You know, I'd been saying to myself "Michael O'Hanlon doesn't have enough media exposure on a sufficiently wide range of topics." Fortunately, it looks like last week the Examiner treated us to an O'Hanlon op-ed on health care so I can now feel okay about that.
« The Price of Change | Main | "There Are Some" »
An Expert for All Seasons
08 Oct 2007 09:55 am
Comments (20)
it is also true that he was in part being responsive to a political environment in which shared sacrifice has gone out of style. [...] As a policy generalist taking in the event, I was struck by the richness of the policy options presented. [...] Politicians were not asked to do it all for us. Evocative of John Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” line, the participants in the event described a number of sacrifices and efforts that regular citizens needed to make. [...] If candidates are armed with ideas like the above, we could be in for a very exciting first 100 days of the new presidency, whoever wins next November.
Velvety smooth chocolate policy richness: his OpEd should've been titled 'O'Hanlon Whacks Off to the Sounds of the Pan Flute'.
Maybe he's auditioning for the role of Unity08's Michael Gerson.
max
['Namyby-pamby fascism WUVVVSSSS you.']
John Hodgman appears on the Daily Show with the position title "Resident Expert," and so presumably all of these types can just author columns and say, by So & So, Expert.
um... should a political blogger really be criticizing someone else for being a policy generalist?
um... should a political blogger really be criticizing someone else for being a policy generalist?
Well maybe O'Hanlon should, like me, have a moderately trafficked blog rather than being a frequent television commentator, congressional testifier, NYT op-ed writer, etc.
Well maybe O'Hanlon should, like me, have a moderately trafficked blog rather than being a frequent television commentator, congressional testifier, NYT op-ed writer, etc.
I don't get this response. What's the relevant difference here? If the frequency of one's television commentary changes from infrequent to frequent, and if one writes op-eds for the New York Times instead of the LA Times, then...?
Al, shut the fuck up.
I don't get this response. What's the relevant difference here? If the frequency of one's television commentary changes from infrequent to frequent, and if one writes op-eds for the New York Times instead of the LA Times, then...?
I'm confused as well. Are you saying that by virtue of your moderate readership you're entitled to be a generalist? I don't understand what operative difference your exposure makes to how wide your subjects can be. (Note that I don't think O'Hanlon deserves his level of media exposure or access-- I simply don't think he's a good enough/interesting enough commentator or writer.)
"If the frequency of one's television commentary changes from infrequent to frequent, and if one writes op-eds for the New York Times instead of the LA Times, then...?"
Then perhaps one should know what one is talking about before one makes said television appearances and writes said Op-Ed pieces.
Instead, we are treated to someone whose MSM exposure that is inversely correlated to their actual knowledge. What a surprise...
Oh my God. The person so sought after for his sage advice on the weighty questions of war and peace is a high school student.
The linked piece reads more like a report that one of my kids wrote for extra credit when she visited a museum in ninth grade.
Who can argue with the genius of a man who's first statement in the health care debate is:
"Americans need to eat better and exercise more."
Followed by a suggestion that we get rid of some health care tax credits and an argument that we all work longer.
O'Hanlon is no more qualified to speak health care than Yglesias is, and he's considerably less qualified than, say, Ezra Klein. Additionally, O'Hanlon has repeatedly proven himself to be completely clueless about his alleged subject of expertise-- foreign policy. He rarely has anything original or thought-provoking to say. If we ignore spelling and grammar and look at the logical construction of his arguments, O'Hanlon is a worse writer than the average college freshman.
And yet the bastard is completely and utterly ubiquitous in serious media outlets.
I really don't get it.
Okay, LFP, Rihilism et al.-- I agree, O'Hanlon shouldn't be given so many venues because he is a poor pundit. No argument there. But that's a separate argument from the one MY seemed to be making, which implied that it's MY's relative obscurity which gives him license to weigh in on whatever he sees fit to.
I interpreted the comment to be saying that O'Hanlon really ought to be obscure as MY, not that MY's relative obscurity "gives him a license to weigh in" on various subjects.
In other words, there's a popular medium for smart, well-connected people to muse on a wide variety of subjects and bounce half-finished ideas off of readers. It's called a blog. Op/Ed pages can solicit actual expert opinions rather than handing the keys to overexposed think-tank gurus with no expertise in the field.
Op/Ed pages can solicit actual expert opinions rather than handing the keys to overexposed think-tank gurus with no expertise in the field.
Matthew's an expert in campaign finance laws? Yet he was perfectly happy to have an op/ed published in the LA Times on that subject.
I have no idea how op/ed pages work, but it seems to me that they aren't always just for experts. Sometimes they publish the works of generalists with something interesting to say.
I am not sure whether Matthew was criticizing O'Hanlon (for writing an op/ed on health care) or the Examiner (for publishing it). Probably both. But I don't think the criticism works either way. Why should O'Hanlon refuse to write something merely because he is a non-expert on the subject and some media entity might publish it? If it is a good piece, it would be worthy regardless of whether he's an expert or not. And why should the Examiner refuse to publish a good piece merely because the writer is not an expert?
If the op/ed was bad, then it seems to me to be fine to criticize the writer for writing it and the publication for publishing it. But Matthew avoided saying anything at all substantive about the actual substance of the O'Hanlon article.
Sometimes they publish the works of generalists with something interesting to say.
It fails on that criterion.
Also, fuck off, Al.
Al, you're an idiot. Or a spoof.
That article was sheer idiocy. Encourage people to exercise more? I'm sure no one's every thought of that before.
I heard O'Hanlon is going to go into comedy (intentional) and tour as Carrot Top II.
the difference, Al, if you're interested in it (why ask questions with foregone conclusions, though), is that MY doesn't speciously claim a status as "scholar." O' Hanlon does, which is a real insult to true scholars everywhere. If I have a Ph.D. in American History, and start writing op-eds on monetary policy in the Financial Times like I'm some kind of "expert," that's extremely disingenuous.
MY, on the other hand, is essentially pundit 2.0 with less stuffiness and probably (so far) better judgment. He's selling his opinion-making skills, not his 'expertise.'
Well maybe O'Hanlon should, like me, have a moderately trafficked blog rather than being a frequent television commentator, congressional testifier, NYT op-ed writer, etc.
But that is your future, young Skywalker. (Well, the Congressional testimony is a bit hard to picture.) And you will have every right to be a policy generalist in those roles.
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
My, my, what vacuous drivel that was. How does one become a Brookings "scholar", again? Rather than taxing the smokers, I suggest we tax inane banter to finance SCHIP.
Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 10:13 AM