Ah, well, I let 2010 expire without commenting these past few days. Every time I thought back over the year, it just seemed too complex to sum up; there were too many highs, too many lows, too much ambiguity about what it all meant. There was just no way to capture it in a few words. So, unable to say it all, I opted for nothing.
Here are a few things I'm hoping we'll see in 2011:
1. Boehner and McConnell will be so busy trying to keep the Tea Party freshmen within the GOP agenda, that they won't have much time for Obama bashing. Meanwhile, the newly emboldened moderate Republicans will form a coalition and cooperate with the Democrats to get some meaningful legislation done, preferring to break with the party on some issues rather than be lumped with the radical fringe . Yes, I'm a dreamer, optimistic to a fault. But I did say this is what I'm hoping for, not what I expect to happen.
2. The Federal Court that heard the Prop8 case will decide that the defendents had no standing to appeal and let the lower court decision stand; it will also uphold the plaintiff's arguments, in effect saying they would have upheld the lower court decision on merits. This will lift the stay and allow same-sex marriages in California, even if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Assuming the National Organization for Marriage will appeal (and they will), then the U. S. Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. And that will be that.
3. Some way will be found to end the war in Afghanistan, so that by the end of 2011 we will be out of there as well as Iraq. I don't know how it will happen -- can we risk losing Pakistan as well, with their nuclear bombs?
4. As people begin to benefit from the health care reform, public opinion will shift, they will realize that the Republicans sold them a bunch of lies -- and the tinkering they will be bound to attempt might actually make some improvements.
5. The economy will swing upward, and it won't just be Wall Street but millions of jobs as well. Obama will choose a replacement for Larry Summers who will convince him to listen to more progressive economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, both Nobel Prize winning economists. Elizabeth Warren's stature within the administration will grow, and she will get full support for her efforts in consumer protection regulations.
6. Somehow, without a major natural disaster to convince them, conservatives will quit being so pigheadedly dumb on global warming -- and cooperate to start making a difference.
7. Somewhere out there in progressive-land, some charismatic television commentator will emerge as the counterpart to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Rachel Maddow is the best we have now; she's terrific, but she may just be a bit too brainy for Joe Six-pack. Same for Jon Stewart. It may have to be someone that we liberal, educated people will cringe over from time to time, because s/he will have to have enough mass appeal to get a mass following.
But it will have to be someone who thinks clearly, challenges the lies without alienating the masses, and who has a way of debunking the debunkers so that people will listen.
OK. Now I guess I've gone round the bend in Ga-Ga Land. But it's my dream, isn't it?
Ralph
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Screaming headlines
I've sounded off before about sensational headlines -- and not just in the tabloids or FoxNews. The Huffington Post contributes its share of whipping up unjustified fervor.
Easy availability of guns? It did say there was also an increase of shootings. Or the economy? The writer favored this explanation -- in that police forces have been cut back in some places due to budget shortages, and officers are being asked to do more with less.
Not until the 7th paragraph, however, does this interesting fact come out: The reason there was a 37% jump in 2010 is that last year's total of 117 was a 50 year low. It was 2009 that was the anomaly, not 2010. Nor does 160 represent a real long-range increase -- It has topped 160 five times in the past ten years, including 240 in 2001. It routinely topped 200 in the 1970s.
To be perfectly clear: I am not condoning police deaths. Even one is too many.
That headline was not wrong: it did rise 37% over 2009. But that's not the real story and it creates a false sense of fear and despair. The real story is that there has been a long-range decline in police deaths, with a sudden drop in 2009 that has now returned to the more expected rate.
Why wasn't the article written from that angle? Obviously, this is a more attention-grabbing headline. And it's all about competition for readers, I guess. Didn't journalism used to be about reporting the news honestly?
Again, I'll plug Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot's book, The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life." It's all about exposing just such misleading use of numbers and statistics. And highly readable.
Ralph
The latest was just now. Their home page headline screams in large type, bright red in color:
The article tells of the really awful statistic that 160 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2010 (and a few days to go). As you read, your mind starts trying to relate it to . . . . . what?"Police Fatalities Jump 37% in 2010."
Easy availability of guns? It did say there was also an increase of shootings. Or the economy? The writer favored this explanation -- in that police forces have been cut back in some places due to budget shortages, and officers are being asked to do more with less.
Not until the 7th paragraph, however, does this interesting fact come out: The reason there was a 37% jump in 2010 is that last year's total of 117 was a 50 year low. It was 2009 that was the anomaly, not 2010. Nor does 160 represent a real long-range increase -- It has topped 160 five times in the past ten years, including 240 in 2001. It routinely topped 200 in the 1970s.
To be perfectly clear: I am not condoning police deaths. Even one is too many.
That headline was not wrong: it did rise 37% over 2009. But that's not the real story and it creates a false sense of fear and despair. The real story is that there has been a long-range decline in police deaths, with a sudden drop in 2009 that has now returned to the more expected rate.
Why wasn't the article written from that angle? Obviously, this is a more attention-grabbing headline. And it's all about competition for readers, I guess. Didn't journalism used to be about reporting the news honestly?
Again, I'll plug Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot's book, The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life." It's all about exposing just such misleading use of numbers and statistics. And highly readable.
Ralph
Obama and 2012
Huffington Post's Sam Stein examines the prospects for a primary challenger to President Obama in 2012. He finds it highly unlikely. Even in the nadir of the post-2010 election, when talk of a challenger was highest, there were no obvious takers who hadn't already said they would not.
Now that his star is rising again, it seems even less likely. Comparing Clinton's prospects at the same point: 78% of Democrats say they want Obama to be the nominee in 2012, compared to Clinton's 57% in 1994.
What would be the prospects of winning from a position to the left of Obama, given that the winner will face a conservative GOP opponent? And would there be any viability to a third party candidacy?
Of course, I'm talking about political realities and winning the presidency, not what progressive policies I would like for a president to be able to get for us. The reality is that, for the foreseeable future, a centrist or slightly left of center position is the most we can hope to elect.
That doesn't mean I'm completely against someone running to keep the progressive message out there and possibly force the nominee to adopt a more liberal stance -- just not so much that it would cost us the election.
In an interview with The Valley Advocate earlier this year, Rachel Maddow defined her political position as "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."
Such are the times we live in. I would like to change it. Obama would like to change it. It ain't gonna happen over night.
Ralph
Now that his star is rising again, it seems even less likely. Comparing Clinton's prospects at the same point: 78% of Democrats say they want Obama to be the nominee in 2012, compared to Clinton's 57% in 1994.
What would be the prospects of winning from a position to the left of Obama, given that the winner will face a conservative GOP opponent? And would there be any viability to a third party candidacy?
Of course, I'm talking about political realities and winning the presidency, not what progressive policies I would like for a president to be able to get for us. The reality is that, for the foreseeable future, a centrist or slightly left of center position is the most we can hope to elect.
That doesn't mean I'm completely against someone running to keep the progressive message out there and possibly force the nominee to adopt a more liberal stance -- just not so much that it would cost us the election.
In an interview with The Valley Advocate earlier this year, Rachel Maddow defined her political position as "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."
Such are the times we live in. I would like to change it. Obama would like to change it. It ain't gonna happen over night.
Ralph
The outrage of " balanced"
Stung by charges that much of television reporting lacks any semblance of professional journalistic standards, some producers started touting "balance" in their reporting. FoxNews even made it the slogan of their ultra-biased news reporting.
Catching the words but missing the tune, they made it even worse by simply interviewing someone from both sides of a controversy, but still without any attempt to analyze the differences or challenge the obvious distortions.
Now, in an exit interview as he's giving up his long career as TV interviewer, Larry King has done just the same thing, criticizing Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow equally for "preaching" their points of view; whereas he, Larry, praises his own style, saying he never learned anything while he was talking, so he tried to just listen to his interviewees.
So: Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are just alike, huh, only mirror images in their political views?
Bullshit. Hannity does exactly what King says. He preaches his own views, distorting what he needs to in order to sell those views.
Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, clearly has views; and she is not shy about letting them be known. But hers is one of the most honest news analysis shows, because she let's the other person present his views and she listens carefully, very carefully -- and then she challenges the logic, the facts, the conclusions. She also tells them where she does agree. In other words, she actually does journalism -- she subjects the report to analysis based on knowing her facts and using her skill in logical challenges. But first she gives the other side a fair hearing.
To equate the two as two opposite peas in a mirror-image pod is just what's wrong with TV news reporting and analysis today. Rachel is the one who does it right. Hannity is an echo-machine, preaching to the gullible and those who want to hear only the lies they already believe.
Here's what I really admire: instead of dumbing down and paranoia-ing up the show for popular appeal, as FoxNews does, Rachel and her producers depend on the appeal of truth, of hard-hitting but straight logical thinking and well-informed questioning. It's encouraging that there really is an audience for that -- and growing.
And, yes, I am biased. Rachel is the kind of person I admire: super-bright, articulate 37 year old, the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship. She is candid about being lesbian, but she doesn't flaunt it or trade on it. It's just who she is. She's a graduate of Stanford University and went on to get her PhD in politics from Oxford University. Hers was the only cable news show to be nominated for the 2009 Television Critics Association Award. The interview when she recently had Jon Stewart on her show was a delight -- one to watch over and over. The two brightest people in TV news, albeit Stewart's official status is comedian.
And, yes, my beliefs also happen to agree with Rachel's positions, almost always. But it's not just bias; it all stands the test of logic and scrutiny for truth.
Ralph
Catching the words but missing the tune, they made it even worse by simply interviewing someone from both sides of a controversy, but still without any attempt to analyze the differences or challenge the obvious distortions.
Now, in an exit interview as he's giving up his long career as TV interviewer, Larry King has done just the same thing, criticizing Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow equally for "preaching" their points of view; whereas he, Larry, praises his own style, saying he never learned anything while he was talking, so he tried to just listen to his interviewees.
So: Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are just alike, huh, only mirror images in their political views?
Bullshit. Hannity does exactly what King says. He preaches his own views, distorting what he needs to in order to sell those views.
Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, clearly has views; and she is not shy about letting them be known. But hers is one of the most honest news analysis shows, because she let's the other person present his views and she listens carefully, very carefully -- and then she challenges the logic, the facts, the conclusions. She also tells them where she does agree. In other words, she actually does journalism -- she subjects the report to analysis based on knowing her facts and using her skill in logical challenges. But first she gives the other side a fair hearing.
To equate the two as two opposite peas in a mirror-image pod is just what's wrong with TV news reporting and analysis today. Rachel is the one who does it right. Hannity is an echo-machine, preaching to the gullible and those who want to hear only the lies they already believe.
Here's what I really admire: instead of dumbing down and paranoia-ing up the show for popular appeal, as FoxNews does, Rachel and her producers depend on the appeal of truth, of hard-hitting but straight logical thinking and well-informed questioning. It's encouraging that there really is an audience for that -- and growing.
And, yes, I am biased. Rachel is the kind of person I admire: super-bright, articulate 37 year old, the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship. She is candid about being lesbian, but she doesn't flaunt it or trade on it. It's just who she is. She's a graduate of Stanford University and went on to get her PhD in politics from Oxford University. Hers was the only cable news show to be nominated for the 2009 Television Critics Association Award. The interview when she recently had Jon Stewart on her show was a delight -- one to watch over and over. The two brightest people in TV news, albeit Stewart's official status is comedian.
And, yes, my beliefs also happen to agree with Rachel's positions, almost always. But it's not just bias; it all stands the test of logic and scrutiny for truth.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
