.
Norman
Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. He has written a book with Thomas
E. Mann a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution entitled: It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the
American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.
There is an essay adapted from their book in the Washington Post entitled Let’s
just say it: The Republicans are the problem. As the title suggests, their conclusion is that the Rs have gone off the rails.
They use a football metaphor to describe the parties recent movements vis a vis the center.
"While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."
" ... the Democrats have become more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government ..."
They do not explain how it is that the Rs can be so far out of the mainstream and keep winning elections.
They present some good evidence. Former Senator Chuck Hagel R - NB: “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.” Also, the excessive use of the filibuster - however he does not mention that the Ds could have changed that rule at the beginning of the session.
Finally though, they note that the Rs are not likely to be forced to the center at the polls and propose another method: "We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public."
In a piece in the New Republic Ornstein says that he views himself as a centrist. Apparently he is referring to his placement among the readership of that publication.
.
“But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality”. They really said that?
ReplyDelete"But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality".
ReplyDeleteThat makes some sense to me. An extreme example: a concentrated effort to present a balanced treatment of Hitler's rise to power and all that followed would tell ALL sides of the story from all points of view including Hitler and all that enthusiastically followed him down that horrific road that he took. This, it seems to me, would cast all that happened in an unreal light (i.e., one in which Germany may have had a reasonable point of view that could possibly justify its actions).
Having said that, it takes a rare individual indeed to have the wisdom to know an unblanced phenomenon for which to present an unbalanced treatment in order to give the readers/viewers the accurate reality of the situation. All in all, I prefer a balanced view of events. But there are exceptions.
I was just a baby at the time but I understand that Edward R. Morrow threw all objectivity out the window when he went after McCarthy. A balanced reporting of what McCarthy was up to would dull just how grossly excessive his pursuit of accused leftists was. (I use the word leftist because it is my understanding that McCarthy went after anyone who leaned even slightly to the left, considering them to be communists or communist sympathizers.) I think history has generally sided with Murrow on this.
I think I know what a balanced (or unbalanced) treatment is. I'm not sure that I know what an "unbalanced phenomenon" would be. However, I think I know what the authors are advocating. That would be having the media line up with the left.
ReplyDeleteHow I interpret the statement:
ReplyDeleteInterpretation 1 - We don’t want a balanced treatment because it may cause others to reach a conclusion other that the one we prefer.
Interpretation 2 – We don’t think others are capable of reaching the correct (our desired) conclusion given a balanced treatment.
Interpretation 3 – To get others to reach our preferred conclusion we have no qualms in providing you with an unbalanced presentation.
I think it's fairly clear what an unbalanced phenomenon would be by the context. And I think it's also clear that he IS advocating that the press line up behind the left. He is not trying to be covert about it. He as much as said it. He is voicing mine and a lot of other people's frustrations with the Rs, and, in fact, speaking to the very reason why I could no longer identify with them. His points are all ones that I have thought many times.
ReplyDeleteBut the truth is all his words are just saber rattling. "The press" is not going to line up behind the left. The press is just as divided as the rest of the nation. And, truth be told, there's money in it.
Would selective reporting with intent to create, in the readers’ minds, a preferred perception be an unbalanced phenomenon that, by their criteria, should not be reported in a balanced manner?
ReplyDeleteInterpretation 4 – A statement made by elitist snobs who are convinced that they, and people who think like them, are the only “right thinking” people in the world.
p.s. Just voicing my frustrations with elitists.
Are you sure you don't mean "frustration with LEFTIST elitists"? The left does not hold a monopoly on members who consider themselves the arbiters of "right thinking". The airwaves are full of examples of both.
ReplyDeleteOpinions are like a__holes. Everybody has one and they'd like to keep it.
Just so we are clear on what we are talking about:
e·lit·ist
[ih-lee-tist ey-lee‐]
adjective
1. (of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else.
2. catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions: Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist.
noun
3. a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society: He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist.
4. a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class
My scorn for elitists is unfettered by political boundaries. On a softer note I would add that, although elitists may have strong opinions having a strong opinion does not make one an elitists.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, but how do you sniff out the elitists, who believe they are right and that the opinion of everyone who disagrees with them is of no value, from the people with strong opinions who believe...well, the same thing? If I could see the difference in any tangible way maybe I could scorn them too.
ReplyDeleteA balanced treatment of any topic would present the positives and negatives on both sides. Neither Hitler nor McCarthy would come out looking good under a balanced treatment.
ReplyDeleteConjuring up a notion of an "unbalanced phenomenon" seems to me to be poppycock that is designed to justify having the media abandon its obligation to be as objective as they can.
Forgive me as I beat this dead horse one more time. The concept of "unbalanced phenomenon", having been officially (on this blog anyway) declared poppycock not withstanding, it is hard to deny that Hitler and McCarthy looked pretty darned good for long enough to do a hell of a lot of damage. So, under the poppycock notion, the reporting during that period of time must have been very unbalanced, or nobody was attending to the balanced reporting for an extended period of time.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly right, the reporters were intimidated into giving unbalanced reports. I don't think balanced reporting means just repeating what each side says. One should analyse it and ask them the hard questions. Reporters should point out to the Rs that cutting taxes does not always work like the Rs say it does and they should ask the Ds, who are proposing a "budget cut" by which they mean changing an increase from 11% to 8%, if it is a fair representation to call that a "cut".
ReplyDeleteI hear them being asked those questions all the time, on both sides, and they answer with their focus group tested party lines.
ReplyDelete(I fixed my spelling so I wouldn't get frowny face)
ReplyDeletee.g., Romney was asked a question in one of the debates. He began his response and the moderator stopped him and said that he was not answering the question. Romney responded "look, you get to ask the questions you want to ask and I get to give the answers that I want to give."