it does not match with the alleged triadic structure of the whole passage, which offers four cases - on the run, decimated, dead, or in jail. If the President had referred to terrorists and al-Queda in general, who fit into one or more of the listed categories, he would have said “in any case”. The fact that he said “either” case means that he was referring narrowly to the two possible cases listed only in the previous statement, and therefore he was referring only to the terrorists mentioned in the previous statement - who are either dead, or in jail. This is reinforced by the common usages of English, as well as by all the examples of rhetorical triads RandySpears mentions. All those statements refer to something immediately preceding or immediately following the triad - just as Bush did.
RandySpears is confusing the rhetorical structure of a triad with the even more common rhetorical device of stating a conclusion, and then giving the underlying evidence that leads to that conclusion. Thus, Bush states that “al-Queda is on the run”. He believes this to be true because
[ul]
[li]They are “slowly but surely being decimated” - which, as I posted before, means “being reduced by 10%”, figures which are backed up rather closely by those cited elsewhere in this thread.[/li][li]That many of their leadership are no longer a threat - because they fall into one of the two classes listed, either dead or in jail.[/ul]RandySpears’ analysis doesn’t hold water. He is falling victim to the error of arguing in a circle - assuming that Bush must have said what Dowd misquotes him as saying, and then giving false examples, ignoring the plain sense of the word “either”, and generally misconstruing. [/li]
As I said, neither rigorous nor well-argued. If that is what you found so convincingly refuting, I suggest you are allowing partisan bias to lead you down the path to error.
A failing we are all subject to at one time or another.
You amaze me! You seem to hold the view (as I’ve understood it) that selective quoting to alter an argument is dishonest. Why then would you quote me like so:
And embark on a long argument built on a claim that this part of the Bush speech does not use a triad for rythmic eloquence.
When in reality my post read like so:
(My italics, bolding)
The parts in italics are not present in your quote. The bolded parts are the ones with special pertinence to your post.
You could now argue that what Shodan is guilty of, Dowd is guilty of also. But then you would not pay attention to the formal rules of quoting. I’ll cite a part of my earlier post on this about the Dowd quote:
(My bolding)
That is what you’ve gone and done, Shodan. Altering my post without indicating it with the use of periods or in any other way.
Why it’s so horrible that I wish december would start a thread about it.
Shodan: You seem to think that it’s somehow contradictory for me to recognize problems with Dowd’s way of editing Bush’s speech, while also recognizing problems with your way of characterizing the extent of Dowd’s error. There is not. When it comes right down to it, she exaggerated and you’re exaggerating. (My comment has nothing to do with your comments to pantom about the color of weasels, btw)
If you are talking about your allegation that the Wall Street Journal and Fox are equally guilty of misquotation, I did respond: december has done his research and provided an example. If you have no response except to try to change the subject from left-wing to right-wing bias in the media, you are going to have to do more than throw out a general accusation and hope no one notices that it is no more than that. "
That was the question to which I was referring: i.e., "Do you really think that this kind of thing…doesn’t happen every day of the week in some place like the WSJ, or on Fox, or what have you?"
Your calling such a question a changing of the subject is proof positive that a thread like this can be an utter waste of time. Why is that? Well december is one of a very few posters who bothers to start an OP simply because he (actually, Andrew Sullivan) has a complaint about a particular op-ed in the NYT. So far as I know, there is no poster who feels it worthwhile to start an OP based on individual columns from the WSJ op-ed page. So if the ground-rules for such threads mean that looking at the wider context, and beyond self-serving partisan divides, constitute a changing of the subject, then we’d all be better off mowing our lawns.
Please note:
At least one poster who reads it everyday jshore has alleged that Dowd’s error is extremely mild by comparison to what is said and done on the pages of the WSJ.
As least one poster (myself) who reads Dowd on a regular basis has said that, whatever else may be Dowd’s merits as a political satirist, Dowd is not in the habit of distorting quotations: she is nothing like an Ann Coulter.
Several posters have offered opinions and/or testimony as to the Bush administration’s penchant for “spin.” (To my mind Fleischer’s egregious insinuation that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11, which I posted a few times back in March or so, were the most glaring example.)
You are entitled to dismiss these claims as irrelevancies and hammer away at Maureen Dowd’s single pecadillo, as though it were itself proof of something of some consequence. Though in doing so, I’m not sure what your point is–except, as I’ve already suggested, to show that you are at least prone to exaggeration as the writer under discussion.
This thread, IMO, has become a waste of time–though I will say, in fairness, that december himself isn’t the main reason why.
I didn’t really need any further proof of lack of rigor in your arguments, but you have supplied it nonetheless.
You allege that my analysis falls apart because it is based on the belief that the Bush speech does not use a triad for rhythmic eloquence.
The actual quote is as follows:
Emphasis added.
No wonder you don’t understand how the Dowd misquotation was misleading. You seem to be having troubles following what sentences refer to what.
When I say “quoted examples” immediately following some quoted examples, I am referring to the quoted examples. Whether or not Bush is using triads for the purpose of "rhythmic eloquence in his speech (he is not) has no effect on the refutation of your analysis.
Your analysis is simply wrong. The quoted section of Bush’s speech is not a triad (since there are four elements, not three - on the run/decimated/dead/in jail), and is not designed to cause the word "they’ to refer to al-Queda in general, but only to those of its leaders who are dead or in jail.
Which is why Dowd had to cut apart the quotation. She removed key qualifiers and the obvious referents, as well as changing the rhetorical structure of the passage so as to change the meaning.
There’s no way to sugar-coat it, RandySpears. The clear sense of the text is other than you claim it to be. Others (manhattan, Payton’s Servant, even Mandelstam) recognize this. You apparently do not. It doesn’t matter. You are still wrong.
Sorry about that.
Then I will respond to your question, for the third and final time.
Prove it. Let’s have a cite, let’s have a link, let’s have something other than an unsupported allegation. You claim that it happens every day, so let’s have a quote from today showing that you are not just blowing smoke up the ass of the Wall Street Journal or FOX.
If you won’t put your money where your mouth is, damn straight it’s a waste.
Especially when I am trying to argue with people who keep posting that they are opting out of a thread - and then come back and post a half-dozen more times.
That’s a whole lot of text Shodan. Still i can’t seem to find the place where you adress the fact that when you quoted me, you edited out two paragraphs of text. Without indicating you had done so.
That’s what you did, right? While you at the same time seem to claim that you find such behaviour dishonest? Are you gonna say something about that or just leave us hanging?
I’ll repost the passage if you’re having trouble finding it:
When what I had posted in reality read:
(Italics removed by you in your quote)
So what happened to those two paragraphs? Did they just disappear through magic? Would you rather see we talk about something else?
