OVER A YEAR AGO, I tossed off a little rant about Keith Olbermann, to whose narcissism I am severely allergic. I never expected it to be my most popular post of all time. But so it is.
Every few months some crazed Olbermann-loather (like myself) pops out of the woodwork, googles "Keith Olbermann sucks," finds my post (it is currently the eighth-ranking Google result for that search) and, if I am especially lucky, leaves a rant in the comments section that far outshines my original.
Many of these commenters are rightist lunatics who would hate me in real life. But our Olberloathing brings us together--in this ephemeral place, in this one magical moment. Thank you, Keith.
Showing posts with label The Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Media. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Paul Krugman Is Driving Me Insane
We get it, Krugman. You, with all your pre-recession Chicken Littling, were right. Must feel pre-tty fri-ckin sweet.
Oh, and thanks a lot, Nobel Committee. You've created a monster. Now everything he says, he says with the arrogance and the imprimatur of a *Nobel-prize winning* economist.
Ever since his ultimate vindication--the sky, and the Dow, have indeed fallen--Krug feels justified, if not downright giddy, shitting all over everything for all time. He has particular contempt for Bernanke's 'green shoots' comment, on which he rained disdain in two columns plus a blog post.
Green shoots? The phrase itself sickens Scroogeman, with its overtones of fresh hope and delicate vernal regrowth. Blech! Don't you just want to rip those shoots right out?
He has become the world's most cantankerous groundhog, scrambling back into his underground lair with joyous contempt. Winter will be here forEVAH HAhahaHA!
"Even in the Great Depression," he taunts in another post, "things didn't [Montgomery Burns fingers-tapping gesture] head down [moohoohahaha] all the time." Naturally this was on a week when things were looking up, and any buzz needed to be promptly smited.
If we do have Depression II, imagine what it will do for Krugman. On the one hand, the devastation of 25% unemployment. But on the other, he called it!
Oh, and thanks a lot, Nobel Committee. You've created a monster. Now everything he says, he says with the arrogance and the imprimatur of a *Nobel-prize winning* economist.
Ever since his ultimate vindication--the sky, and the Dow, have indeed fallen--Krug feels justified, if not downright giddy, shitting all over everything for all time. He has particular contempt for Bernanke's 'green shoots' comment, on which he rained disdain in two columns plus a blog post.
Green shoots? The phrase itself sickens Scroogeman, with its overtones of fresh hope and delicate vernal regrowth. Blech! Don't you just want to rip those shoots right out?
He has become the world's most cantankerous groundhog, scrambling back into his underground lair with joyous contempt. Winter will be here forEVAH HAhahaHA!
"Even in the Great Depression," he taunts in another post, "things didn't [Montgomery Burns fingers-tapping gesture] head down [moohoohahaha] all the time." Naturally this was on a week when things were looking up, and any buzz needed to be promptly smited.
If we do have Depression II, imagine what it will do for Krugman. On the one hand, the devastation of 25% unemployment. But on the other, he called it!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama Doubt, Multipliers
I kind of love when people freak out about Obama. The cycles of rising hope and creeping doubt are as predictable as moon phases, and it's fun to watch columnists and pundits churn through another cranky round of PMS, knowing Obama will stay steady and not give a fuck.
A glance at NYT op-eds tells the tale. There's MoDowd making a point of roughing up the president, as she does periodically to prove her crush is not blinding. David Brooks' honeymoon is over--but then he cycles through the Obemotions so fast that no one cares anymore. Paul Krugman secretly resents Obama; read between the lines. (Is it because he's not the president's favorite bearded elfconomist?)
Doubts about Obama have a strong multiplier effect--which is what a stimulus plan is supposed to have. In addition to following the Obamalove tides, a recession-era amusement which I invite you to enjoy is watching Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and his frat brothers in both houses contorting into pretzels trying not to ratify Keynesian economic theory and still avoid blame for national ruin.
Pence cried about the stimulus plan last week, "It included wasteful government spending that has nothing to do with creating jobs!!!!" (My quadruple exclamation.)
Conservatives are into listing things in the stimulus plan that they think are ludicrous. From a CBS News column: "Shipyards get $100 million in handouts; $400 million is diverted to 'farm ownership loans.' [Yeah, whatever that means.] Another $200 million goes to computer centers at community colleges... NASA and the National Science Foundation receive $2.3 billion."
Now I'm not going to go into how farm-ownership, community colleges and science are sort of hate-proof. Because that really isn't the point.
The real point is, it's a stimulus plan. You spend money on stuff; that's how it works. But Republicans pull this disingenuous shit, like, Condoms! schools! art! (ew, art is grossest of all)--what does any of that have to do with creating jobs?
Government spending on any damn thing creates jobs. It's money going out into the economy, buying goods and services and so necessitating hiring.
The hirees then have income to spend, even if they earn that income testing condoms or, worse, educating children. And that money goes out into the economy => more demand for goods and services => more hiring, more income => yet more demand for goods and services, and so on. The alternative is to invite Depression II by allowing the downward spiral of decreased consumer spending and decreased income to continue unabated. And there you have the Clebilicious Pocket Keynes.
The problem for Republicans is that if they acknowledge government spending stimulates the economy in this way, they forsake everything they ever said about the crystal clear purity of the free market. (They also hate anything they can call 'entitlement.' Poor people act so fucking entitled.)
Their pretzely solution is to pretend tax cuts are a stimulus, because tax cuts get the Reagan stamp of approval. This fails on two counts. Republicans get caught acknowledging the concept of economic stimulus, and they also promote an inferior stimulus mechanism. Spending is what stimulates the economy; only a portion of tax cuts become spending, not the whole. When government spends directly, all of it (duh) becomes spending. It's like not believing in birth control but deciding to use some stupid contraceptive sponge just in case.
A glance at NYT op-eds tells the tale. There's MoDowd making a point of roughing up the president, as she does periodically to prove her crush is not blinding. David Brooks' honeymoon is over--but then he cycles through the Obemotions so fast that no one cares anymore. Paul Krugman secretly resents Obama; read between the lines. (Is it because he's not the president's favorite bearded elfconomist?)
Doubts about Obama have a strong multiplier effect--which is what a stimulus plan is supposed to have. In addition to following the Obamalove tides, a recession-era amusement which I invite you to enjoy is watching Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and his frat brothers in both houses contorting into pretzels trying not to ratify Keynesian economic theory and still avoid blame for national ruin.
Pence cried about the stimulus plan last week, "It included wasteful government spending that has nothing to do with creating jobs!!!!" (My quadruple exclamation.)
Conservatives are into listing things in the stimulus plan that they think are ludicrous. From a CBS News column: "Shipyards get $100 million in handouts; $400 million is diverted to 'farm ownership loans.' [Yeah, whatever that means.] Another $200 million goes to computer centers at community colleges... NASA and the National Science Foundation receive $2.3 billion."
Now I'm not going to go into how farm-ownership, community colleges and science are sort of hate-proof. Because that really isn't the point.
The real point is, it's a stimulus plan. You spend money on stuff; that's how it works. But Republicans pull this disingenuous shit, like, Condoms! schools! art! (ew, art is grossest of all)--what does any of that have to do with creating jobs?
Government spending on any damn thing creates jobs. It's money going out into the economy, buying goods and services and so necessitating hiring.
The hirees then have income to spend, even if they earn that income testing condoms or, worse, educating children. And that money goes out into the economy => more demand for goods and services => more hiring, more income => yet more demand for goods and services, and so on. The alternative is to invite Depression II by allowing the downward spiral of decreased consumer spending and decreased income to continue unabated. And there you have the Clebilicious Pocket Keynes.
The problem for Republicans is that if they acknowledge government spending stimulates the economy in this way, they forsake everything they ever said about the crystal clear purity of the free market. (They also hate anything they can call 'entitlement.' Poor people act so fucking entitled.)
Their pretzely solution is to pretend tax cuts are a stimulus, because tax cuts get the Reagan stamp of approval. This fails on two counts. Republicans get caught acknowledging the concept of economic stimulus, and they also promote an inferior stimulus mechanism. Spending is what stimulates the economy; only a portion of tax cuts become spending, not the whole. When government spends directly, all of it (duh) becomes spending. It's like not believing in birth control but deciding to use some stupid contraceptive sponge just in case.
And about that other downward spiral, in Obama confidence, I agree with Bob Herbert that Obama is underestimated all too often. I think his stock still has room to climb.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Cable News Staggers Back to Work Hungover
POOR cable news. They thought the ratings could go up and up and never come down. The election ratings orgy is over and Keith Olbermann (who bragged his numbers throughout) faces a self-esteem crash. It's heartbreaking to see CNN and MSNBC running Change ads, wishing the magic could never die, vying to be The Official Network of the Obama Presidency.
There have been some happenings besides Rachel Maddow's endless nationwide quinceaƱera. David Gregory's "Race to the White House" show has sunsetted, and the resulting vacuum has mercifully not been filled with some sad new iteration of a Dan Abrams show. As Gregory heads off to meet some press, the open time slot goes to...
Dav
id Shuster! Despite the yowwing mouth movements and extreme enunciation that sometimes make him seem like a hamming "Daily Show" correspondent, Shuster appears to be a competent journalist. It was a shame when he got bludgeoned for remarking that Chelsea Clinton was being pimped by the Clinton campaign. I feel more sorry for Chelsea Clinton than just about anybody (them? as parents? deargod), and she didn't deserve to be likened to a streetwalker, certainly not by a serious reporter. But all the same, she was, in fact, being pimped by the Clinton campaign.
FROM the ongoing reality show that is "Cable News Anchors: Race to the Bottom," I give you: Rick Sanchez. Wow this guy's a douche. Giant-headed, charming douche, but an incontrovertible douche nonetheless. He's like the high school math teacher slash wrestling coach who desperately needs the kids to think he's down. ("I'm on MySpace, Facebook, Twitter...")
In an im
passioned onscreen and online commentary this week about the war in Gaza, Sanchez decried the use of religion as cover for violence. Except he said it like this: "You know who else thought it was cool to torture and kill because it was God’s will? Hitler."
Dag, Rick. You blew my mind.
CNN is resting assured that the whole "unbiased" brand looks good on them, as confirmed by Campbell Brown's new show "No Bias, No Bull." (Isn't that like an implied cussword right in the title?) I don't understand how Brown got the reputation for being the tough bitch interviewer. I've mostly seen her being bland and smiley. Here's how I would be:
Clebbie Polwick: Why does Anderson Cooper need to anchor "360" from disaster zones?
What CNN Would Say: To lend him gravitas?
CP: But does he really contribute any reporting? Nic Robertson and Christiane Amanpour and the Scottish-sounding dude have it covered, right? So he just seems like a lightweight deadweight then. And he fucks up his teleprompter reading more than usual.
WCNNWS: He's, like, in the thick of things. He's a Reporter.
CP: Okay, fine. Have him on the Gaza border. But then for the love of Christ, can't somebody else be at the anchor desk in the studio?
WCNNWS: But what would AC do from the Gaza border if not moderate discussions about Roland Burris? He can't just stand there with his...mic...in his hand.
CP: So you think it makes sense for him to be asking Gloria Borger and Joe Johns asinine time-delayed questions via satellite about matters whose pettiness stands in stark relief to the bloody crisis going on right behind him?
WCNNWS: Look at you! I'm gonna start calling you Little Campbell!
CP: You know he said John Podesta when he meant Leon Panetta, right? He asked Gloria Borger about John Podesta being named head of the CIA.
WCNNS: Do not take Levitra if you take nitrates for chest pain.
WELL it's going to be lonesome out on the Perilous Planet trail for AC Slater if Gupta becomes surgeon general. Like that guy needed a resume-booster. ("Yeah, investigative journalist, neurosurgeon...did I mention I can bench two thirty-five?") Okay, my secret theory? Obama is having to think up like a LOT a lot of people to name for administration jobs. So picture him and Rahmbo, up late, getting a little punchy, and Rahm's like, oh shit, who for SG? And Barack's like: SG! Sanjay Gupta! And Rahm's like: that's hilarious! Let's fuckin do it!
There have been some happenings besides Rachel Maddow's endless nationwide quinceaƱera. David Gregory's "Race to the White House" show has sunsetted, and the resulting vacuum has mercifully not been filled with some sad new iteration of a Dan Abrams show. As Gregory heads off to meet some press, the open time slot goes to...
Dav
id Shuster! Despite the yowwing mouth movements and extreme enunciation that sometimes make him seem like a hamming "Daily Show" correspondent, Shuster appears to be a competent journalist. It was a shame when he got bludgeoned for remarking that Chelsea Clinton was being pimped by the Clinton campaign. I feel more sorry for Chelsea Clinton than just about anybody (them? as parents? deargod), and she didn't deserve to be likened to a streetwalker, certainly not by a serious reporter. But all the same, she was, in fact, being pimped by the Clinton campaign.FROM the ongoing reality show that is "Cable News Anchors: Race to the Bottom," I give you: Rick Sanchez. Wow this guy's a douche. Giant-headed, charming douche, but an incontrovertible douche nonetheless. He's like the high school math teacher slash wrestling coach who desperately needs the kids to think he's down. ("I'm on MySpace, Facebook, Twitter...")
In an im
passioned onscreen and online commentary this week about the war in Gaza, Sanchez decried the use of religion as cover for violence. Except he said it like this: "You know who else thought it was cool to torture and kill because it was God’s will? Hitler." Dag, Rick. You blew my mind.
CNN is resting assured that the whole "unbiased" brand looks good on them, as confirmed by Campbell Brown's new show "No Bias, No Bull." (Isn't that like an implied cussword right in the title?) I don't understand how Brown got the reputation for being the tough bitch interviewer. I've mostly seen her being bland and smiley. Here's how I would be:
Clebbie Polwick: Why does Anderson Cooper need to anchor "360" from disaster zones?
What CNN Would Say: To lend him gravitas?
CP: But does he really contribute any reporting? Nic Robertson and Christiane Amanpour and the Scottish-sounding dude have it covered, right? So he just seems like a lightweight deadweight then. And he fucks up his teleprompter reading more than usual.
WCNNWS: He's, like, in the thick of things. He's a Reporter.
CP: Okay, fine. Have him on the Gaza border. But then for the love of Christ, can't somebody else be at the anchor desk in the studio?
WCNNWS: But what would AC do from the Gaza border if not moderate discussions about Roland Burris? He can't just stand there with his...mic...in his hand.
CP: So you think it makes sense for him to be asking Gloria Borger and Joe Johns asinine time-delayed questions via satellite about matters whose pettiness stands in stark relief to the bloody crisis going on right behind him?
WCNNWS: Look at you! I'm gonna start calling you Little Campbell!
CP: You know he said John Podesta when he meant Leon Panetta, right? He asked Gloria Borger about John Podesta being named head of the CIA.
WCNNS: Do not take Levitra if you take nitrates for chest pain.
WELL it's going to be lonesome out on the Perilous Planet trail for AC Slater if Gupta becomes surgeon general. Like that guy needed a resume-booster. ("Yeah, investigative journalist, neurosurgeon...did I mention I can bench two thirty-five?") Okay, my secret theory? Obama is having to think up like a LOT a lot of people to name for administration jobs. So picture him and Rahmbo, up late, getting a little punchy, and Rahm's like, oh shit, who for SG? And Barack's like: SG! Sanjay Gupta! And Rahm's like: that's hilarious! Let's fuckin do it!Tuesday, October 21, 2008
90% of Me Is Cable News
(with apologies to Gwen McCrae)
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
I want to hear Gene Robinson's baritone
Without gettin weak in the knees
And look Gergen in the eyes
Without swooning like that chick Jessi
I wanna be the kind of viewer
Who knows how to use
My snazzy Comcast remote
To end these cable blues
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
Norah O'Donnell's perky
Campbell Brown is too
But Candy Crowley reassures me
Reporters can be uncute
Maddow she's infectious
But my best pundit's always Chris
I never thought it possible
That I could be controlled like this
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me, baby
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
(You know why!)
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
I want to hear Gene Robinson's baritone
Without gettin weak in the knees
And look Gergen in the eyes
Without swooning like that chick Jessi
I wanna be the kind of viewer
Who knows how to use
My snazzy Comcast remote
To end these cable blues
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
Norah O'Donnell's perky
Campbell Brown is too
But Candy Crowley reassures me
Reporters can be uncute
Maddow she's infectious
But my best pundit's always Chris
I never thought it possible
That I could be controlled like this
How can I do the things I wanna do
When 90% of me, baby
Is cable news
My heart no longer does what I want it to
(You know why!)
Because 90% of me
Is cable news
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Anderson Cooper Lets ME Decide?
Really, Anderson? Me? Wittle ol me?
Run the concept by me one more time. Okay, you're going to give me the facts. Got it. And then--I'm on my own? Your gentle eyes are telling me I can do it. I can make up my own mind.
Are you sure you want to trust me with this awesome responsibility? I may not be the brightest bulb in the--really? Okay. Your faith in my ability to judge makes me feel so...big. You respect me; I can respect myself.
I get it. You trust me. Your compassionate face telegraphs that trust. You believe it is your job to furnish me with information, and that we share a sacred pact as reporter and reportee. That pact demands that I reach my own conclusions. Yeah. I get it. It's beautiful.
You're not an opinionater like some other people on some other networks. You're not going to *talk down* to me and *hand down opinions* like proclamations from on high. That's so belittling. Our relationship is much richer and more real. It digs deeper than that.
Wait, Anderson. Anderson. I said I get it. I totally get it. You're going to report, I'm going to decide. We settled this, I'm into it. Anderson, please: you're saying "Let viewers make up their own minds" as often as "Digging Deeper" and "Best Political Team on TV". Oh my god, is this a thing? Is objectivity the new CNN brand?
I...Wow. I thought you believed in me. I thought we had something.
You know what, I don't need your "Make up your own mind"® any more than your smoldering glances or your on-assignment gay shirt. I've made up my mind. I'm leaving for Jim Lehrer. Shit, he's not on. Or Keith Olbermann, he confirms my beliefs. Oh wait I can't fucking stand him. Okay, AC Slater, I'm staying for tonight. But this is temporary because it is so over. I mean it this time.
Run the concept by me one more time. Okay, you're going to give me the facts. Got it. And then--I'm on my own? Your gentle eyes are telling me I can do it. I can make up my own mind.
Are you sure you want to trust me with this awesome responsibility? I may not be the brightest bulb in the--really? Okay. Your faith in my ability to judge makes me feel so...big. You respect me; I can respect myself.
I get it. You trust me. Your compassionate face telegraphs that trust. You believe it is your job to furnish me with information, and that we share a sacred pact as reporter and reportee. That pact demands that I reach my own conclusions. Yeah. I get it. It's beautiful.
You're not an opinionater like some other people on some other networks. You're not going to *talk down* to me and *hand down opinions* like proclamations from on high. That's so belittling. Our relationship is much richer and more real. It digs deeper than that.
Wait, Anderson. Anderson. I said I get it. I totally get it. You're going to report, I'm going to decide. We settled this, I'm into it. Anderson, please: you're saying "Let viewers make up their own minds" as often as "Digging Deeper" and "Best Political Team on TV". Oh my god, is this a thing? Is objectivity the new CNN brand?
I...Wow. I thought you believed in me. I thought we had something.
You know what, I don't need your "Make up your own mind"® any more than your smoldering glances or your on-assignment gay shirt. I've made up my mind. I'm leaving for Jim Lehrer. Shit, he's not on. Or Keith Olbermann, he confirms my beliefs. Oh wait I can't fucking stand him. Okay, AC Slater, I'm staying for tonight. But this is temporary because it is so over. I mean it this time.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Keith Olbermann Still Sucks
Guess what. Keith Olbermann still sucks. His suckiness was noted by yours truly, rather controversially, in a 2006 column. Olbermann's fan club called for my hide. (I shat on Anderson Cooper in the column too, but nobody minded that.) Said one Keithite:
I cried. No I didn't. Yes I did. No I didn't. Yes I did.
Olbermann's popularity has only grown as his show has matoored. But I still can't fucking stand him. His self-congratulatory attempts to conceal his ego are worse than the ego itself. False modesty has no place in a news show because a news show is not about you in the first place. And I maintain that being a generalized smarty pants does not qualify a person for an anchor chair.
To lefty people who want their own Bill O'Reilly, I say, like Demetri Martin, let's never hang out. I know news can never be perfectly objective, but it's something to shoot for, isn't it? Tom Brokaw may get a bit fuddyduddy, but doesn't he seem to have a sacred notion of The News that deserves respect?
The NBC News brand has been tarnished by the lefty flavoring of MSNBC, and Brokaw and Brian Williams have seemed to me visibly resentful when appearing on the Chris-n-Keith primary and convention shows. (I like to read a lot into things. Don't dispute me; I'll cry.)
Which brings me to Rachel Maddow. We all know she's irresistible. That much makeup and still butchy: props to you, girl. But when I watched the debut of the Rachel Maddow Show on Monday, I felt like no, no, no, no, no. First of all, I don't want Rache to be the Palin with Olbs on top of the ticket. She's better than that. And second, this just reinforces the whole icky team-think MSNBC-as-left-Fox thing.
Maddow, you lovely, witty lesbian, I must warn you that there was another charming young woman on MSNBC's fresh new face track. She subbed for Olbermann then got her own show. Her name was Alison Stewart and I loved her from back in the day on MTV News. She's on the radio now. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
After years wandering the desert alone with my Olbermann loathing, it's admittedly satisfying to see his star falling a bit. The New York Times reported Sunday that pleasantly boring (though sometimes inadequate) David Gregory will be scooching Olbermann out of the anchor chair for election coverage.
Call me crazy, but I still prefer Chris Matthews.
seriously, i kind of feel sorry for her. i guess not every progressive can have the brains to be grateful to Olbermann. she's a sad little commentator, isn't she? pitiful.
I cried. No I didn't. Yes I did. No I didn't. Yes I did.
Olbermann's popularity has only grown as his show has matoored. But I still can't fucking stand him. His self-congratulatory attempts to conceal his ego are worse than the ego itself. False modesty has no place in a news show because a news show is not about you in the first place. And I maintain that being a generalized smarty pants does not qualify a person for an anchor chair.
To lefty people who want their own Bill O'Reilly, I say, like Demetri Martin, let's never hang out. I know news can never be perfectly objective, but it's something to shoot for, isn't it? Tom Brokaw may get a bit fuddyduddy, but doesn't he seem to have a sacred notion of The News that deserves respect?
The NBC News brand has been tarnished by the lefty flavoring of MSNBC, and Brokaw and Brian Williams have seemed to me visibly resentful when appearing on the Chris-n-Keith primary and convention shows. (I like to read a lot into things. Don't dispute me; I'll cry.)
Which brings me to Rachel Maddow. We all know she's irresistible. That much makeup and still butchy: props to you, girl. But when I watched the debut of the Rachel Maddow Show on Monday, I felt like no, no, no, no, no. First of all, I don't want Rache to be the Palin with Olbs on top of the ticket. She's better than that. And second, this just reinforces the whole icky team-think MSNBC-as-left-Fox thing.
Maddow, you lovely, witty lesbian, I must warn you that there was another charming young woman on MSNBC's fresh new face track. She subbed for Olbermann then got her own show. Her name was Alison Stewart and I loved her from back in the day on MTV News. She's on the radio now. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
After years wandering the desert alone with my Olbermann loathing, it's admittedly satisfying to see his star falling a bit. The New York Times reported Sunday that pleasantly boring (though sometimes inadequate) David Gregory will be scooching Olbermann out of the anchor chair for election coverage.
Call me crazy, but I still prefer Chris Matthews.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
I Am Not a Parasite
I heard Michael Pollan participating in a panel the other night. This post, however, is not about Michael Pollan and my sometime obsession therewith. So do keep reading.
MP was asked the old standby handwringing question about whether "traditional" media will die. He answered with a cool wave of the hand, saying the old, gray media institutions will remain necessary and adapt to the times, and I'd guess he's right about that.
In such discussions, blogs are the cool new kid in town. Alluring, but scary. Bloggie might let you hang out with him--or he might kick your ass just for fun.
But old media has nothing to fear, said MP. Blogs, he explained, are fundamentally parasitic. They don't report, they merely commentate. Nothing against commentating, that's all well and good. The point is blogs will always need solid media institutions for their raw material. The point is they are not a threat.
I know he's right about this, because it's the prevailing wisdom in media commentary circles and prevailing wisdom is never wrong. I've done my fair share of fact-checking for Columbia Journalism Review and am familiar with the old media panic arc: from freakout (We're all gonna die!) to recovery (No, wait, we are still needed, thankgod.) Recovery generally involves noting the inadequacies of new media outlets and deciding to both beat them and join them online.
It is indeed true that many blogs are the equivalent of the editorial page of a newspaper. (Nothing wrong with that, but they still need the news division, etc.) But I don't think it's giving blogs their due to think of them only as opedoparasites.
The blog is its own written form; it's not a replacement for any existing thing. And many blogs don't leech from news organizations, but create their own raw material.
Tiny Farm Blog is built on original farm photography. Oakland Streets analyzes the byways of Oakland through the lens of urban planning theory. And this long-titled blog, created by a dear old chum of mine, reflects on swimming obscene distances. The raw material is life and the writers' own observations. Which, when you think about it, is pretty nice. And, really, not hurting anyone.
MP was asked the old standby handwringing question about whether "traditional" media will die. He answered with a cool wave of the hand, saying the old, gray media institutions will remain necessary and adapt to the times, and I'd guess he's right about that.
In such discussions, blogs are the cool new kid in town. Alluring, but scary. Bloggie might let you hang out with him--or he might kick your ass just for fun.
But old media has nothing to fear, said MP. Blogs, he explained, are fundamentally parasitic. They don't report, they merely commentate. Nothing against commentating, that's all well and good. The point is blogs will always need solid media institutions for their raw material. The point is they are not a threat.
I know he's right about this, because it's the prevailing wisdom in media commentary circles and prevailing wisdom is never wrong. I've done my fair share of fact-checking for Columbia Journalism Review and am familiar with the old media panic arc: from freakout (We're all gonna die!) to recovery (No, wait, we are still needed, thankgod.) Recovery generally involves noting the inadequacies of new media outlets and deciding to both beat them and join them online.
It is indeed true that many blogs are the equivalent of the editorial page of a newspaper. (Nothing wrong with that, but they still need the news division, etc.) But I don't think it's giving blogs their due to think of them only as opedoparasites.
The blog is its own written form; it's not a replacement for any existing thing. And many blogs don't leech from news organizations, but create their own raw material.
Tiny Farm Blog is built on original farm photography. Oakland Streets analyzes the byways of Oakland through the lens of urban planning theory. And this long-titled blog, created by a dear old chum of mine, reflects on swimming obscene distances. The raw material is life and the writers' own observations. Which, when you think about it, is pretty nice. And, really, not hurting anyone.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Freakonomist vs Locavores (Double Yuck)
The gimmicky-theory kings over at Freakonomics seem to think the whole locavore thing is too gimmicky. I can't fully disagree. Despite my laying hens and my seed-grown heirloom tomatoes, I firmly believe we need a national moratorium on locavore experiments and blow-by-blow accounts thereof. Really, how much more can we stand?
Economists love using gratingly hyperrational language to totally miss the point. (I'm lookin at you, Krugman.) Dubner goes on to conclude that--surprise!--trying to do shit yourself is inefficient. We don't need, he says, "a billion locavores."
The point is not that Doing It Yourself is just so !fun! that we carry on despite market inefficiency. Pleasure is part of it, sure. With my vet bills lately, I can't kid myself that I'm saving money on eggs, yet I keep my backyard flock. I must be pleased.
But if there's one thing that annoys me more than over-hyped locavore experiments, it's cute fucking anecdotes like this one from freakonomist Stephen Dubner:
We made some ice cream at home last weekend. Someone had given one of the kids an ice cream maker a while ago and we finally got around to using it. We decided to make orange sherbet. It took a pretty long time and it didn't taste very good but the worst part was how expensive it was. We spent about $12 on heavy cream, half-and-half, orange juice, and food coloring--the only ingredient we already had was sugar--to make a quart of ice cream. For the same price, we could have
bought at least a gallon (four times the amount) of much better orange sherbet. In the end, we wound up throwing away about three-quarters of what we made. Which means we spent $12, not counting labor or electricity or capital costs (somebody bought the machine, even if we didn't) for roughly three scoops of lousy ice cream.
Economists love using gratingly hyperrational language to totally miss the point. (I'm lookin at you, Krugman.) Dubner goes on to conclude that--surprise!--trying to do shit yourself is inefficient. We don't need, he says, "a billion locavores."
But here's the thing that Dubner, along with William Alexander of The $64 Tomato, fail to grasp: they suck at making ice cream and growing tomatoes.
Hate to brag over here, but my lascivious tomatoes cost much less than their counterparts at any farmer's market or grocery store. I might be able to get anemic cardboard tomatoes for less, but then what's life for? I've done the math on my inputs of seed, soil mix, pricey organic fertilizer, water, labor. It's worth it. Monetarily.
These homegrowns represented a substantial savings, bitch.
Homespun skills get no respect. Agriculture is hard. When the $64 Tomato types try it once and fail, they throw up their hands and declare the notion of self-sufficiency absurd. It's not absurd if you know what you're doing. Learning is an upfront investment, a cost that should be amortized over a lifetime of practicing a skill.
Locavore guru Michael Pollan of course gets name-checked in the Freakonomics post. The Clebster has moved from past fanatical worship of him toward semi-disdain. Maybe he's just my version of the band you were into before they were famous and now you're bitter about your uncredited prescience and their selling out.
But I do think Pollan (who has the audacity to use my last name and spell it more sensibly) has come down a few pegs on the intellectual integrity board since the Second Nature salad days.
He irritates people by implicitly suggesting that we should ALL havegardenseatlocalforagemushrooms. Those are things he likes (and I like) to do, but they're not for everyone. As a twenty-year veteran of vegetarianism, I
recognize the importance of not seeming proselytizey about one's personal eating rules. It only invites backlash.
Still, those of us who do like to grow vegetables or shop at farmer's markets should be allowed to do so without whiny skeptics nipping at our heels.
"Locavore" sounds like it means eating something crazy. (Mi sandwicha loca.) But the movement the term represents is undeniably awesome. I doubt one shitty batch of ice cream will kill it.
Homespun skills get no respect. Agriculture is hard. When the $64 Tomato types try it once and fail, they throw up their hands and declare the notion of self-sufficiency absurd. It's not absurd if you know what you're doing. Learning is an upfront investment, a cost that should be amortized over a lifetime of practicing a skill.
Locavore guru Michael Pollan of course gets name-checked in the Freakonomics post. The Clebster has moved from past fanatical worship of him toward semi-disdain. Maybe he's just my version of the band you were into before they were famous and now you're bitter about your uncredited prescience and their selling out.
But I do think Pollan (who has the audacity to use my last name and spell it more sensibly) has come down a few pegs on the intellectual integrity board since the Second Nature salad days.
He irritates people by implicitly suggesting that we should ALL havegardenseatlocalforagemushrooms. Those are things he likes (and I like) to do, but they're not for everyone. As a twenty-year veteran of vegetarianism, I
recognize the importance of not seeming proselytizey about one's personal eating rules. It only invites backlash.
Still, those of us who do like to grow vegetables or shop at farmer's markets should be allowed to do so without whiny skeptics nipping at our heels.
"Locavore" sounds like it means eating something crazy. (Mi sandwicha loca.) But the movement the term represents is undeniably awesome. I doubt one shitty batch of ice cream will kill it.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Krugman WTF?
Does anyone know what Paul Krugman is smoking? Is he drinking Contrarianberry juice or just plain old Haterade? I mean, okay, criticize Obama, fine. I get it. The media's giving him a free pass and Krug patrol is here to collect fare. Try to counterbalance the hope-mongering Rich-Dowd Dream Team. (Psh, as if.)
Do what you gotta do, Krug. Fine.
But to call Obama "an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg" is just disengenuous. No one seriously thinks Bloomberg is an ineloquent Obama. Bloomberg's a short, Jewish, billionare businessman; he and Obama have about as little in common as two people can. (That said, endorse away, Mr. Mayor!)
The real accusation, of course, is that Obama is, like Bloomberg, a centrist. Which I guess is what Obama is if you insist on measuring people's politics with some kind of left-right pH test kit. Barack Obama's Senate votes give him a damn pH of 7. (Maybe 8, slightly on the sweet side?) But it's patently obvious to millions of people the nation over that he's more than that. And specifically, that he's more than that in terms of progressivism.
And wait, who are we comparing him to again? Like Dennis Kucinich or something, right? Bernie Sanders? Oh. That's right: Krugman is calling Obama a centrist compared to Hillary Clinton. The word "Clinton" has like eight definitions, but I'm pretty sure one of them is "n. centrist."
You feelin okay, buddy?
But none of that matters. Why? Mandates! Mandates! Freaking mandates, they're all Krugman can think about! His obsession with the health care mandate issue is incomprehensible to me, especially since he's an economist.
Do what you gotta do, Krug. Fine.
But to call Obama "an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg" is just disengenuous. No one seriously thinks Bloomberg is an ineloquent Obama. Bloomberg's a short, Jewish, billionare businessman; he and Obama have about as little in common as two people can. (That said, endorse away, Mr. Mayor!)
The real accusation, of course, is that Obama is, like Bloomberg, a centrist. Which I guess is what Obama is if you insist on measuring people's politics with some kind of left-right pH test kit. Barack Obama's Senate votes give him a damn pH of 7. (Maybe 8, slightly on the sweet side?) But it's patently obvious to millions of people the nation over that he's more than that. And specifically, that he's more than that in terms of progressivism.
And wait, who are we comparing him to again? Like Dennis Kucinich or something, right? Bernie Sanders? Oh. That's right: Krugman is calling Obama a centrist compared to Hillary Clinton. The word "Clinton" has like eight definitions, but I'm pretty sure one of them is "n. centrist."
You feelin okay, buddy?
But none of that matters. Why? Mandates! Mandates! Freaking mandates, they're all Krugman can think about! His obsession with the health care mandate issue is incomprehensible to me, especially since he's an economist.
He's swinging away at the mandate piƱata again today, referring to Obama's "adoption of conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care." (At least, I assume he's referring to mandates there. Otherwise, we'd have a Krugman column free of mandate references, and that just wouldn't be right.)
Here's what a damn mandate is: it requires people to buy health insurance, just like we Californians have to buy car insurance. Hillary Clinton's health care plan has a mandate. Obama's doesn't. Otherwise, their plans are virtually identical.
Clinton has seized on the difference. She is shocked! shocked! that anyone calling himself a Democrat would propose a health care plan that "leaves people out" and "isn't universal." If you've watched any of the debates recently, you know this is totally her favorite riff.
I'm not a health care expert and don't presume to know whether mandates would be helpful in getting more people insured, but I do know that advocates of single payer (total, all-out, "SiCKO"-approved, publicly-financed health care) think mandates are total bullshit.
Here's why: if you require people by law to purchase health insurance, you have to penalize them for not doing so. So when you're dealing with poor people, it's kind of a doozy. Do you exempt them from the mandate? (Oh my god, then it's not universal! Gotcha, Hillary: You're leaving people out, too!) Or do you leave people who can't afford to buy insurance to pay a fine for noncompliance? (Then poor people are paying out for a fine and they're still uninsured. Sucks, don't it.)
And that's exactly the explanation Obama has given in debate after debate. (I mean, not in those exact words.) But it's all so tedious that one starts to zone out when they argue about it and the audience is left with the vague sense that Clinton's plan somehow keeps it realer.
And, wonder of wonders, Paul Krugman, Princeton lefty economist, seems to agree.
See, I can make it all about mandates too. Uh! Who's the centrist now, byeeitch?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Is "Obamedia" the New "Liberal Media"?
Yes it is.
Remember the good old Liberal Media? Conservatives bitched and moaned about the media's "liberal bias." Many media outlets absorbed the shame-dumping, got all self-conscious and needed to prove the critics wrong. So when Bush took us to war in Iraq, it was, gosh, just a fine idea.
The very concept of truth got mushed into a spectrum with opposing opinions on each end and the accepted truth lying exactly in between. Reality was the median point between Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Call it the Crossfire era. Weenie Democrats like John Kerry and liberal castrati like Alan Colmes couldn't win that tug-o-war.
Now that three-quarters of the nation agrees that Bush sucks, I guess "the media" can too. The Crossfire era is so over.
But I'm hearing echoes of it in the Democratic primary race. The Clintons, ever the Karl Rove copycats, are crying favoritism. MSNBC, in particular, supposedly hates Hillary Clinton and is all ga-ga for Barack Obama. So, of course, when MSNBC hosted the big number two-oh Democratic debate on Tuesday, moderator Tim Russert had to prove it wasn't so.
Hence a big, scary question for Obama about Louis Farrakhan supporting him. (Obama faltered a bit at first, but then knocked it out of the park with his "reject and denounce" line.)
Which made me wonder, where can I get a Jews for Obama shirt? Or perhaps
would be better. (It's Yiddish: Yidn far Obama!) I could send one to Joel Stein! Sorry if the vowels show up funky on your screen; did my best.
Oh, and Chris Matthews' humiliation of Texas State Senator and Obama supporter Kirk Watson after last week's debate? Same shit.
I'd like to thank Crimson for the term "weenie Democrat." So apt.
Remember the good old Liberal Media? Conservatives bitched and moaned about the media's "liberal bias." Many media outlets absorbed the shame-dumping, got all self-conscious and needed to prove the critics wrong. So when Bush took us to war in Iraq, it was, gosh, just a fine idea.
The very concept of truth got mushed into a spectrum with opposing opinions on each end and the accepted truth lying exactly in between. Reality was the median point between Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Call it the Crossfire era. Weenie Democrats like John Kerry and liberal castrati like Alan Colmes couldn't win that tug-o-war.
Now that three-quarters of the nation agrees that Bush sucks, I guess "the media" can too. The Crossfire era is so over.
But I'm hearing echoes of it in the Democratic primary race. The Clintons, ever the Karl Rove copycats, are crying favoritism. MSNBC, in particular, supposedly hates Hillary Clinton and is all ga-ga for Barack Obama. So, of course, when MSNBC hosted the big number two-oh Democratic debate on Tuesday, moderator Tim Russert had to prove it wasn't so.
Hence a big, scary question for Obama about Louis Farrakhan supporting him. (Obama faltered a bit at first, but then knocked it out of the park with his "reject and denounce" line.)
Which made me wonder, where can I get a Jews for Obama shirt? Or perhaps
×ִ××
ļ×ַ×Ø
!ļ¬Æ××ַ××ַ×
would be better. (It's Yiddish: Yidn far Obama!) I could send one to Joel Stein! Sorry if the vowels show up funky on your screen; did my best.
Oh, and Chris Matthews' humiliation of Texas State Senator and Obama supporter Kirk Watson after last week's debate? Same shit.
I'd like to thank Crimson for the term "weenie Democrat." So apt.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Who I'm Worshiping Now
I've oft been accused of fickle hero worship. Of course that's hogwash. Anyway, here's
WHO I'M WORSHIPING NOW
THE MEDIA EDITION
Can you name all six?
1. Shrill, sexist and weak on the life philosophy,
but he nails the Clinton connivery every time.
2. The guys go on to starring roles
while she holds it down Gilda Radner-style.
3. "Those of us who have struggled to get our minds around the notion that a man who looks like Barack Obama could be the next president of the United States can no longer take easy refuge in the disappointments of history."
4. Rural Life makes great election-coverage detox.
5. Somehow: sexy?
6. "Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink."
See, it was still about Obama. I warned you, fair reader.
WHO I'M WORSHIPING NOW
THE MEDIA EDITION
Can you name all six?
1. Shrill, sexist and weak on the life philosophy,
but he nails the Clinton connivery every time.
2. The guys go on to starring roles
while she holds it down Gilda Radner-style.
3. "Those of us who have struggled to get our minds around the notion that a man who looks like Barack Obama could be the next president of the United States can no longer take easy refuge in the disappointments of history."
4. Rural Life makes great election-coverage detox.
5. Somehow: sexy?
6. "Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink."
See, it was still about Obama. I warned you, fair reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)