Tortured Narratives, Not News
The final category of Kozmos is reserved for the news media. As they clearly demonstrated after the Tucson massacre, they have clear and unambiguous ideological narratives prepared in which they only have to fill in the blanks. In the meantime, they insist that their reporting is only the purest and unbiased recitation of the day’s events. Their fatal flaw is that they can’t get their minds around the idea that they no longer monopolize information. And it is that free market of thoughts that makes this edition of the Kozmos possible, even inevitable.
For example, after Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa placed a hold on one of President Obama’s judicial appointments because the man had represented terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, the New York Times predictably thundered that, “Demagogues on the right are smearing loyal Americans as disloyal and charging that the government is being undermined from within.
These voices--often heard on Fox News--are going after Justice Department lawyers who represented Guantánamo detainees when they were in private practice. It is not nearly enough to say that these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice. The Justice Department is right to stand up to this ugly bullying.”
It should surprise no one that The Times is practicing a bit of hypocrisy here. During the Bush years, the administration asked lawyers to interpret US anti-torture laws to establish the legal limits of enhanced interrogation. Needless to say, the Times disapproved of their conclusions: “Their acts were a grotesque abrogation of duty and breach of faith: as government officials sworn to protect the Constitution; as lawyers bound to render competent and honest legal opinions; and as citizens who played a major role in events that disgraced this country.”
The Times went on to demand that lawyers who delivered work that the Times did not approve of be disbarred. So the Times earns a Kozmo for behaving as a demagogue on the left smearing loyal Americans as disloyal and charging that the government is being undermined from within.
McClatchy News Service wins the Twisted Logic of 2010 Kozmo for somehow finding a way to blame Republicans for some Americans’ unrealistic expectations of Obamacare.
After years of promising to deliver a government run health care system modeled after those in Great Britain and Canada, the final result was considerably different from what the Democrats’ most loyal constituents had been promised. But somehow, the McClatchy News Service found a way to blame these disappointed expectations on Republicans: “That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.”
Fine work McClatchy.
Few things are as predictable as the New York Times’ attitude toward Senate filibusters. When Republicans are in the majority, they’re essential. When Democrats hold power, nothing is more urgent than filibuster reform. For example, on September 10th of the past year, the New York Times complained that, “"President Obama, the House and a majority of senators clearly support an end to 'don't ask, don't tell,' but that, of course, is insufficient in the upside-down world of today's Senate, where 40 members can block anything."
The New York Times has a history of flip flopping on this issue, and they know it. During the Bush Administration, when Democrats were promiscuously exploiting the filibuster to block judicial appointments and the Republican majority was considering filibuster reform, the Times wrote, “The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the 'nuclear option' in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.”
The Situational Principles Kozmos goes again, to the New York Times. The Times might as well retire the trophy.
For example, after Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa placed a hold on one of President Obama’s judicial appointments because the man had represented terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, the New York Times predictably thundered that, “Demagogues on the right are smearing loyal Americans as disloyal and charging that the government is being undermined from within.
These voices--often heard on Fox News--are going after Justice Department lawyers who represented Guantánamo detainees when they were in private practice. It is not nearly enough to say that these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice. The Justice Department is right to stand up to this ugly bullying.”
It should surprise no one that The Times is practicing a bit of hypocrisy here. During the Bush years, the administration asked lawyers to interpret US anti-torture laws to establish the legal limits of enhanced interrogation. Needless to say, the Times disapproved of their conclusions: “Their acts were a grotesque abrogation of duty and breach of faith: as government officials sworn to protect the Constitution; as lawyers bound to render competent and honest legal opinions; and as citizens who played a major role in events that disgraced this country.”
The Times went on to demand that lawyers who delivered work that the Times did not approve of be disbarred. So the Times earns a Kozmo for behaving as a demagogue on the left smearing loyal Americans as disloyal and charging that the government is being undermined from within.
McClatchy News Service wins the Twisted Logic of 2010 Kozmo for somehow finding a way to blame Republicans for some Americans’ unrealistic expectations of Obamacare.
After years of promising to deliver a government run health care system modeled after those in Great Britain and Canada, the final result was considerably different from what the Democrats’ most loyal constituents had been promised. But somehow, the McClatchy News Service found a way to blame these disappointed expectations on Republicans: “That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.”
Fine work McClatchy.
Few things are as predictable as the New York Times’ attitude toward Senate filibusters. When Republicans are in the majority, they’re essential. When Democrats hold power, nothing is more urgent than filibuster reform. For example, on September 10th of the past year, the New York Times complained that, “"President Obama, the House and a majority of senators clearly support an end to 'don't ask, don't tell,' but that, of course, is insufficient in the upside-down world of today's Senate, where 40 members can block anything."
The New York Times has a history of flip flopping on this issue, and they know it. During the Bush Administration, when Democrats were promiscuously exploiting the filibuster to block judicial appointments and the Republican majority was considering filibuster reform, the Times wrote, “The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the 'nuclear option' in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.”
The Situational Principles Kozmos goes again, to the New York Times. The Times might as well retire the trophy.
posted by Michael at
6:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home