THE RELIABLE ABSENCE OF BASIC SKILLS: Without any question, a clear mistake!

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2017

Interlude—Following which, the fall:
Oof. Undeniably, without any question, Masha Gessen made a clear mistake.

This serves to remind us that everyone does. At any rate, Gessen's clear mistake came when she uttered these words:
GESSEN (5/7/17): And even the word "unintelligible," inserted by the journalist, means nothing, because how can something be unintelligible when uttered face to face in an interview?

[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]
Oof. As we noted yesterday, those words were part of Gessen's lecture to the 2017 PEN World Voices Festival. She was discussing the transcript of an AP interview with President Donald J. Trump.

In that remark, Gessen displayed an obvious lack of preparation with her source material. Also, a surprising lack of familiarity with the transcripts produced by news orgs, which routinely contain certain types of mistakes.

And that liberal audience! Good God!

Alas. Gessen's comment, which drew laughter and applause, was off base in several ways.

There is no reason to think that the journalist in question, Julie Pace, inserted the word "unintelligible" in the transcript of her interview with Donald J. Trump. We'll guess that was more likely done by unnamed AP editors.

(As Gessen continued, she referred to the journalist as a "he," again suggesting a lack of deep preparation. Pace is identified as the journalist in the AP document.)

Beyond that, the Associated Press, which prepared and published the transcript, had clearly and dutifully explained what the insertion of the word "unintelligible" was intended to mean.

The insertions didn't mean that Donald J. Trump's statements didn't make sense at those points. They simply meant that "the audio recording of the interview [was] unclear."

Oof! Gessen had made a clear mistake. Because her mistake aligned with audience preconceptions, the big, highly literate, very smart, highly learned and all-knowing audience proceeded to shower her with laughter and applause.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing occurs all the time within our liberal tents. You can't get us extremely bright liberals to acknowledge the obvious fact which follows, but this helps explain how Donald J. Trump ended up where he is.

Masha Gessen made a mistake, proving that everyone does. Basically, it was a mistake of preconception. Mistakes afflict us all.

That said, as Gessen continued, she made a succession of larger mistakes. These further mistakes raise a deeper issue:

They speak to the reliable absence of basic skills, especially during highly partisan tribal times.

Gessen is smarter than the average bear. During her journalistic career, she has also walked the walk.

She's highly regarded, and she should be. For that reason, her display of the absence of basic skills is especially worthy of note.

Gessen is one of our brightest and best. If her basic skills can be called into question, does our obviously brilliant, self-impressed tribe possess any such skills at all?

Your question is very important, but it's also quite hot here this week. Largely because the question's important, we're going to wait till Monday morning to finish this award-winning report.

We want to give you a good clear look at the reliable absence of basic skills within our admittedly brilliant tribe. Within the intellectual realm, does our self-impressed liberal tribe possess even the most basic skills?

(Wittgenstein might have leaned toward no. He would have had a decent point.)

What did Masha Gessen say next? How did her basic skills fail her?

On Monday, we'll make a suggestion for our tribe as we answer that basic question:

In the realm of basic intellect, it's time to start using our words.

Monday: Using our words

18 comments:

  1. Or, as Christopher Hitchens put it: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In that remark, Gessen displayed an obvious lack of preparation with her source material."

    What are you talking about. Her 'preparation' is fine; this is a campaign to mock, to ridicule, to discredit, and she is part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump discredits himself. He is a ridiculous figure due to his own behavior. That is our national tragedy.

      Delete
    2. If they do manage to destroy the movement symbolized by Mr Trump, and keep their neoliberal imperialism gig going, then, without a doubt, you will soon find out what a national tragedy looks like.

      Delete
    3. Dave the Guitar PlayerJuly 21, 2017 at 12:47 PM

      "Neoliberal imperialism"? Wow.

      Delete
    4. Trump deserves ridicule.

      Delete
    5. "...the movement symbolized by Mr Trump"

      Screwing over your contractors for 5+ decades? Is that the movement you are referring to? Fuck Trump, and fuck Republicans.

      Delete
    6. .....the movement symbolized by Mr Trump....

      The only movement pussygrabber pervert flim flam man lying bastard traitor-tRump symbolizes is a bowel movement from a constipated cow.

      There is no "movement", jackass. It is now a cult. Have some koolaid you sucker.

      Delete
    7. "Screwing over your contractors for 5+ decades?"

      Has he been screwing 'em bastards for 5 decades? Wow, beautiful. I guess he really IS a hero.

      Delete
    8. Trump IS totally a hero to America's businessmen. The schtick about how you hate all businessmen if you criticize or want to prosecute dishonest businesspeople has been proven by Trump. The tacit admission by Trump voters, that there is no such thing as an honest businessman, is one of the main takeaways of his support.

      Delete
    9. "The tacit admission by Trump voters, that there is no such thing as an honest businessman, is one of the main takeaways of his support."

      Duh. A 'honest' businessman wouldn't survive for 5 minutes. But at least it's understood - and I hope by nearly everyone, not just by the 'Trump voters' (what a weird category, people cast (or don't) their vote for different reasons - protest, for example).

      And what about 'honest' politicians? Ever seen one of those?

      Delete
    10. "Duh."
      Tell it to the Conservative media.

      Delete
  3. It is reasonable to assume that if the transcriber could not decipher what Trump said, he did not speak clearly, intelligibly.

    He does that. He begins a sentence then loses track of what he meant to say, then changes direction abruptly or sometimes trails off, his voice becoming too low to be heard.

    Speaking directly reflects thinking. He does not speak coherently because he does not think coherently. Gessen is correct to point this out, regardless of transcription difficulties, because those difficulties illustrate her point.

    Why doesn't Somerby get this? He is too busy trying to get Gessen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave the Guitar PlayerJuly 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM

      Bob is objectively correct. AP clearly states why those gaps occur in the transcript and Gessen and you apparently are applying your own impressions of what might have happened, even though you were not there. You then assume Bob is out to get Gessen. Like he is "out to get" all liberals? You misunderstand what media criticism means.

      Delete
    2. Dave, if Bob wants to be a serious critic, he needs to make an effort to contact the people he critcizes before he does so instead of writing what they "seem" to think.

      He instead is just a minor crank only a handful of non critically thinking readers think leads them to be critical thinkers.

      Delete
  4. This post (...)ucks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Today I'll make a suggestion of r out blogger. Provide evidence the audience was liberal.

    ReplyDelete