Dean Baker makes the analogy. As far as it pertains to the editorial page, I think it holds up pretty well.
« The Price of Google | Main | All The Pretty Communists »
Post as Pravda
31 Jan 2008 12:18 pm
Comments (17)
....and he wasn't even talking about their guest columns on foreign policy.
Anybody else heard the rumor that Donnie Graham had always wanted to turn the WaPo rightward, but Big Momma Katie wouldn't let him? Sure looks like it was true.
People would do well to remember that within the upper ranks of the Soviet elite there was a range of views and that disagreements were voiced and discussed in public forums. So in old issues of Pravda, for instance, you can find tactical criticisms of the invasion of Afghanistan. What you won't find, though, is any sense that the invasion was fundamentally wrong, a crime, a piece of imperialism and the fault of the Soviet regime.
Similarly in the elite US press one can find plenty of tactical criticism of Iraq (or any other American incursion). But completely absent is, again, any sense that American aggression is wrong, a crime, imperialist, etc. So in both cases we see the upper echelon press giving voice to elite viewpoints (which in the nature of things are generally narrow) but never significantly questioning them. And so it happens that even in a "free press" the media becomes basically an adjunct of State.
So when is someone going to tell us that the NYT is the Izvestia?
v Pravde net Izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net Pravdy?
Um, on behalf of gregor: Izvestia means news in Russian, so the translation is "There's no News in the Truth (pravda) and no Truth in the News..."
For example, we know from a recent Washington Post editorial that "everyone agrees the economy needs a government boost." However, just eights days earlier, the lead editorial in the Post told readers that "fiscal stimulus may eventually be needed," but warned against jumping the gun...
The Post offered no explanation for this sudden change in positions. There were no surprising data releases in the eight days between editorials....
While I generally agree with the point of the horridness of the WashPo editorial page - I think Baker is being just a bit disingenous in the example he uses - The two dates that he uses to compare the editorials are Jan 11 and Jan 19.
On the morning that the first editorial ran, the Dow opened at 12850. The second editorial ran on the Saturday - the first market day after the editorial, the Dow hit a multi-year low of 11508 - a loss in a week of well over 10%. Financial markets worldwide went into panic mode during that week - while pretends that nothing was going on. The White House, the day before the editorial, announced a hurried bipartisan emergency stimulus package that made huge financial headlines - a political shift that Baker pretends never happened.
Baker also claims that there were "no surprising data releases in the eight days between editorials" - I guess the trick subjective word here is "surprising". In those 8 days, economic reports were issued about, among others, the US Trade Balance (1/11), Retail Sales (1/15), Industrial Production (1/16), Housing Starts and Building Permits (1/17) - all of which came in MUCH worse than forecast. The Philadelphia Fed general Economic Index (1/17) was forecast to rise 2.0% - it fell 20.9% to a six year low. But since Baker personally doesn't find any of these reports "surprising", the fact that the rest of the world responded to them seems to be beyond his grasp.
Beleive me, I'm not defending the WashPo - especially it's editorial page. However, as someone who follows business news closely, and is away of things that Baker is evidently oblivious of, the one word that comes to mind on reading his piece is HACK.
Billmon used to refer to the WaPa as "Pravda", constantly.
Yup. Wasn't it "Pravda on the Potomac"? Witty and alliterative. I miss him.
E-to-T, you pretty much miss the forest for the stock-market tree. The point is, plenty of observers have watched the economy tilt into the ditch over the past 6 months or so. What's instructive is to see how slavishly the WaPo editorial page dances to the tune of received beltway opinion--as it did on Iraq, Iran, and, frankly, any issue of any import or relevance whatsoever. Can anyone name one issue on which Fred Hiatt and company bravely stuck their necks out against the howling wind of Today's Truth, capital edition? Didn't think so. The word that comes to mind for your posting is NAIVE....
I stopped reading all of the WaPo editorial pages (except Tom Toles) years ago. To me it is clearly where you see their desire to be the "responsibe" or "centrist" paper - if by that you mean pandering to those moved to the Washington Times - in the choosing of the regular and guest columns as well as the inhouse editorializing (mostly for hte internation opinion-izing).
"a political shift that Baker pretends never happened"
You mean the political shift that the Washington Post pretends never happened? That's what I took away from Dean Baker's article, that the Post repeats current conventional wisdom uncritically and without thought. If that is indeed his thesis, your argument bolsters his point that the Post editorical page involves little independent thought.
As it pertains to the series of candidate profiles with features on "How He Looks" and "How He Talks" and absolutely no substantive articles on "Where He Stands on the Issues", however... what, you're not sure, Matthew?
Such articles, of course, being about nothing, allow the writer to insinuate anything he or she likes.
The examples below don't prove the Pravda-ness of the Post's reportage, but they sure are stupid:
Robin Givhan, Washington Post, (12/13/07): "Cranial eruptions and crew-neck sweaters don't go together... McCain has a dress-shirt problem compounding the sweater conundrum."
Indeed! Also:
Givhan (12/14/07): One of the most distinctive elements of Barack Obama's public style comes down to what he so often is not wearing: patriotism on his sleeve. Whether he is speaking at a campaign rally, attending a fish fry or debating his Democratic challengers, he comes across as the candidate least willing to drape himself in the usual symbols of nationalism and politics. No flag pin on the lapel. No hand on heart during the national anthem. And he generally shuns bold red ties.
(Obama was one of only two candidates to wear a red tie at the debate the night before this article ran.)
The word that comes to mind for your posting is NAIVE....
No, I wouldn't describe myself as naive (name-calling is not a very persuasive way to make a point, either). I agree with the general point about the WashPo's editorial pages - I specifically stated I did. However I really do think Baker does not use a good example.
Things did change, fundamentally, during that week in January - both financially in the world markets, and in the sudden need for a policial response to it. Yet Baker acts as nothing happened in the world ("no surprising data releases" - as if that is the some total of what financial markets and politicians respond to) and that the change was the result of the Beltway elite deciding something in a Georgetown salon that they (the Post) didn't need to explain to the rest of us. It's just not the case.
The markets were in panic - things HAD changed in the week (you don't lose 10% of stock market value in a week and pretend that things are "normal") - Bush and Congress turned on a dime and announced a political response the day before the 2d editorial. These things were on the table - while political partisans and blog junkies were arguing endlessly about whether or not Bill Clinton is a racist, the real world was definitely paying attention to this stuff. It's only if you look at things in a complete vacuum does this Baker criticism make sense - but there wasn't a complete vacuum at the time - instead there was a financial firestorm and market meltdown in progress. And Baker reduces it to "no surprising economic reports". Baker's entire critique could be easily negated if the Post had added one phrase about recognizing that that damage of the preceding week had changed things - they didn't, and I would think because it was apparant who to anyone who is following financial affairs and who was aware that a Bush stimulus plan (for better or worse) had been put on the table the day before. Sorry myopic poltical junkies weren't aware of this.
I'm not one to throw around words like "naive" - but if you insist on using the term, maybe you should look to yourself. It's too bad the likes of you can't respond to a deliver an alternate POV without personal attack.
Isn't the Washington Post just a weather vane for Washington thinking in general? They aren't independent thinkers, and I don't think they intend to be.
It's like asking Bill Kristol to not argue for more war. It goes against his nature.
Also, by reflecting current conventional wisdom, they have the fall back position that "Everyone knew XYZ".
-Everyone knew Saddam had WMD.
-Everyone knows tax cuts reduce the deficit.
-Everyone knows Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
-Everyone knows that free trade is good for everyone.
A daily reader of the WaPo online, I can't disagree with the gist of the criticism of their editorial page. Someone who is turned away by this however would miss EJDionne and DanFroomkin which would be a shame.
I couldn't find the usage, but sometime around 1972 someone (I F Stone maybe) called Time Newsweek Pravda. But to echo from above, do I miss Billmon? Yes I do.
Any paper that employs Robert Samuelson to write about economics is ,in my opinion, focused on burying its nose firmly in the butt of the wealthy.
Samuelson's columns are so stupid that they seem to signal self-hatred -- no one would make themselves look so idiotic unless they held their job itself in disgusted contempt. Kinda like Baghdad Bob. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032402276.html
Whores who are over the hill tend to let themselves go -- and in my opinion, Samuelson is definitely looking shopworn.
Comments closed February 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Billmon used to refer to the WaPa as "Pravda", constantly.
Posted by cleek | January 31, 2008 12:23 PM