Jake’s dilemma

I have nothing against that Facebook guy who bought TNR, he sounds fine to me, but this is telling:

ON a cloudy Sunday in March, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Eldridge were relaxing at their estate in Garrison, N.Y., a quiet, countrified enclave 50 miles from the city where Jacob Weisberg, a former New Republic editor who runs the Slate Group, also has a house, as does Roger Ailes.

Weisberg chuckles “Roger Ailes and I together in the same NYT sentence.”

Actually, Jake, you and Roger are exactly the fucking same. He peddles right-wing horseshit to elderly middle-Americans, you peddle it to tote-baggers. His is openly xenophobic and hostile, yours is self-consciously “polite”. But it’s the same horseshit: Paul Ryan is very serious, Paul Krugman is shrill, throw the middle-class down the well so my country can be free.

The only difference is that Ailes’ business model has been a lot more successful.

▲

Fee fees of the rich and famous

I’ve never understood the “why does he have to be so mean” stuff about Krugman. All of my friends and family regularly say to me “you’re being an idiot, this is why you’re wrong…” and I say the same things to them. In fact, if a friend patiently and kindly explains to me why I’m wrong, it always seems condescending. Granted, I’m a bad-tempered, Tebow-hating commie, but don’t lots of real Murkins argue not-completley-politely with each other?

So, fuck you, Jacob Weisberg, you war-loving pansy ass.

▲

Pa send me money now, I’m gonna make it somehow

Of course, it doesn’t matter how many outright lies Romney tells, Politifact and Glenn Kessler will tell us both sides do it, that even saying the word “vouchercare” marks you as an unserious partisan, that when the far left and far right are criticizing you, you must be doing something right, and so on. That’s just what they’re set up to do.

I am surprised, though, that this didn’t get more play (it was mentioned here and in some other blogs, but not much place else):

“We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it. Take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business,” Romney said.

Romney says things out-of-touch rich guy things like this all the time, of course, but Democrats have to keep talking about it. Because establishment media’s mostly going to ignore it.

▲

Some Politics

Steven Benen has been doing a great job picking apart Romney’s speeches. I tend to get numbed to it over time, but Romney is quite the liar, and for some reason this week’s edition stood out, especially these two:

15. In a speech in Virginia yesterday, Romney blamed “card check” for making things “tougher” on businesses.

Card check didn’t pass, so it’s impossible for Romney’s argument to be true.

18. Romney went on to condemn Obama for “shutting down” a “wonderful” school voucher program in the District of Columbia.

Obama didn’t shut down the school voucher program in the District of Columbia. It still exists.

Some of the lies Benen chronicles require some explanation and background to understand, but these two are just plain old lies. Where are Mitt’s “Pants on Fire” and “Pinocchio” ratings?

▲

stop digging, please

Four new posts today have emerged on the Chronicle group blog where the comically deficient post I complained about this morning was published.

First, there’s a post from the editors of the Chronicle that talks about wanting to generate debate, show all sides, participate in important arguments, etc. Well, look—sure, yeah. I want debate and controversy about the university and its mission too. And I don’t want the post cast down the memory hole. I want vigorous, responsible debate where people muster evidence to advance credible arguments that can be effectively evaluated. Schaefer Riley’s conclusions offend me, it’s true. But what should offend the editors of the Chronicle is that a post was published under their masthead which was completely deficient as an argument. Schaefer Riley advocated a huge change—eliminating an entire department—based on synopses of three (3!) in-progress dissertations, and did so without mounting any argument that I can actually detect. That is a failing of methodology and of argument, not a disagreement about conclusions. Seeking diversity of opinion does not mean that you should continue to publish irresponsible and deliberately provoking content. Does the Chronicle have editorial standards, or not?

There’s also a post from the faculty of the Black Studies department in question, which comes to the defense of their students and criticizes the publication.

Then there’s Schaefer Riley’s response, which has to be seen to be believed.

More » ▲

the Chronicle should be ashamed

Via Corey Robin, I read this execrable blog post in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In it, Naomi Schafer Riley looks at synopses—not abstracts, proposals, or chapters—of three in-progress dissertations from the field of Black Studies and concludes that the field should be eliminated.

Now, let me just lay out some basic principles here. First, if you want to judge a publication as long and complex as a dissertation, you might want to read something from the actual document, not a brief synopsis. Second, you could recognize that works in progress are in progress and you shouldn’t make broad conclusions about them before they’re finished. Third, dissertations are definitionally produced by scholars early in their careers and thus shouldn’t be used to judge entire fields. Fourth, sample size of three? Not the most convincing. Fifth, it’s cruel, unnecessary, and unhelpful to call out individual students by name in a national publication.

And, you know, you might try actually making an argument instead of simply asserting what’s credible or interesting. I confess that I don’t find “Black Housing and the Urban Crisis of the 1970s” an irrelevant topic. In fact, I find it both interesting and of obvious consequence for contemporary controversies. But what other argument is being advanced here, other than the idea that the irrelevance of these topics is self-evident? I know it’s cliched to say that you’d fail a piece of writing if you got it from one of your freshmen… but I’d fail this if I got it from one of my freshmen. Not because of its conclusions, but because when adults make claims those claims must be defended with responsibly generated evidence. There’s no argument here; there’s showy incredulity that’s founded on the offensive premise that issues of concern for the black community aren’t of broader interest or importance.

I don’t engage in hyperbole when I say: this is shameful. I doubt that the Chronicle edited or vetted this piece before it was posted, but it’s under their masthead and so they’re responsible for it. If you’re a regular reader, or even more a subscriber, you might join me in emailing editor@chronicle.com to share your displeasure.

▲

Someone’s Gotta Do It

Here’s John Stewart, once again stepping up and doing what the media won’t:

Never in a million years did I think the GOP would freak out this much over killing Osama. On the other hand, every time one of these pencil-necked whiners like Gillespie goes in front of a camera whining about Obama spiking the ball, all they are really accomplishing is reminding everyone in the country that Obama, not Republicans, hunted down and killed America’s #1 enemy.

I’m ok with that kind of press.

▲

Exit stage right

You know that I’m fueled creatively by my massive hatred of the Washington Post. I hate it because they’ve gotten a lot of things right—their web site is much better than the NYT’s and even includes an excellent mobile site (I have a digital subscription to the Times and I still find the mobile app unusable), for example—but the right-wing editorial page, Very Seriousness, and general desire to suck up to wingers ruins what what would otherwise be the second best paper in the country. Looks like I’m not the only person who feels this way:

The Washington Post had the worst total circulation performance among all 25 papers included in the report for both Monday-Friday and Sunday, registering a 7.84% decline in total average circulation for Monday-Friday over the same period last year, and a 15.66% decline for Sunday. Print circulation for Monday-Friday was 467,450 and 688,576 for Sunday. Digital circulation was 40,165 for Monday-Friday and 30,725 for Sunday.

By contrast, the Times was down only 4.5% Mon-Fri and 1.1% on Sundays, nowhere near as steep a drop. I have to think that, in terms of circulation, it’s not a great idea for a paper with mostly left-leaning readership (even though dead-tree subscribers skew old, I’m sure that subscribers to the Post and Times are mostly liberals) to transform itself into a conservative outlet, as the Post increasingly has.

▲

Bridge Over Troubled Logic

Kaplan Daily’s official Obama scold, Glenn Kessler, has dropped yet another “four Pinocchios” on the President over bridges in my state of Kentucky.

“I sent them a jobs bill that would have put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, transit systems, along with saving the jobs of cops and teachers and firefighters, creating a new tax cut for businesses.  They said no. I went to the Speaker’s hometown, stood under a bridge that was crumbling.  Everybody acknowledges it needs to be rebuilt. Maybe he doesn’t drive anymore.  Maybe he doesn’t notice how messed up it was. They still said no. There are bridges between Kentucky and Ohio where some of the key Republican leadership come from, where folks are having to do detours an extra hour, hour-and-a-half drive every day on their commute because these bridges don’t work.  They still said no.”

For this, Glenn throws the book at the President.

As we said before, we understand the need for symbolism. But that does not give a president license to stretch the facts.

Calling out the Republicans at the Brent Spence bridge was bad enough, given the bipartisan support for its reconstruction. But pointing to the Sherman Milton Bridge, which already has been repaired without funding from the president’s jobs bill, is ridiculous.

Perhaps the president was using outdated talking points, but that’s little excuse. Given that the president earned Three Pinocchios before, we have little choice but to up the ante this time.

Well, first of all the crack in the Sherman Minton in Louisville had been there since the beginning, and the repairs to fix it were far less extensive than originally thought.  It was still a pain in the ass for four months out that way just as the president said.  Meanwhile here in Cincy, construction season is currently adding about 30 minutes to my commute every afternoon.  The problem is of course that the President is right about the Brent Spence.  I live in northern Kentucky and I drive the Brent Spence every day to and from work in Cincy, it’s in dire need of replacement because it’s congested as hell and carries two interstates worth of traffic on just four lanes.  And neither Kentucky Republicans nor Ohio Republicans want to pay for it.

The $2.4 billion Brent Spence Bridge replacement could receive final environmental approval from the Federal Highway Administration by the end of July, but what happens after that is anyone’s guess.

The project schedule calls for detailed design to begin in September, but neither Kentucky nor Ohio has enough funds to complete the phase – and it’s unclear whether they’ll get it this year.

Ohio needs $52.2 million and Kentucky needs $68 million to complete detailed design of the new bridge and the related overhaul of a 7.8-mile stretch of Interstate 75.

Normally that money would come from the federal government.  And right now, that’s being held up by Orange Julius and his motley crew of miscreants.  Meanwhile, every month the bridge project is delayed costs the Cincinnati area $8 million.  So yes, the Sherman Minton is fixed, but the Brent Spence replacement is in limbo right now and may remain so for a very long time.  Construction may not start until 2015 as Kessler complains about, but Kessler fails to note that the design phase does start this year, and at least some money (as detailed above) will be needed by the end of the year, and that money is being blocked by Republicans.  And personally, as a Kentucky taxpayer, I want this damn thing replaced along with the awful 3-lane 71/75 approach to the bridge through Kentucky.  The sooner, the better.

Construction could begin in early 2015 – but only if funding is secured.

Backers of the project increasingly believe that Congress will not allocate any construction funding until Ohio, Kentucky and the Greater Cincinnati region come up with a plan to pay for the local match of at least 20 percent that is required.

And Kentucky lawmakers may attach strings of their own: some lawmakers want to see a plan for how to pay for construction before any money is allocated after Dec. 31, 2013.

And that’s a big if.  The Kentucky legislature is in special session hashing out the road bill this week, and Ohio is supposed to tackle the issue at some point.  But it seems to me Kessler needs to get some of his own facts straight before dropping Pinocchios on folks.

▲

Headlines

Tabloid headlines don’t get much better than this one, from the Mirror, which apparently has an owner who is fit to run a newspaper.

“Gosh, Gladys, did you know that the guy who refused to pay a prostitute $800 graduated from the local Christian college?” I’m probably the only one who thinks this is funny, but you have to read our city’s rag regularly to understand the depths to which they’ll go to find any local connection to a national story. I’m waiting for the day when someone who grew up in town goes on a nationwide killing spree – that should make the front page.

Have you seen any good headlines lately?

▲

if I have a stroke today, Tovia Smith, it’s your fault

I’m serious, about the stroke. I just can’t function in a world where quality journalism is so important and yet so hard to find. Here’s Tovia Smith, of NPR, making the same argument that Columnist Boyardee made the other day—that our recent colleges graduates are struggling because they didn’t take “practical” majors. I promise, I’m looking at this less as a matter of defending the liberal arts and more as a matter of asking for absolutely elementary journalistic quality. If you are writing a story that suggests that our recent graduates are struggling because they didn’t take practical majors, you have to perform at least two minimal functions.

Number one, you have to demonstrate that in fact many people are taking these majors.

Number two, you have to demonstrate that there are in fact actual bad economic consequences for these majors.

Not only does Tovia Smith fail to demonstrate those things, she seems not to understand that these are basic requirements for such a story. Since the well-remunerated professional can’t bother to check the facts, I’ll do it for her. Again: in vast numbers, American college students do take supposedly practical majors. Business, for example, is the most popular major by a broad margin. See for yourself:

Check the link for all the specifics.

There are similar no facts within the piece whatsoever to justify the idea that supposedly impractical majors have worse economic outcomes than supposedly practical ones. And while the NCES doesn’t track those outcomes, the best evidence available to me suggests that the liberal arts don’t have worse economic outcomes than supposedly practical, “career” oriented majors. If Smith bothered to make an argument with any kind of reference to evidence, I might be able to rebut it, and the burden is of course on her to make that argument. But she didn’t, so I can’t. As I said in the post on Frank Bruni, a far, far more persuasive case can be made that recent graduates are suffering across fields and skillsets, thanks to inadequate aggregate demand. (Maybe somebody should do something about that.)

If you know Tovia Smith, you might ask her why she failed in such a comprehensive way. If you follow her on Twitter, you might tweet her this post. If you know editors or administrators at NPR, you might ask them if they have any standards of evidence, or if they employ ombudsmen, or who exactly let this piece out without evidence in the first place. Absent that, there’s essentially no way to get accountability for journalism that is inadequate in the most elementary terms. The American media is a comprehensive failure.

▲

Rupert’s Terrible, Horrible, Very Bad, No Good Morning

It seems that Britain MP’s have decided that Rupert Murdoch running a major media empire in their midst is not in Blighty’s best interests.

Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch is not a “fit and proper person” to run a major international company, British lawmakers investigating phone hacking at his tabloid the News of the World reported Tuesday.

The ruling could prompt British regulators to force him to sell his controlling stake in British Sky Broadcasting, a significant part of his media empire.

This one’s pretty big, folks.  It means whether or not old Rupert here was actually the fellow behind the phone hacking nonsense, British lawmakers have decided that he should be held responsible for it.  Bloomberg News is even more blunt:

Murdoch “turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications,” the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee said in a report published in London today. “This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organization and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corp.”

Ouch.  The question now is the level of punishment that Murdoch and News Corp will receive.  It could be nothing.  It could be having to divest itself of all B Sky B holdings.  We’ll see.  But this is the first real blow to Murdoch we’ve seen from the fallout of the phone hacking, and I’m betting it won’t be the last.

[UPDATE] In the comments MattF finds the Guardian article containing the full text of the Select Committee report.

Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat on the committee, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert the criticisms of Rupert Murdoch and toughen up the remarks about his son James. But the MPs were united in their criticism of other former News International employees.

The cross-party group of MPs said that Les Hinton, the former executive chairman of News International, was “complicit” in a cover-up at the newspaper group, and that Colin Myler, former editor of the News of the World, and the paper’s ex-head of legal, Tom Crone, deliberately withheld crucial information and answered questions falsely. All three were accused of misleading parliament by the culture select committee.

Interesting breakdown of the votes there.

▲

Gotta have some of your attention, give it to me

Via reader D and many others, no one could have predicted that even a liberal former Republican (and svengali to closet case Republican Senatorial candidate Michael Huffington) turned pageview pimp would back Mitt Romney:

“I think it’s one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room,” the media mogul (Arianna Huffington) said on “CBS This Morning.” “All that, to me, is perfectly legitimate. But to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.”

The thing is this: one of the big foreign policy differences between Obama and McCain was Obama’s belief in going into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda. Given the civilians who died in drone strikes and the fact that I don’t know how important killing Osama bin Laden was, I’m not sure who I agree with in retrospect.

But saying that a Republican president wouldn’t have gone into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden…well, that’s probably true. If you can’t accept that, you’re calling war hero John McCain a liar, you tree-hugging punk. He said he wouldn’t do it, and I take him at his word.

Arianna just likes attention. That’s why I don’t read HuffPost, and it’s why I don’t listen to anything she says. It’s great that she pulls more pageviews than Drudge, but she lost me at the vaccines cause autism, if not earlier.

▲

Into the mystic

I’m fascinated by Watergate. I don’t think there’s anyway the establishment media would go after a Republican White House that way today. The story would be broken by a free weekly type publication and then everyone would ignore it. Serious people would agree that this was just “criminalizing politics”, that you should just keep on walking, and so on. Also too, what Hillary Rosen did was just as bad, remember the time that anonymous MoveOn member put a Hitler mustache on a picture of W, and the hypocrisy of liberals wanting an investigation when many of them watch Bill Maher. Howie Kurtz would certainly think this was a terrible breach of journamalistic ethics:

The secret source that legendary journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein referred to as a “mystic” in their investigation that brought down President Nixon turns out to have been a grand juror who spoke to them in a likely violation of the law.

▲

breaking: Frank Bruni doesn’t know what he’s talking about

Given the way in which Mssrs. Brooks and Friedman consistently fail to cover themselves with glory, it’s hard to really bust out as a shitty Times columnist. But, boy. Frank Bruni is making a go of it.

Here’s Bruni, who appears to live three months behind the greater op/ed cycle, dusting off the hoary old idea that young people don’t have jobs because they’re taking the wrong majors.

I single out philosophy and anthropology because those are two fields — along with zoology, art history and humanities — whose majors are least likely to find jobs reflective of their education level, according to government projections quoted by the Associated Press. But how many college students are fully aware of that? How many reroute themselves into, say, teaching, accounting, nursing or computer science, where degree-relevant jobs are easier to find? Not nearly enough, judging from the angry, dispossessed troops of Occupy Wall Street.

Let’s ask a different columnist, one with better qualifications than being able to assess the quality of foie gras, Paul Krugman:

Most stories about structural unemployment stress a perceived mismatch between the work force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke pointed out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The fact that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”

Given the credentials of Krugman and Bernanke, as compared to a guy best known for his cutting analysis of the fruit compote at Gramercy Tavern,  I’m inclined to consider that game-set-match. That piece by Krugman provides a handy alternative take to Bruni’s assertions of skills-jobs mismatch:  the failure of our monetary policy to respond to an unprecedented crisis by further loosening up credit markets, which could be achieved by buying long-term government debt and lowering interest rates, as well as by setting and sticking with a higher inflation target for the next several years. That’s an empirical difference between Dr. Krugman and Mr. Bruni. But it’s also a difference in blame: is the problem that students made bad choices? Or is the problem occurring far above their ability to control, at the heights of our policy apparatus?  I’m inclined to think the latter, and so does Paul Krugman.

More » ▲