Reader Interactions

58Comments

  1. 2.

    scs

    Maybe Bush was wrong. Maybe the world is not ready for democracy and ready to govern themselves. Look at all the ridiculous ways they act. Look at the positive response to Hugo Chavez and his ridiculous comments even. I think we should instead work on improving wordwide nutrition and healthcare to give the world a much needed IQ boost, and then maybe they will be ready for democracy.

  2. 3.

    Bearpaw

    I think we should instead work on improving wordwide nutrition and healthcare to give the world a much needed IQ boost, and then maybe they will be ready for democracy.

    That’s a great idea! Can we start in the US?

  3. 4.

    Pb

    Recall the talking heads who told us in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait, that “the Arab street” was going to rise en masse, as an ur-proletariat, which would support Saddam against the West. If you need documentation, check out a few old PBS “NewsHour” transcripts.

    Yeah, I wonder where all that concern about how dangerous those Arabs were came from back in Gulf War I. Anyhow, they don’t offer any sources, but I will–how about PBS Frontline:

    As for the reaction of the Arab ‘street,’ the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are ‘sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.’ Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.”

    Whoops! That was Dick Cheney, in August of 2002. Could he have been more wrong? Of course, there’s lots more where that came from. Incidentally, perhaps the big difference between the two wars and thus the reaction from the “Arab Street” is summed up well here: “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam“, by George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, Time, 03/02/98.

  4. 5.

    Chris

    Ummm . . . CBS does not mean the network. Go back and read Austin Bay’s article:

    The ambush technique coordinates blood-spilling violence with sensational imagery and rhetoric using a dispersed network of media operatives, guerrillas and terrorists. Networked, Coordinated Blood-spilling plus Sensationalism — hence the technique’s acronym: the CBS ambush.

  5. 6.

    Steve

    An awful lot of right-wing blogs use imagery of Arab violence, whether or not it’s representative of Arab reaction in general, to advance their own agenda… or am I wrong?

    Instapundit might as well have talked about the mutually-supporting relationship between terrorists and the American Right. Gee, I wonder why he didn’t.

  6. 7.

    BarneyG2000

    Here is a better one. Did anyone hear Saavage yesterday? He blamed Hugo’s rant on Clinton and the democrats.

  7. 8.

    matt

    I don’t know why this stuff fascinates me, because it’s probably not even that fascinating. But you take someone, they had a normal childhood, they like baseball and The Simpsons and reading and they have healthy relationships, they’re intelligent, good education and then like…oh yeah, the press is in league with the terrorists. And you’re like, wait, what? Where did that come from?

  8. 9.

    Larv

    Maybe the world is not ready for democracy and ready to govern themselves. Look at all the ridiculous ways they act. Look at the positive response to Hugo Chavez George Bush and his ridiculous comments even.

    fixed

  9. 12.

    matt

    test, bitches

    Larv, are you hitting the stike button twice? Once at the beginning or the word, and once after.

  10. 14.

    matt

    I didn’t call Glenn Reynolds stupid and offensive. I don’t think he is stupid or offensive, as one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy.

    That’s kind of what inspired my post. Intelligent, nice, normal people having notions about the world that would otherwise point to their disconnect from reality.

  11. 15.

    matt

    as one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy

    For the record, I think that’s something you’re just making up in your mind. Glenn vexes people on the left for the same reason he vexes people like you on occasion. He says a lot of weird and dumb shit.

  12. 16.

    neil

    one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy.

    Speaking only for myself, the thing that vexes me about him is that he’s a complete asshole.

  13. 17.

    Zifnab

    The right wing recognizes the media not as a source of information (it’s inevitably tainted liberal) or as a forum for discussion (those things tend to be too liberal as well), but as a weapon to instill and enforce one’s opinion.

    When the Bush Administration paid off reporters to run anti-Cuba stories a month or so ago, when they paid off Iraqi reporters to push pro-American propoganda in their country and abroad, when they paid off spokesmen to hype No Child Left Behind a while back, the White House was using the media as it believes the media should be used – to further the right wing agenda.

    Thus, when the “liberal” news media covers something a right wing pundit sees as pro-terrorist, its perfectly natural for said right wing pundit to view the media organ itself as pro-terrorist.

    In that regard, the wingnut view makes perfect sense.

  14. 18.

    Larry

    That’s kind of what inspired my post. Intelligent, nice, normal people having notions about the world that would otherwise point to their disconnect from reality.

    While this observation has a lot of merit, I might start by asking just how much “connection to reality” there is in the blogosphere in general. It’s not a trick question, and the answer is relevant. My answer would be, “Not much.”

    If I’m right … then this whole topic is moot. Just blogs blogging about blogs. It’s similar to lawyers talking about lawyers and newspaper people talking to newspaper people. The “worlds” they are in are real, but only if you are in them. The most real world is the one you really live in.

    In that real, real world …. how important is this? “The media” were being described as beneath used car salesmen in credibility …. 25 years ago. This is not exactly, if you’ll pardon the expression, news.

  15. 19.

    billmon

    So let’s combine Anne Applebaum and Austin Bey’s arguments. We end up with something like this:

    The free world should defend Pope Benedict’s free speech rights by putting pressure on the mainstream media to not cover his remarks, because reporting them only helps the terrorists.

    Glad we could clear that up.

  16. 20.

    Davebo

    Trust me, Professor Reynolds is anything but stupid.

    Which explains why, despite the fact that he’s a, ya know, law professor, he never has an opinion about timely legal questions.

  17. 21.

    double-plus-ungood

    one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy.

    In person, he might be the sweetest guy in the world. But c’mon now, not the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long stretch. Try going back one or two years in his archives and see how many times he trumpeted the discovery of WMDs in Iraq as though it were fact, or has said that the media or war critics were on the other side.

    The vexiness has nothing to do with whether he’s a nice guy or not.

  18. 22.

    jg

    Glenn Reynolds sucks. I tried to read him but he has no integrity. He has an opinion and he fixes the facts around it. Reality is optional. His point is to stay on message, not inform.

  19. 23.

    jg

    Try going back one or two years in his archives and see how many times he trumpeted the discovery of WMDs in Iraq as though it were fact, or has said that the media or war critics were on the other side.

    This being said about an authoritarian by a commenter named ‘double-plus-ungood’ is the kind of comedy I live for. Kudos sir!

  20. 24.

    Pb

    Glenn Reynolds sucks. I tried to read him but he has no integrity. He has an opinion and he fixes the facts around it. Reality is optional. His point is to stay on message, not inform.

    Heh.

  21. 25.

    DwightKSchrute

    Chris is right, Bay (and Reynolds) are using CBS to stand for “coordinated bloodspilling plus sensationalism”. Which is actually right in line with Reynolds disingenuous nature.

    I mean who’s heard of “coordinated bloodspilling plus sensationalism” enough (ever?) to think of it when you see CBS? Just about everyone thinks of the network. And remember, we’re talking about a post on Instapundit – a site where Reynolds regularly and unmercifully flogs the media. If there’s even a whiff of a possible media mistake Glenn is on the scent. It seems as if he lives for any chance he gets to rub their noses in any gaffes. And the Columbia Broadcasting System is one of his favorite targets mainly due to the Dan Rather 60 minutes incident, which even two years later he still likes to work into his site whenever he can.

    So here’s the thing, Reynolds knows all that. He’s not naive, not sure too many law professors are. He knows exactly the natural assumption people will make when they see CBS conflated with Muslims, violence, etc. Could he easily have put “coordinated bloodspilling plus sensationalism” in parens after CBS? Of course. Would that have made it a lot more clear what the article was talking about? No doubt. But there’s no fun in being upfront when you can slime a network with inference.

    Of course if confronted with his deviousness he’ll revert to playing dumb and post some snide update like “XYZ blogger seems to think that CBS was a reference the network instead of reading the article to find the real meaning. Then again considering the network’s history it doesn’t surprise me. Heh”.

    A more fitting entry for his site would be: “A seemingly duplicitous law professor trying to push his agenda through unscrupulous means? Doesn’t surprise me. Heh.”

  22. 26.

    The Other Steve

    I didn’t call Glenn Reynolds stupid and offensive. I don’t think he is stupid or offensive, as one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy.

    And John, what actually vexes most people on the left isn’t that he’s nice. It’s that he makes arguments which defy logic.

    But I don’t think he’s stupid. He does it on purpose.

  23. 27.

    The Other Steve

    Glenn Reynolds sucks. I tried to read him but he has no integrity. He has an opinion and he fixes the facts around it. Reality is optional. His point is to stay on message, not inform.

    What he said.

    I guess I’m not surprised he teaches law. I think if he pulled some of this stuff in the courtroom he’d be disbarred.

  24. 28.

    matt

    Larry, I loved your post and it’s a conversation I’ve tried to start a few times, but because I’m not the most articulate guy in the world, it mostly comes off as lame ranting and the discussion never goes anywhere.

    I know when we talk about “reality” it can easily lead to everyone’s head exploding because it opens up an infinite amount of doors. But I do believe, even though I don’t think I could properly or convincingly demonstrate it, that there is, at the end of the day, A Reality. Or..I’m note sure reality is even the right word, but I think there’s a “truth” that exists outside of partisan mudslinging and our quirky world views.

    Like abortion, I don’t think there’s a “correct” position to have, and I don’t think your views on it reflect your intelligence, or goodness as a person. So I don’t think you can say about someone who’s pro-choice or pro-life that they’re an idiot or living in a different world or that they’re detached from reality. In fact I don’t think there’s much “objectiveness” in hardly any of the hot button issue we all debate.

    But if you think the media is in league with terrorists, or if you think things are going swell in Iraq, or if you think a particular race is inferior, I think it’s fine to suggest that someone, at least on some issues, isn’t living in “reality”. And it doesn’t have to be hateful or partisan or political.

    I don’t have the numbers, so I could very well be wrong, but I would bet in the last year, this blog’s readership has gone up, while sites like Glenn’s have gone down. I think people (of all political persuasions) are on their last nerve when it comes to this shit. There are a lot of people who crave facts and maybe even more importantly these days, context, and a lot of people are bummed that this whole blog phenomenon has basically become the internet’s version of talk radio.

    I think in a few years, we’ll see fewer sites from guys like Glenn and Atrios, and more sites like Balloon Juice. Where it’s still…partisan, but the emphasis is placed on what’s actually happening out there in our crazy world, and not just what our particular world view says is happening.

    I’m not the most articulate guy in the world, it mostly comes off as lame ranting

    Heh. Indeed.

  25. 29.

    Sirkowski

    But Glenn Reynolds IS stupid. Libertarians who love big government; the ironing is precocious111dsnbewuijkh

    Sorry, just went a bit crazy trying to imagine how someone can be that fucking dumb.

  26. 30.

    srv

    I remember Austin Bay – he was the guy that went over to the Green Zone in 2004 to report all the good news. That gave him enough Arab Street cred for me.

    Blame the media, blame the lefties, blame the hippies. If they just clapped hard enough, Osama would wet his pants and run away.

    We’re just amateurs. Ever wonder that the 9/11 plan included the planes hitting the WTC far enough apart that the 2nd one could be expected to be broadcast live? There weren’t anymore AQ cells in the US because any second attack would be prefaced with “Uh, Osama, how do we outdo 9/11?”. We’ll, you can’t. Sarin in a subway, truck bomb in Wall St, a mushroom cloud over DC – none of those will never have the impact on the psyche that watching an airliner crash real-time did.

    If only the media hadn’t covered the 9/11, we’d be winning now.

  27. 31.

    Andrew

    It’s not so much that Glenn Reynolds is or is not “stupid and offensive” (he is) so much as his sycophantic pandering to move up through the cliquish little backstabbing bitch club known as the rightwing blogosphere is particularly lazy and ill informed. Mostly lazy. At least Jeff Goldstein puts a little effort into his inanity.

    I think his readers are just lazy asses too. They set their browser homepage to his site 4 years ago and can’t be bother to change it and that’s why he keeps getting hits.

  28. 32.

    bud

    The terrorists and the tyrants aren’t doing it because they know they will get press.

    Of course they do. Tokyo Rose wasn’t on the air to provide a taste of home to comfort the troops, she was there to screw with their heads and demoralize them.

    The “demonstrations” have a number of goals -demoralizing the enemy (us) being one of them- but almost every one of those goals depends on having large media coverage.

    Propaganda is a weapon. In this case, probably the most effective one they have.

  29. 33.

    bud

    As an aside, I see in the comments the trend I’ve noticed here for awhile. Probably attracted by Tim’s Bush rants, a large number of commenters now seem unable to discuss or argue a point, but revel in the put-down. Ad hominem, the highest form of argument on DU, rules.

    What does “Glenn Reynolds sucks” have to do with Austin Bey’s thesis?

    Well, let’s see how many insults this gets me from Timmy’s kids.

  30. 34.

    Andrew

    Bud, perhaps a cookie and a nap would help you deal with the emotional trauma of reading snarky and nasty comments on a blog.

  31. 35.

    Justin Slotman

    What DwightKSchrute said. “What, there’s some other use for the abbreviation CBS? Imagine that!” But it’s such a transparent attempt at creating a feminazi-like Limbaughism that I can’t believe the term will gain any currency outside of right-Republican circles (also working against the term spreading: the underlying theory is nuts. And with this post John has officially morphed into Tim F.)

  32. 36.

    jg

    What does “Glenn Reynolds sucks” have to do with Austin Bey’s thesis?

    Nothing. I was responding to:

    I don’t think he is stupid or offensive, as one of the things that vexes the left about him is he is a pretty nice guy.

    Anything else?

  33. 37.

    matt

    bud, I think you could argue that the more media coverage of their extremism, the more it actually hurts their cause. This isn’t Hollywood where all press is good press. Don’t we WANT people to see just how crazy and extreme some of these folks are so they’ll understand the kind of mentality we’re dealing with? Isn’t that actually a pretty huge talking point on the right?

    It’s like PETA. Sure they depend on the media covering their insane antics to get promotion, but the only thing it really does is turn more people off.

  34. 38.

    Tim F.

    I see in the comments the trend I’ve noticed here for awhile. Probably attracted by Tim’s Bush rants

    I hope that it doesn’t hurt John’s feelings that you find my Bush bashing so much more inspired than his.

  35. 39.

    terry chay

    As an aside, I see in the comments the trend I’ve noticed here for awhile. Probably attracted by Tim’s Bush rants, a large number of commenters now seem unable to discuss or argue a point, but revel in the put-down. Ad hominem, the highest form of argument on DU, rules.

    What does “Glenn Reynolds sucks” have to do with Austin Bey’s thesis?

    Well, let’s see how many insults this gets me from Timmy’s kids.

    The irony in this post is rich.

  36. 40.

    capelza

    “coordinated bloodspilling plus sensationalism”

    Those sneaky bastards…CBS. Now if they could only have come up with a catchy acronym for the whole global war on saving extremist terrorists or whatver it is.

  37. 41.

    Bruce Moomaw

    I don’t know about “stupid”, but I’ll definitely go with “offensive”. We are, lest we forget, talking about a guy who has come up with one excuse after another for refusing to oppose Bush’s torture policy at all, and who has urged his readers to smash up NY Times vending machines in order to censor the press. Time you grew up and smelled the brimstone, John.

  38. 42.

    Retief

    Shorter Austin/Glenn: If only the Media would ignore Angry Muslims, we could too.

    Of course this is some tension with their favorite motif # 176: Nobody gets what a terrible and existential threat these brutish Muslims are but us.

    And on vexation, for me what vexes about Glenn and Jeff both is their absolute imperviousness to evidence or logic.

  39. 43.

    double-plus-ungood

    This being said about an authoritarian by a commenter named ‘double-plus-ungood’ is the kind of comedy I live for. Kudos sir!

    Uh, Reynolds is an authoritarian now? He may be into torture somewhat, but I wouldn’t put him in Big Brother’s weight class by a long shot…

  40. 44.

    jg

    double-plus-ungood Says:

    This being said about an authoritarian by a commenter named ‘double-plus-ungood’ is the kind of comedy I live for. Kudos sir!

    Uh, Reynolds is an authoritarian now? He may be into torture somewhat, but I wouldn’t put him in Big Brother’s weight class by a long shot…

    I would. It ain’t just torture. Its pretty clear to me he’s in with the Bush administration in that they believe the gov’t is closed to us in terms of information but the people are transparent. And he puts party before country.

  41. 45.

    srv

    Uh, Reynolds is an authoritarian now? He may be into torture somewhat, but I wouldn’t put him in Big Brother’s weight class by a long shot

    Of course not. We all clearly remember Glennuendos impashioned “hehs” berating Unitary Executive Theory, twisted FISA interpretations and Article II-forever (or at least until a Dem becomes president). Surely, von Mises would agree, you’re either with GW, or you are “objectively pro-terrorist”.

    It must be a heavy burden, all those “libertarian” hehs.

    If it’s one thing I can’t respect, it’s cowardice at admitting your values. But hey, I’ll just call myself a neocon and vote for Murtha.

    Heh.

  42. 46.

    Mark

    Austin Bay is a hack of the first rank. I remember when I first started reading his stuff. I thought he had some decent insights into intelligence and security. I started losing some respect for him when he wrote a series of columns in 2002 cheering on the Bush administration for reining in the intelligence agencies and forcing them to give the administration clear concise answers (also called telling them what they wanted to hear) instead of being wishy-washy (which we would call nuanced). He was quite derogatory toward anyone who suggested there was no intelligence to support an invasion of Iraq claiming the agencies and supposed Democratic leaning wimps therein were suppressing the information. When things went south, he was one of the loudest voiced blaming the intelligence agencies for “misleading” Bush and twisting their reports to make Iraq into a threat. Because we know it was their fault that Bush was sooo misinformed.

  43. 47.

    Zifnab

    It ain’t just torture. Its pretty clear to me he’s in with the Bush administration in that they believe the gov’t is closed to us in terms of information but the people are transparent. And he puts party before country.

    It’s how you get the government cheese these days. After Jeff Gannon and Graham Williams and anti-Cuba reporters and Paid off FOX News journalists and… the list goes on, you do wonder exactly what type of perks Reynolds gets out of running his little site.

    Has Reynolds made any enlightened remarks about the Canadian detainee? The guy who was dragged off to Syria because he decided to take an airplane ride while his name was on a terrorist watchlist? I really do wonder how these guys square with such blatantly illegal and wretchedly immoral treatment of free and innocent civilians like these.

  44. 48.

    The Other Steve

    It’s not so much that Glenn Reynolds is or is not “stupid and offensive” (he is) so much as his sycophantic pandering to move up through the cliquish little backstabbing bitch club known as the rightwing blogosphere is particularly lazy and ill informed. Mostly lazy. At least Jeff Goldstein puts a little effort into his inanity.

    Indeed

  45. 49.

    Zifnab

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/21/171421/551

    Allen’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, is complaining that paid bloggers are keeping the anti-Allen stories alive.

    Big irony here: Wadhams is a pioneer in the use of paid bloggers to shred others’ reputations. He ran the campaign of Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., in 2004, which had two bloggers on the payroll who attacked the credibility of the state’s largest newspaper — the Sioux Falls Argus Leader (another Gannett property) — and the state’s pre-eminent political reporter, David Kranz. Kranz is one of the best and most conscientious reporters I have known in 30 years in the business. Both bloggers ended up working for Thune after the election, on the taxpayers’ dime.

    I wonder what they pay Reynolds these days.

  46. 50.

    srv

    I wonder what they pay Reynolds these days.

    This just in, Bush announces a new medal for 101st Keyboarders. The Medal of Freeper.

  47. 51.

    Larry

    Like abortion, I don’t think there’s a “correct” position to have, and I don’t think your views on it reflect your intelligence, or goodness as a person. So I don’t think you can say about someone who’s pro-choice or pro-life that they’re an idiot or living in a different world or that they’re detached from reality. In fact I don’t think there’s much “objectiveness” in hardly any of the hot button issue we all debate.

    But if you think the media is in league with terrorists, or if you think things are going swell in Iraq, or if you think a particular race is inferior, I think it’s fine to suggest that someone, at least on some issues, isn’t living in “reality”. And it doesn’t have to be hateful or partisan or political.

    Good work, good distinctions. The matter of the “media” being in league with terrorists can and should be grounded in reality. The media, in general, either are or are not in league with terrorists, and I can’t imagine any reasonable argument in favor of believing that they are. Assertions to the contrary are just rhetoric.

    Generally, the “media” are just a convenient strawman or scapegoat in modern political theater. And the “media” manages to be unlikeable enough to serve as a bad guy in almost any old scenario.

    I mean, the industry that makes rich people like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Grace and Hannity is pretty easy to cast as a villain in almost any script. It really doesn’t require many college professors, or bloggers, to figure that one out.

  48. 52.

    Pb

    9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER “Alerts aid terror goals, study finds”; “Intense media scrutiny and politicians’ rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say”

    Essentially, to state the obvious, as the President has said many times, terrorists want to spread fear. So to the extent that fear is being spread, the fear-mongers and fear-spreaders are helping the terrorists. Also, to the extent that our Democracy depends on having an informed populace, anyone who spreads misinformation or disinformation, or any journalists or TV executives who fail in their duties to keep America informed on the vital issues of the day are also helping to undermine our Democracy.

    Therefore, in addition to the President, and much of his government, and much of his party, yes, in some ways, the media is also helping the terrorists achieve their goals. So I’d urge you to fight terrorism by instead embracing freedom from fear, and seeking the truth.

  49. 53.

    Angry Engineer

    Its pretty clear to me he’s in with the Bush administration in that they believe the gov’t is closed to us in terms of information but the people are transparent. And he puts party before country.

    It’s not so much that he puts the Republicans before all else, but rather that he wishes to eschew anything in which the Democrats express any interest. If the Dems are against torturing captives, well, then, dammit, it’s just gotta be the right thing to do.

    It’s kinda like some sort of pseudo-grown-up version of The Opposite Game, on a lower level of maturity than one would expect from a law professor. The number of hits that he receives simply reflects just how low the lowest common denominator really is.

  50. 54.

    carpeicthus

    I wish we could harness that sort of raw, agressive stupidity as an energy source. There’s more of it going around than ever.

  51. 55.

    skip

    Take the time to read look up who Ann Applebaum’s husband is. She is an ideologue in the tradition of Krauthammer.

  52. 57.

    scarshapedstar

    Glenn’s response is wankeriffic.

    media attention isn’t just neutral coverage — the way it generally is with, say, urban crime — but rather the actual goal of terrorists. In fact, it’s their lifeblood. Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict, and media coverage is an essential part of the terrorist plan.

    Are we talking about the same war? Didn’t 1500 Iraqis die last month? Struck down by high-velocity 7.62mm chunks of information, I guess. No actual conflict here, no sir. Just a bunch of cell phones and freshly painted schools and democracy, whiskey, and sexy — and an MSM that’s too stupid and/or treasonous to simply ignore the occasional birth pangs the way they should.

    It’s a good thing I know that Glenn “sees the threat” and “gets it” in a way that I cannot, due to my acute case of BDS. Otherwise I might think that he’s fuckin’ nuts.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Glenn posted a response to my opinion that it is stupid and offensive to blame the media for ‘ambushing’ us by reporting terrorist acts and jihadists threats, and I am not quite sure what to make of it. Glenn writes: […]