I have to say that I'm a bit shocked by the regularity with which a criticism I offer of someone -- Martin Peretz, Jonah Goldberg, Ken Baer -- will be met with the response that person x is terrible and a liar and I should just ignore them. The notion that incorrect ideas will just vanish if bloggers with midsize audiences ignore them is pretty odd.
« The "I Don't Know" Express | Main | Predictions I Hope Come True »
Ignore! Ignore!
11 Jun 2007 01:42 pm
Comments (29)
I'd prefer "Soviet."
Right, because not engaging someone in debate equals killing or imprisoning people who disagree with you.
I do think you have to swat down idiots with megaphones like Peretz and Goldberg. But in doing so, it's important to be aggressively disrespectful, lest you give them legitimacy they don't deserve.
Your regular criticism of Martin Peretz, Jonah Goldberg, Ken Baer etc is one of the best things about this site.
kth,
Well, I meant more the Soviet concept of pretending oppositional ideas don't exist instead of the Anglo-American tradition of lively, open, and spirited debate.
I don't think those guys should be ignored, but it's also important to realize: They can churn out unsupported and illogical crap a lot faster than smart level-headed bloggers can come up with well-reasoned concise refutations of that crap.
I think it's good to occasionally remind people what wingnuts those people are, but after a certain point you just have to let the marketplace of ideas take care of it...
Well, as for me, I think MY's frequent bashing of Peretz, Baer, Goldberg, and all the other liars polluting our world is *great*---and also great fun!
Basically, it helps remind all of us who the nasty liars are that we can safely ignore with absolutely no loss of value.
"MY---He reads the liars so you don't have to"
Also, who knows---maybe it will gradually put a little pressure on TPM to shift partway toward being a "liar free zone"...
Er -- "don't ignore" -- probably the predominant view in your readership.
My advic-- ignore your commentors.
::vanishes into logical black hole::
The market place of ideas is NOT taking care of Peretz etc. On the contrary, MY's pushback is most unusual.
Please don't ignore those guys. I'm really happy that we have someone at your position (actually two somebodies, since Ezra gets into the act sometimes) whacking away at Marty Peretz.
Yeah--big inside players unfortunately aren't just figments of our imagination. It's more accurate to say that they hope that we dirty fucking hippies will just go away some day soon and leave them to their Kumbaya moments with David Broder and the other permanent--Soviet-like!--denizens of that strange place called "this town" by those inside it.
If I imagined there were really great posts not being written because we needed read about how Peretz still hates arabs I might agree with the criticism.
There are situations were a writer's opinions are not especially well respected and criticism only serves to reward their efforts.
Anne Coulter needs to be controversial.
Mr Noah hits it exactly. That is what the right has figured out, you can blatantly tell the most outragegous lies in seconds one on top of the other, your opponent needs to take time to unpack and disprove them all, meanwhile your on to the next one. You come off strogn and decisive and yoru opponent comes off as wishy-washy.
It's a liberal thing. Back in the 90s we were told to ignore Rush Limbaugh, don't dignify his crap by calling his attention to it. Well, gosh, he somehow became a major player in the RWNM without our help, who'da thunk it.
Now we're told to ignore Ann Coulter. Same logic. Same failure to learn from experience. You cannot let the other side wedge its most extremist voices into the mainstream.
Maybe the comments urging that you not expose the misleading bullshit of Martin Peretz, Jonah Goldberg, and Ken Baer are ..uh.. posted by Martin Peretz, Jonah Goldberg, and Ken Baer.
Tribalism is the phenomenon driving this.
Illogical and unfounded ideas, and, especially, the nurturing of favored (false) factoids, are a marker of political tribalism, where the function of "criticism" is simply to model clever riposte, and the declaiming of "truth" is a call to battle.
Human nature dictates that a certain degree of political tribalism will mark progressive and moderate politics, but we ought to, also, model a respect for reality, and the value of genuine deliberation.
One of the reasons I read blogs is because of their willingness to take on the Broders and Peretzes.
Pre-blogger days I used to scream at my TV and op-ed pages. I felt frustrated that nobody was taking on these fools.
Reporters/pundits in MSM are extremely reluctant to take on the Powers That Be of the Media Establishment. Who knows, they might someday apply for a job at TNR or run into David Broder at a DC coctail party. Why offend Tim Russert? They might want to go on Meet the Press and promote their book. Why bite the hand that someday might feed them?
Bruce Wilder --
Incisive post.
If the choice is between banging your head against the wall of Goldberg and Peretz or working yourself into a self-righteous hissy fit because Brian Williams had a segment on Iraq where he failed to "provide context," by which is meant he fails to begin his segment with a five minute diatribe against Cheney, and look forward to an invincible army of retarded shut-ins taking down the MSM a la most other left bloggers, then please continue with your current policy of engagement of the obtuse.
I agree that going after such rich targets is exactly what draws me to this blog. Hopefully, the commentors calling for ignoring them are a small (if vocal) minority.
Speaking the truth to those powers isn't giving them fuel for their fires, it's giving them the rope to hang themselves. Mentioning them, criticizing them, skewering them so successfully, doesn't empower them, it reinforces the opinions of those who agree with you and might not share the eloquence to rebut their arguments. But sometimes you have to preach to the choir to keep them singing along.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make them go away. Doesn't weaken them. It weakens us. Instead of focusing on what's wrong with the Peretz and Goldbergs of the world, it builds them up into impressive, formidable, unassailable figures. Refusing to call them on their bullshit, to hector them at every turn, to refute them at every opportunity, and to emerge from that defensive crouch is a sign of weakness that can be done without.
is it really odd to suggest that one shouldn't drive traffic to sites one finds objectionable? i can see why you might disagree, but its certainly not uncommon. weren't you ever told to just ignore an annoying kid when you were young?
The notion that incorrect ideas will just vanish if bloggers with midsize audiences ignore them is pretty odd.
--Matt
Of course you should read and write about whatever interests you. I've wondered why Peretz interests you. Your argument about vanquishing incorrect ideas isn't really relevant. There's an unlimited supply of incorrect ideas that you could vanquish. Whatever. You should continue to write what interests you.
Shouldn't we define terms?
Simply complaining about the character flaws of some media figures is a rather sterile exercise.
On the other hand, the greatest failure of the US news media is its refusal to (a) point out how professional propagandists have misled --and are misleading the voters of this country (b) point out who's paying those propagandists and the proclaimed agendas of the paymasters. (c) point out the massive harm this propaganda is causing to the country.
I don't believe in throwing ad hominems at someone who is submitting factual data. But I rarely see factual data from these guys. Factual data is that actually factual , that is.
On the other hand, it's kinda ridiculous for pundit to ask us to accept the pundit's JUDGMENT on a foreign issue if our past experience tells us that the pundit is not to be trusted -- that he's trying to manipulate us with cheap rhetorical tricks rather than engage in an honest discussion.
Actually, I think the greatest need in the US news media is for someone to publish a "Consumer Guide" to politics for the voters. To point out in detail where politicans, news organizations, and pundits are betraying the national interest and why.
There's an enormous amount of dirt out there. If People can get rich covering the unsavory aspects of Hollywood, then Matthew and The Atlantic can get rich telling American what's REALLY going on.
After all, there's NO competition. The New York Times,etc will never speak out -- they have too much to lose.
I definitely never said I think bloggers should ignore Peretz et. al. I think moderation is the right approach. Apart from a monthlong streak this winter where this blog turned into a Peretz Rebuttal Blog, I think MY has done a great job of keeping a balance.
I also think it's important to choose one's targets well. If Peretz is persuading a lot of Jewish-Americans that Arabs are evil incarnate and that the only way to protect Israel is to support Bush, then he needs to be the focus of massive rebuttal. And he might be doing that - I really don't know, since I'm not as deep in the media scene as many.
Mickey Kaus is a classic example of a pundit/public figure whose mere mention triggers an avalanche of angry demands that he be ignored -- and he's a Dem villified by fellow Dems.
Why? At least part of it is because Kaus so frequently shows the Dems' hyprocrisy -- they pretend to care about poor schools but ignore teachers' unions dominant position in the ed status quo; they pretend to care about low-skill workers but welcome the illegal immigration that hurts the job prospects of these workers; etc.
The Stalinists on the left would rather not have any discussion about this disconnect between the party's professed ideals and how it actually operates.
...Martin Peretz, Jonah Goldberg....
Well, this reader must admit that you seem strangely obsessed with these two, and a few others, always posting on them. It gives off an air like you are in a club with them or share offices or in a academic department with them or something. It strikes a reader like me as very insular, like you're stuck in this little circle. They are very obscure columnists even to most politically-informed people on the East Coast, and consequently your returning to them time and time again makes it almost seem like you're trying to boost their standing and readership.
Write about them to your heart's content - then I don't have to read them
Thanks.
Art, Goldberg works on the West Coast (LA), where a lot of people do live. (The Times seems to be the fourth or fifth-ranking paper in the US). TNR has declined (because of Peretz), but it's still one of the half-dozen most important political magazines.
In Peretz's case, Matt and TAP are fighting for the same niche as Peretz and TNR, and I think they're winning. In that context, pointing out that Peretz is a nasty piece of work (verging on batshit crazy) has real value. (Slyly, Matt and Peretz are somewhat peripheral to both magazines, of course.)
Point not taken.
Matt, it's not that bad ideas vanish if you ignore them, it's that paying attention to them has no effect whatsoever. Jonah Goldberg and company will continue to spit out dumb crap whether you analyze it or not. It's a service to your readers and also just entertaining for you to dismantle the bad arguments. Just don't kid yourself that at some point Jonah is going to see the light and stop making them.
Comments closed June 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"Odd" is one adjective for it.
I'd prefer "Soviet."
Posted by Zagnut | June 11, 2007 1:50 PM