What are you currently reading?

[DavidRoss]

This was yesterday (that I read it, I mean), but: a piece by Geo. Will

Yes...I posted a facebook link to that Will column today.  One thing I love about you, Karl, is that you are one of the few consistently "liberal" friends I have who brings an open mind to investigating diverse points of view on "hot button" issues and who focuses on policies, principles, and outcomes instead of demonizing others with ad hominem attacks.  Anne and I just spent a few days in Austin with another such friend--what a pleasure it is to discuss politics from differing perspectives while respectfully recognizing one another's full humanity and good faith!

[Grazioso]

This was yesterday (that I read it, I mean), but: a piece by Geo. Will

Good article. I'm always impressed at the paternalistic intellectual gymnastics routine that confuses "coerced uniformity" and "diversity." I give it a 0.0!

[Fëanor]

Good, indeed.  Sadly, those who would benefit most from it are among the least likely to read it, since they fear challenging their own prejudices.

Sigh.

There is lots of bias in the media, but Liberal media? Which are those? Fox News maybe?

[SonicMan46]

That's on my to-read list, Dave. I definitely came across, but not sure if I participated in a poll for deciding the title of the book sometime last year or thereabouts. I'm interested to know what are some of the things you find hyperbolic in the book, so when you have the time, please let us know.

Hi Navneeth - just half way through the book (reading so many others!) - a strong recommendation; the author has a British mother & Shiite Persian father, so an interesting background - obviously many of the comments as to the origins of the ideas of those ages vs. Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian beginnings are quite debatable - often the discussion in the book is concerned as to whether the Arabic writers/scientists came up w/ their own ideas vs. just interpreting them from more ancient sources - often the author assumes that these ideas are original w/ the Arabic writers, so a debatable issue(s) which the author often projects the 'truth' being original w/ the later writers, hence my suggestion of some hyperbole (believe this has also appeard in te NY Times review and those found on Amazon) - BUT, this is an excellent book worth reading for those interested - Dave

[Opus106]

Thanks, Dave.

[Todd]

About a third of the way in.  Not bad at all.  Not sure it's the greatest war novel of all time.  I'll be following up with Pat Barker's Regeneration in the not too distant future.

[Coco]

Should be interesting.

[Grazioso]

Should be interesting.

That title reminds me of this fun and interesting book


A Western writer's account of his stay amongst the monks of a Thai Buddhist monastery.

[DavidRoss]

There is lots of bias in the media, but Liberal media? Which are those? Fox News maybe?

Contempt prior to investigation, coupled with a mind closed by predjudice, ensures that learning is impossible and ignorance insurmountable.

[Karl Henning]

Short & sharp:

As radicalism creeps in, credibility retreats from OWS

[Florestan]

Short & sharp:

As radicalism creeps in, credibility retreats from OWS

Excellent!

[Karl Henning]

Excellent!

My healthy skepticism was engaged at an early stage in the Boston phase, when there were some tweets which gave the impression that the "protesters" would not feel fulfilled until they had managed to provoke the police . . . and the Boston Police Dept have been doing all they could to help keep things orderly.  The City, BTW, has been paying overtime through the proverbial nose in order to maintain order.

[DavidRoss]

Short & sharp:

As radicalism creeps in, credibility retreats from OWS

Thanks, Karl, for linking to this thoughtful essay.  The OWS folks' behavior speaks for itself.  Unfortunately, mainstream news coverage has worked hard to spin the facts rather than report them.

Particularly telling in regard to the endemic bias in the mainstream press is the disparity in treatment of the uniformly civil tea party protests (these folks obey the law, get permits, pay for porta-potties, police themselves, and clean up whatever litter some might have left behind) and the uniformly uncivil OWS protests.  The tea partiers get demonized, the OWS folks are lionized.

Consider the non-existent mainstream news reports about the OWS assault on conservative conference attendees in Washington DC on Sunday, which not only threatened women and children and folks just driving by the area, but included pushing a 78-year-old woman down some stairs (perhaps inadvertently -- see http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-occupy-dc-push-this-elderly-woman-down-the-stairs/ ).

Compare that with the week-long media circus damning tea partiers after Rep. John Lewis claimed they shouted racial slurs and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver claimed they spit on him.  Not only did the media hasten to repeat the charges as if they were facts, but they never retracted the stories even when video of the event surfaced showing the claims were false (the people in the video are shouting "Kill the bill," not epithets of any sort, and Cleaver walks right in front of one of the shouters and appears to get sprayed by the man's spittle--a clear case of "say it, don't spray it," not the intentional, insulting spitting that Cleaver claimed and the biased media reported without investigation).  See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html

If we refuse to understand how our main media sources distort the news, by framing events to fit a biased narrative and by selective reporting of relevant facts, then we are co-conspirators in making gullible patsies of ourselves.

[Florestan]

Left is good even when it's bad; right is bad even when it's good. Keep this dogma in mind and you won't be surprised by media reports anymore. 

[Daverz]

There is lots of bias in the media, but Liberal media? Which are those? Fox News maybe?

You don't see it because you're mind has been distorted.

[Fëanor]

You don't see it because you're mind has been distorted.

Oh, I see; I watch too much MSNBC and PBS, (and CBC and BBC).  Well maybe.

But what made me think of Fox News is not only their flagrant bias and destructive ideologies, but even more their anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes, blatant ignorance, irrationality, and self-contradiction.

I've never felt the need to "balance" knowledge & reason with egregious nonsense.

[DavidRoss]

Oh, I see; I watch too much MSNBC and PBS, (and CBC and BBC).  Well maybe.

But what made me think of Fox News is not only their flagrant bias and destructive ideologies, but even more their anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes, blatant ignorance, irrationality, and self-contradiction.

I've never felt the need to "balance" knowledge & reason with egregious nonsense.

Fox is about as far right as PBS is to the left--not much.  MSNBC, on the other hand, is probably so far left that it would be banned in the PRC.  I don't see enough news on CBC or the BBC to offer an informed judgment.  And I've never seen "anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes, blatant ignorance, irrationality, and self-contradiction" on their broadcasts, but having seen perhaps a dozen hours of their programming over as many years, I'm hardly in a position to say whether they feature prominently or not.  (Incidently, your frothingly irrational assault on Groseclose's study, based apparently on willful ignorance of its content and methodology, betrays an anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitude that contradicts your claims to respect such things.)

That you think Fox is flagrantly biased only confirms Groseclose's point, that ubiquitous leftist bias in the media has so distorted Americans' (yes, I know you're in Canada) political perspective that they believe a middle-left perspective is centrist and unbiased.  Yes, Fox is biased to the right--slightly--but since you seem to be such a frequent viewer you must know that--unlike the three major commercial US networks (but just like PBS)--they often conduct live interviews with politicians from all points on the spectrum and allow them to present their own views so they can be heard intact, instead of edited into soundbites that distort their comments by decontextualizing them.

Finally, that you claim--and seem to really believe--that "knowledge & reason" are exclusively leftist provinces, and that "egregious nonsense" belongs solely to the right, is a clear statement of your prejudices--and of your pride in them. 

[Daverz]

Fox is about as far right as PBS is to the left--not much.

I suspect what you mean by "left" here is "not directly supportive of movement conservatism."

My main objection to Fox is not that they are "far right", but that they are essentially a GOP propaganda outlet and that they constantly make shit up.

As for PBS being "left", perhaps you could you give some specifics. 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-7-2011/npr-vs--conservative-talk-radio

MSNBC, on the other hand, is probably so far left that it would be banned in the PRC.

You do know that MSNBC features 3 hours of Joe Scarborough in the morning, right?

For a genuinely liberal show, I highly recommend Chris Hayes weekend panel show on weekends (I watch it on the web.)

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/

One of the best political panel shows I've ever seen on TV.

[Ataraxia]

Someone here referred me to Montaigne's essays but I'm reading this first (dunno why). Anyway, I am enjoying it very much and want to thank whomever it was who put me on to this fellow in the first place.
[asin]1590514254[/asin]

[DavidRoss]

I suspect what you mean by "left" here is "not directly supportive of movement conservatism."

Your suspect wrong (but then you already knew that, didn't you?)

My main objection to Fox is not that they are "far right", but that they are essentially a GOP propaganda outlet and that they constantly make shit up.

You're making that shit up.

As for PBS being "left", perhaps you could you give some specifics. 

Sure.  Of course they're only moderately left, like Fox is moderately right, not extreme like CBS or MSNBC.  Their inherent bias is not manifiested in their format, which I like quite a bit and which encourages the airing of diverse points of view, but rather in the stories they choose to air and emphasize (how many stories have they done on Eric Holder's sandbagging the Congressional investigation into the Fast & Furious fiasco?), and in the way they frame some issues, using the Democratic Party's rhetoric instead of more factually accurate and politically neutral language.  For instance, IIRC, they framed the controversy over personal income tax rates last year as about a Republican effort to cut taxes, not a Democrat effort to raise tax rates.  And their reporters frequently make the egregious category error of conflating tax rate increases with tax revenue increases.  Not that I think such things are intentional, but simply reveal the inherent biases that lead them to uncritically accept the Democrats' (and mainstream media's) way of describing and framing issues, often unaware that such framing imposes a biased perspective on the issue that predetermines the way it will be seen.

Think of framing in the literal sense. Imagine that you have a photograph showing a crowd of happy people waving signs advertising certain political sentiments, but off to one side there is a brutal gang rape taking place.  If you crop the photo--that is, frame it--so that only the happy sign-wavers are shown, you have not presented the picture in its full context.  The same thing happens all the time, sometimes intentionally--as I've seen often the case when MSNBC's popular talking heads pontificate about issues--and sometimes unintentionally, as when a reporter, editor, or producer's ignorance precludes recognition of the relevance of the details they omitted.