ThinkProgress Logo

Media

Braindead Media Flashback

It’s easy to get nostalgic for “the good old days” but Brad DeLong reminds us that dumb media coverage has always been with us, citing Walter Lippman in October 1968:

I believe that there really is a “new Nixon,” a maturer and mellower man who is no longer clawing is way to the top, and it is, I think, fair to hope that his dominating ambition will be to become a two-term President. He is bright enough to know that this will be impossible if he remains sunk in the Vietnam quagmire. Ending the war is indispensable if he is to become a successful President…

A good point.

Climate Progress

The insincerest form of denial

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,  “Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;  it was here before our time.

As the Ecclesiastes quote suggests, coming up with original ideas has always been hard.  Whenever I research something I am thinking about writing, I inevitably find that someone has already come up with the basic idea or phrase.

More likely than not,  if you think somebody took your idea, they probably just came up with it independently — or you both “borrowed” it, intentionally or not,  from the actual originator.  And so in general one should be very, very careful about of the word “plagiarize.”

Unless, of course, you are a global warming denier, in which case you should throw the word around casually because it is a very good way of smearing scientists, making the discussion coarser, and generally turning off the public from wanting to have anything to do with the climate issue — all key goals of the anti-scientific community.  And this is all the more ironic because deniers are notorious for doing cut-and-paste jobs with the work of other deniers  — see Memo to media: When the EPA ignores internal non-expert comments filled with falsehoods cut-and-paste from anti-science deniers, that isn’t “suppressing a report.” And why have you completely ignored a major scientific report revealing what a sham that “EPA report” is?

After all, there is exceedingly little original scientific research that supports the position that humans are not the dominant cause of current global warming.  Also, the deniers understand the central principle of rhetoric that the most effective messaging strategy is to endlessly repeat a few key points (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 1“).   So the main tactic of the deniers has been to repeat the same long-debunked arguments over and over and over again — hence there is a remarkable sameness to their attacks.

If you follow the climate blogosphere or read the comments section of this CP post, then you know that there has been a big push by the deniers and delayers to smear a couple of the climate scientists who contributes to RealClimate.  RealClimate has thoroughly debunked that notion here:

Read more

Yglesias

The Trouble With Appeasement

Paul Krugman on MSNBC discusses his view that “you can’t actually satisfy the crazies by trying to offer substantive concessions”

Very true. And as Steve Benen says John Harwood’s point may be even more fundamental: “I gotta tell you what a White House official told me today: ‘Our problem right now is, if we tell some of the Republican opponents in the Senate, ‘You can have everything you want in the bill,’ they still won’t vote for it.’” In part, as per Benen, I think that’s because “Republican lawmakers don’t support meaningful health care reform.”

But I think there’s a larger dynamic at play. In foreign policy, liberals often believe that disputes with foreign actors can and should be settled through negotiation and compromise. That’s because international relations isn’t a zero-sum affair. Conflict is costly to both parties, good relations bring benefits to both parties, so disagreement is generally amenable to compromise. Ideological disagreement isn’t zero-sum either. Neither conservatives nor progressives are wedded to principles that require defense of wasteful Medicare spending. But partisan politics is zero-sum. A “win” for the Democrats is a “loss” for Republicans. And I the predominant thinking in the Republican Party at the moment is that inflicting legislative defeats on Democrats will lead to electoral defeats for Democrats. That makes the GOP hard to bargain with.

Making this dynamic more severe, there are few if any examples of incumbent Republican Senators facing tough electoral challenges from Democrats. If there were a tough candidate in the field against Chuck Grassley things might look different. But the Democratic Senate pickup opportunities are all for open seats.

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up