Search This Blog

Friday, November 09, 2012

Media Divergence


This dialog in the comments of a recent Great Guys post ("Congrats to Romney") has been enlightening to me.  The dialog involves a discussion of an event where Romney is helping deliver water to hurricane victims and allegedly ignored questions from reporters about his views regarding eliminating FEMA.

Loyal Great Guys commenter Harry Eagar sees Romney ignoring reporters while delivering water to hurricane victims as cowardice.  That's what Harry sees and those Harry associates with and writes for apparently see it the exact same way.

I look at the same event and see Romney as reasonably and perhaps even wisely ignoring the reporters and that his actions of working to deliver water were at worst somewhat staged to help his campaign and at best an honorable thing to do (and most likely a mix of the two).

While Harry and I often or even usually disagree, I can usually at least understand why Harry sees and thinks what he does.

In this case, I cannot.  I simply cannot look at the event described by Harry and see cowardice and dishonor in Romney.  I can see from the non-liberal commenters here that they cannot see cowardice and dishonor either.

It's becoming clear to me that there will ultimately be a liberal media for liberals and a conservative media for conservatives.  As this dialog has shown, I can't reliably glean any information from the liberal media.  And I know my liberal friends try and fail to ever get useful information from conservative media (fox news, townhall, etc.).

This media divergence is leading to hundreds of millions of Americans being completely unable and unwilling to communicate with each other excepts to shout epithets at each other when forced to interact.  Conservatives will only interact with conservatives, work with conservatives, and buy and sell from conservatives.  For example, I read a story where a business owner fired everybody with an Obama sticker on their car after the election.  Liberals already play the same game (conservatives rarely are able to get tenure at universities, for example) and the trend will intensify.  This will essentially be a cold civil war between liberals and conservatives.

I doubt there's a solution.  When people can't communicate, they can't interact, and they can't solve problems.

The one hope is forums like this one.  As long as we try to understand each other, though often failing, at least there's a chance.

41 comments:

Susan's Husband said...

Bret, I am not so sure that Eagar actually sees it that way, rather than simply engaging in what is effectively a school yard taunt to get his target (or a similar future target) to do something he knows is bad for the target.

erp said...

Bret, read Alinsky.

As a scientist, you look for logic, but there is no logic here. It's much simpler than you imagine.

Most liberals/lefties/collectivists .. know very well their "policies" are scams to grab power and only low brows like Gore, Bill Maher and Hollywood starlets really believe the nonsensical stuff the left spouts, but as long as the candy store remains open, they'll run their scam and when the money runs out, they'll retire to their gazillion dollar homes on tropical beaches.

I didn't think it could happen here, but as we can see, it could and it did.

Harry Eagar said...

Somehow all those guys at VC got tenure.

True, there seem to be 2 versions of reality. How could a reporter not ask about FEMA when 60 million people were about to face a civil emergency and when the candidate for president had loudly fingered FEMA -- he had said many agencies would go, but FEMA was the one he named.

Over at Yougov there's an interesting arguing that it wasn't demographics that decided the election but simply big government v. little government.

Romney was hardly in a position to complain about being asked to elucidate his small-government ideas. That was supposed to be the message he was selling, I thought.

I have many more objections to romney, who -- to my surprise, since I tentatively favored him for the nomination in 2008 -- made himself into one of the very few politicians I actively despise.

Harry Eagar said...

Somehow all those guys at VC got tenure.

True, there seem to be 2 versions of reality. How could a reporter not ask about FEMA when 60 million people were about to face a civil emergency and when the candidate for president had loudly fingered FEMA -- he had said many agencies would go, but FEMA was the one he named.

Over at Yougov there's an interesting arguing that it wasn't demographics that decided the election but simply big government v. little government.

Romney was hardly in a position to complain about being asked to elucidate his small-government ideas. That was supposed to be the message he was selling, I thought.

I have many more objections to romney, who -- to my surprise, since I tentatively favored him for the nomination in 2008 -- made himself into one of the very few politicians I actively despise.

Susan's Husband said...

He wasn't being asked to elucidate, he was being asked to provide spin fodder for his political enemies.

Bret said...

Harry Eagar wrote: "... [Romney is] one of the very few politicians I actively despise."

This is exactly what I'm saying about media divergence. To me, Romney is one of the most upstanding politicians in my lifetime. You've attempted to make your case and I can't come up with any set of premises, perceptions, and logic that supports it.

I'm sure it all makes sense to you, but I can't make heads or tails of it. For example, you ask, "How could a reporter not ask about FEMA...". Nothing wrong with reporters asking. But I can't understand why you think there's something wrong with not answering them. As I pointed out, I wouldn't have either.

The only time I talk to a reporter is when it's in my interest. When a reporter calls from an organization that's hostile to my company (for example, some organizations like to paint robots as sinister since it's plausible that they'll reduce employment), I tell them to get lost.

Discussing FEMA during a highly emotionally charged emergency couldn't possibly be in Romney's (and therefore the country's) interest so he wisely chose to ignore the reports. In my book, there's nothing wrong with that, and indeed, it was an intelligent response.

Nobody owes a reporter anything, ever. The only reason to ever talk to one is if it's in your interest.

Thus the situation only boosts my opinion of Romney which I'm sure you can't understand even though I believe I've explained it clearly above. The same situation causes you to despise Romney and I just don't get it even though I'm sure you believe you've explained why in a manner that I should be able to understand.

Harry Eagar said...

Actually, if Romney had wanted to pause and give more than soundbite attention to that question (or any other), the MSM would have lapped it up. They were anxious, even desperate to interview him.

You may not believe, but I'm an insider, and I know.

Second point, president's don;t get to pick which crises they react to.

I have a list of examples of romney's dishonoable behavior. The one that shocked me was ignoring the Fourth commandment.

Susan's Husband said...

Mr. Eagar;

Old Media was desperate to interview Palin as well and then distorted and lied about that. Again, explain the coverage of Romney's relief effort at which he was asked the question. That's exactly what I think of when I think of "lapping it up" - mocking and abusing someone for doing the good and right thing.

I certainly think of you as an insider which only re-enforces my view on this. Look at what you, personally, did in the last thread in distorting my comments. That's what you do, that's what Old Media does. You have yet to provide a scintilla of evidence that I am wrong on that, and much to confirm it.

For example, your own comment "president's don;t get to pick which crises they react to". Certainly true, and written by you in a condemnatory fashion, but utterly wrong. Romney was responding to a crisis, what he wasn't doing was responding to a hostile element, Old Media, who were irrelevant to the crisis. Yet you condemn Romney for doing precisely what you say he should do. That's the mendacity he was avoiding, right there, from an insider who knows.

Harry Eagar said...

In what way was he responding to a crisis? It was a stunt, and not the first of its kind by him and Ryan.

At that moment, his job was to explain to the citizens why his policies were superior.

You can take your conspiracy theories about old media and shove them. If you were even the tiniest bit on target neither you nor I would ever have heard of Mena.

Susan's Husband said...

Romney was responding to a crisis by gathering relief supplies for the victims of the crisis. That's a standard response I have seen many many times. I can provide links if you like, to document that.

"At that moment, his job was to explain to the citizens why his policies were superior."

Even if true, I don't see how responding to that question at that time from those people would have furthered that goal.

"If you were even the tiniest bit on target" - My claim was that Old Media would distort and lie about Romney. Mena, reported or not, is completely irrelevant to that claim since it doesn't involve a GOP candidate for office.

I also note that it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a direct observation of endlessly documented behavior. I provided plenty of links above that do so, and I have documented your own actions that validate my claim. As expected from an insider of Old Media, your response has been to get hostile instead of providing counter evidence, just as expected by my completely off target theory.

Harry Eagar said...

Read 538's latest. Republican delusions by the numbers.

Susan's Husband said...

I'll interpret that as "yes, you're right, but look! Squirrel!".

Bret said...

What's 538?

Harry Eagar said...

The quant Nate Silver's electoral blog at NYT.

He demonstrates a consistent pro-republican bias in the polls.

I could also have said: Jennifer Rubin.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry, from the previous thread:] If FEMA should be disbanded, then Romney should have had the balls to say so --

So let me get this straight. FEMA has existed since the beginning of time, and calling to disband it would be akin to, oh, I don't know, abolishing gravity?

There is only one way to answer such the kinds of questions the blinkered media wanted to ask: discursively. The setting was neither the time, nor the place, for such a thing. It would have been a great place for gotcha "journalism", though.

Of course, the media could have asked and answered some very obvious questions, like: whatever did we do before FEMA — presuming there was ever such a benighted time? Or, does FEMA accomplish its mission either effectively or efficiently? Or, does FEMA, and the federal flood insurance program, enable stupid decisions, thereby creating a need for its services (such as they are, whatever that may be) that is much greater than it would be otherwise — in short, is FEMA just a self-licking ice cream cone?

The preceding is how you tell the media is blinkered*. Those would be perfectly legitimate and important questions to ask of any advocate of FEMA's continued existence. But I will bet dinner that no member of the MSM asked that question of Romney, or Biden, or any collectivist candidate, or of FEMA itself, or of history.

* Many people refer to a liberal conspiracy among the MSM, or academia. I think that is giving them far too much credit, because most journalists are not particularly intelligent, and even less well informed. As for the subjective disciplines in academia, it would be difficult to imagine occupations that are, on the whole, even scarcely less demanding of rigor or effort. Regardless — academics and journalists are blinkered in that they are simply incapable of seeing anything outside their immediate field of view, which includes every darn thing that doesn't adhere to The Narrative.

The NYT editorial page is a perfect example. It has, among other things, been banging the Citizens United drum so hard it is at risk of breaking both stick and instrument. As it happens, the election outcome decisively proved that the NYT in particular, and collectivists in general, were completely wrong. Yet after the election, the NYT editorial page promptly called for CU to be overturned, without even once hinting that whatever minimal gains might be had could be completely swamped by that unacknowledged bogey of the collectivist fever swamps: unintended consequences.

Nor, must it be noted, did the NYT even glance ever so tentatively in the direction of its own rampaging hypocrisy.

Hey Skipper said...

... asked that question of Obama ...

Susan's Husband said...

And the FEMA failure goes on and on yet where is the outrage from Old Media? The discussion about whether FEMA helps or not? About why it isn't being managed well? Could it possibly, just maybe, be caused by the party of President and not any facts relating to FEMA or disaster recovery? No, it simply cannot be, journalists are clearly desperate to cover such a major story.

Harry Eagar said...

As it happens, I was in Long Island and Connecticut and New York City when a big storm hit during the Reagan administration.

Eastern L.I. caught most of it. Power was not restored for 3 weeks, and not for months in some places.

I fail to remember any conservatives calling for the end of FEMA then.

It wasn't the press that brought up FEMA. It was Romney. It was his top-of-mind item on cutting government.

He could have taken as much time as he felt he needed to discuss why he was campaigning against FEMa>

Guy and Skipper surmise -- correctly, I'm sure -- that any explanation Romney would be likely to give would not withstand much scrutiny.

Maybe Romney should have pulled a Perry and disremembered some other agency.

Anyhow, if you don't believe the national government can adequately respond to emergencies, next time your yacht is sinking, skip the Coast Guard and call the tea party or something.

(Guy has now stated twice that FEMA is failing in NY. He must have some secret source of information.)

Susan's Husband said...

"I fail to remember any conservatives calling for the end of FEMA then"

And so ...? I don't think we had communicated at that point.

"It was his top-of-mind item on cutting government"

I doubt it was the top of his actual priority list, once again demonstrating how the mendacity of the press shows why Romney was smart to not answer further questions.

"[you] surmise [...] that any explanation Romney would be likely to give would not withstand much scrutiny"

I surmise no such thing. I claim, on the contrary, that no scrutiny would be given at all, only biased sneers.

"if you don't believe the national government can adequately respond to emergencies"

Ah, that same Old Media mendacity in operation once again - truly, you are an insider. No one here has written or claimed any such thing. We have talked about large scale disasters, which are quite a different thing.

"He must have some secret source of information."

It's called "The Internet". It may go public soon. Keep an eye out for it.

erp said...

Better be quick about 'tho, I'm afraid it (the internet) will disappear into the ether where we cogs can't see it.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] "[you] surmise [...] that any explanation Romney would be likely to give would not withstand much scrutiny"

[AOG:] I surmise no such thing. I claim, on the contrary, that no scrutiny would be given at all, only biased sneers.


I second the lack of surmisal. There are plenty of reasons to wonder whether FEMA is effective, and a whole lot more to wonder if its notion of efficiency to use furnaces highly rated by Consumers' Union to set fire to giant piles of money.

Not one MSM journalist, SFAIK, has even thought to ask, never mind answer, the obvious questions I posed above. Yet without even a moment's reflection, everyone of them would have jumped all over any proposal Romney might make, with every bit of the same devotion to critical analysis that shines forth from the NYT editorial page.

After a disaster such as Sandy, what is needed mostest, firstest: potable water; equipment to clear roads; crews to rebuild power lines; and industrial sized generators to restore power as soon as sections of the power distribution can be put together.

Why FEMA, and not the National Guard?

(BTW, in a previous life, I had to deal with similar disaster planning, and even had a chance to see that plan put into action.)



[Harry:] As it happens, I was in Long Island and Connecticut and New York City when a big storm hit during the Reagan administration.

Eastern L.I. caught most of it. Power was not restored for 3 weeks, and not for months in some places.


As it happens, thousands of Long Island residents are still without power:

While [Long Island Power Authority] oversight has drifted, politicians have installed relatives and friends in executive positions at the authority, turning it into a rich source of patronage jobs, according to interviews and a review of state records.

These positions have an average salary of $110,000, the records show.

“There are many, many people who have been placed at LIPA during my tenure here who have no utility experience or training in the job that they have been placed in,” said Tracy Burgess-Levy, the authority’s director of community relations.


I'm sure FEMA is all over this. Right?

Harry Eagar said...

It hasn't been 3 weeks, skipper. the scale destruction is an order of magnitude greater than the '85 storm whict rural areas.

When did the Hudson River tunnels flood before?

FEMA and the Guard work together. You think the Guard wants to hand out housing slips?

You can't get Romney off the FEMA. He brought it up in a debate. He owns it

Susan's Husband said...

Ok, Romney owns the idea that FEMA is a net waste of money and we'd be better off delegating disaster relief to state and local elements. Certainly that makes me glad I voted for him.

Harry Eagar said...

He didn't say that, you know. Alexander Graham Bell used to say, never impute motives. He had his chance.

And now he re-owns '47%.' It turns out that he was completely wrong when he said that was 'completely wrong.' The guy is funnier than Sarah Palin.

LIPA isn't the grid operator,Skipper. That was offshored.

What could possibly go wrong?

Harry Eagar said...

He didn't say that, you know. Alexander Graham Bell used to say, never impute motives. He had his chance.

And now he re-owns '47%.' It turns out that he was completely wrong when he said that was 'completely wrong.' The guy is funnier than Sarah Palin.

LIPA isn't the grid operator,Skipper. That was offshored.

What could possibly go wrong?

Susan's Husband said...

Now you're just gibbering. I'll wait till you write something at least semi-coherent. You could start by pointing out where I imputed a motive, and second by actually stating what your point is.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] It hasn't been 3 weeks, skipper. the scale destruction is an order of magnitude greater than the '85 storm which hit rural areas.

Wait, what? That can't possibly be right. Warmenists assure us that there was no such thing as extreme weather before Sandy.

But more to the point at hand. With regard to abolishing FEMA, the questions are fundamentally two: are FEMA's goals suitable, and, to what extent is FEMA correctly constituted to accomplish those goals that are suitable?

I have no good idea what either answers are, but I guarantee two things. First, visiting the FEMA website is no help. And, more importantly, the MSM has been utterly incompetent at addressing any of that, even in the most superficial way. So Romney was completely justified in ignoring the reporters on the subject — the setting was wrong, and the guaranteed result would be a festival of MSM navel gazing on the subject, starting with the reporters, and picking up speed and mass until it reached the NYT Op Ed page, the Fort Knox of unexamined ideas.

And you sort of typify the whole non-conspiratorial but wholly blinkered MSM process. You know in advance there is no possible answer that isn't an evil dismemberment of government, without considering the possibilities that FEMA has metastasized beyond recognition, or that FEMA's useful goals could be more effectively accomplished in other ways.

As for the former, I read yesterday that FEMA responds to something like six times as many events as it did in the 1980s. That should raise an eyebrow. Then, wholly by coincidence, came a local news report last night that should yank the other one skyward.

The Knik River, about 30 miles north of where I live, is a primarily glacial fed braided river. Which means the river flows on a wide (6-ish miles, this case), flat plain through meandering channels. Last summer, the river decided to meander itself into some new channels that happened to be where people, quite stupidly, built stuff. The story wasn't the completely natural behavior of the river, but rather that an application for FEMA assistance was sitting on the President's desk, awaiting approval.

If he does approve, then Federal money will be directed to help.

At this point, you must see that there are some problems here. The term "Federal money" should be one red flag: it is the collectivist synonym for "free". Striking both from the collectivist vocabulary would no doubt violate the First Amendment, but it would have the benefit of perhaps forcing some rigor upon what passes for collectivist analysis.

Which raises the follow-on problem: by centralizing authority, not only does accountability go by the wayside, but, what's worse, other people's money will serve to enable the very same stupidity that was the real problem in the first place.

Okay, I admit, I'm not a reporter, so obviously the preceding argument is both so simple that Romney should have been able to present it in a soundbite, and so manifestly wrong that he would be evil for advocating it.

Right?

And then flipping that coin over, to what extent was Obama called out on justifying FEMA's performance, or asked whether it should be doing what it's doing?

There is your blinkered MSM right there. Not conspiratorial, but rather complacent, navel-gazing, rut-dwelling, curiously incurious, incompetents.

Hey Skipper said...

And now he re-owns '47%.'

What is the definition of a political mistake? Unintentional candor.

He was on to something, which the blinkered MSM completely failed to twig: dependency, in all its manifestations. Apparently, people voted for Obama to raise taxes on the rich, all the while ignoring that taxing the rich at a 1200% marginal rate isn't enough to put things right. The MSM, incurious as ever, let that completely slide while, without a hint of irony, slammed Romney and Ryan for failing to provide specifics on their budget and tax plans.

Dependency (see Knik River whiners, et al) has gotten to the point where no amount of redistribution can pay for it.

Yeah, I can see how Romney is evil for pointing that out.

LIPA isn't the grid operator,Skipper. That was offshored.

First off, the grid operations were privatized, not offshored (how could that happen, anyway?). Second, LIPA had an executive role to play, at which they utterly failed. Which, staffed as it was with place holders, ignorants, and incompetents, should come as no surprise.

LIPA could have done meaningful work in specifying network resilience in the face of foreseeable disasters, and it could have planned recovery operations.

No, wait. "Could" is the wrong word. I need something more along the lines of "were professionally obligated to a task so obvious that even my dog would have sensed its presence".

Harry Eagar said...

Obama is sure getting the once-over on FEMA performance now, if you read newspapers.

When, if ever, was Romney going to explain to voters why they didn't need FEMA?

The 47% remark expressed Romney's core beliefs -- to the extent he has any -- and couple distastefully with Ryan's attack on 'urban' voters.

As a WaPo reporter got a Republican to volunteer yesterday, it doesn't square with Romney losses in rural, white states like Iowa and N. Hampshire.

I can well imagine that FEMA responds to more calls today. The first time I went to west Palm Beach, Pratt & Whitney owned 5,000 acres of test facilities without a single resident. By the time Andrew arrived, P&W was gone and the swamps were full of houses.

Outer Banks of N.C., same way. Dakota Dunes, same way.

the genius of the market has covered the nation in subdivisions that our more nature-attuned forebears knew better than to live in

Susan's Husband said...

"When, if ever, was Romney going to explain to voters why they didn't need FEMA?"

After the election, just like Obama and all the bad economic news.

So, my "secret sources" turned out to be correct after you were so dismissive of them? How "unexpected".

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] Obama is sure getting the once-over on FEMA performance now, if you read newspapers.

I subscribe to both the NYT and the WSJ. If there has been any rubbishing of Obama over FEMA performance, never mind rising to the hysterical pitch after Katrina, than the failure to notice it is mine. I am sure you have a link or two to set me straight.

Having gotten by that, though, the question that absolutely begs asking is why FEMA continues to perform so shabbily. Could it be — rash, I know — because it is doing the right things badly, or the wrong things, or should it be called, and doing, something else entirely?

Yet the MSM, as incurious as ever, is no place to go for the obvious.

The 47% remark expressed Romney's core beliefs -- to the extent he has any -- and couple distastefully with Ryan's attack on 'urban' voters.

How about telling us precisely, with direct quotes as required, precisely what Romney's core beliefs are. And, while you are at it, exactly what Ryan's attack on 'urban' voters was. I have a sneaking suspicion you will be as on target as criticism of Limbaugh was following the Flukerfuffle.

The genius of the market has covered the nation in subdivisions that our more nature-attuned forebears knew better than to live in

Ever hear of New Orleans? I've heard it's a bit flood prone. Been around for awhile, too, if I recall correctly.

And I'm sure you've heard of the Army Corps of Engineers, or government subsidized flood insurance programs.

All part of the genius of the market, I'm sure.

Harry Eagar said...

New Orleans is where it is because it is the highest place around.

Dakota Dunes was an annually flooded wasteland until tax-dodging racists spotted it as a place to avoid living next to Mexicans.

Romney's core belief is that people without great wealth are moochers and irresponsible. This from a man who takes a $77,000 annual government payout to subsidize a dancing horse.

erp said...

... this from a guy who's given many multiple millions to charity. stop beating this horse. romney is a very good guy. problem is he's not conservative.

Susan's Husband said...

erp;

Eagar's view of Romney is entirely controlled by the politics - Romney was a good guy until he ran against The Won. That made him evil. Just like McCain. Romney's worse though because he actually campaigned against The Won. Nothing you can say will change that fact, which makes Romney's statements, character, and actions irrelevant.

erp said...

yep.

Hey Skipper said...

By the way, Obama is sure getting the once-over on FEMA performance now, if you read newspapers.

Oh, really.

Well, as I said above, I do, and they don't, or at least not to speak of.

This is from the Washington Times blog of two days ago:

New York City Councilman James Sanders represents the Rockaways. His chief of staff Donovan Richards told Here & Now his district was abandoned when Sandy hit.

“FEMA did not arrive in a timely fashion, nor did the Red Cross,” Richards said. “If it wasn’t for everyday citizens coming out and giving us a hand, the Rockaways would be in a shape that is unfathomable.”

Richards said that FEMA didn’t arrive until last Thursday, and he says the agency initially set up in an area that was inaccessible to poorer residents.
“Every 24 hours that goes by, we get into a more desperate situation so FEMA has to respond quicker. I know we have a billion things to do but in a low-income area with 30 percent of the people on some sort of income subsidy we need them to move fast and move now,” Richards said.


From the blinkered MSM, not even a whisper.

How does that compare with post-Katrina?

Harry Eagar said...

You should hear what Mike Huckabee says about Romney.

So how do you justify Romney's public subsidy for his dancing horse?

erp said...

Huckabee? Justify? Harry, you've outdone yourself.

Susan's Husband said...

"So how do you justify Romney's public subsidy for his dancing horse?"

I don't. I think the legislators who wrote up the legislation, and the President who signed it in to law should be horsewhipped. It's clearly not Romney's fault.

Hey Skipper said...

Harry, I'm still waiting to hear about how Obama is sure getting the once-over on FEMA performance now.

Something. Anything.

Hey Skipper said...

The genius of the market has covered the nation in subdivisions that our more nature-attuned forebears knew better than to live in.

Bollocks.