FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2024
...Stefanik steamrolled her good: First, the president of the University of Pennsylvania stepped down from her post. Weeks later, the president of Harvard followed suit.
This carnage followed an incoherent pseudo-discussion which took place on December 5 at that House committee hearing—at the House committee hearing which shot Elise Stefanik to fame.
For our money, the college presidents performed amazingly poorly that day. They called to mind the tired old joke about liberals:
A liberal is a person who can't take her own side in a fight.
So it seemed on that fateful day—a day on which the college presidents performed amazingly poorly.
In our view, Stefanik's performance was even worse. Through her incessant, incoherent ranting, she created a pseudo-discussion in which questions like these were never addressed, let alone answered:
Basic questions which went unaddressed:
Has anyone on the Harvard campus ever "called for the genocide of the Jewish people?"
Does a person make such a call simply by using the term "intifada?" What sort of statement should be taken to constitute such an abhorrent call?
What do Harvard's relevant "codes of conduct" actually say about the right of students to engage in abhorrent speech?
Does the old "Nazi march on Skokie" consensus still obtain? Under basic principles of free speech, should people be allowed to make even the most abhorrent public statements?
Should some such principle obtain within the wider society, but not on a college campus?
Questions like those went unaddressed as Stefanik ranted and railed. As she sowed the seeds of confusion, the presidents floundered and flailed.
The presidents of the three elite colleges just kept reciting formulaic scripts. Two of the three have now left their jobs, and a widespread narrative has locked into place concerning antisemitism on elite college campuses.
(We've seen no reporters examine that narrative. We'd like to see what they would find.)
So it went when Stefanik ran roughshod over three major blue tribe stars. Have our blue tribe's elites ever performed with such an absence of basic skill?
(The answer to that is plainly yes. For the record, we've been discussing that problem at this site since early 1998.)
Back to Elise Stefanik! On December 5, she steamrolled three blue tribe college presidents. And then, last Sunday, she appeared on Meet the Press!
As we noted yesterday, Kristen Welker posed the question shown below as her second question. The question she posed was blindingly obvious, and it went exactly like this:
WELKER (1/7/24): This weekend, we did mark the three-year anniversary [of January 6]. And I want to pause for a minute and play some of the comments that you made on the evening of that day. Let's take a look:
[START OF VIDEOTAPE]
STEFANIK (1/6/21): This has been a truly tragic day for America. Americans will always have the freedom of speech and the constitutional right to protest. But violence in any form is absolutely unacceptable. It is anti-American and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
[END OF VIDEOTAPE]
WELKER: In terms of what we're hearing today, former President Trump has referred to January 6th as a, quote, "beautiful day." Just this weekend, he referred to some of those who are serving time for having stormed the Capitol as, quote, "hostages."
Do you still feel as though that day was tragic and that those who were responsible should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law?
As we showed you yesterday, Stefanik spoke at substantial length, back on January 6, about the violent events of that day.
She had described the violence at the Capitol as "anti-American." As we showed you yesterday, she had also called it "un-American."
She had said that the perpetrators of that violence "must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." But that was then, but this was now—and Candidate Donald J. Trump had been singing a different tune about at least some of those perpetrators.
He now seemed to be saying that the perpetrators of that violence were "J6 political prisoners." Recently, Trump had also referred to them as "hostages," just as Welker said.
Stefanik is a major supporter of this extremely disordered man. Given how strongly she felt three years ago, what does she currently think of those startling claims by Trump?
Welker had asked the world's most obvious question. As we started to show you yesterday, here's what happened next:
STEFANIK (continuing directly): Well, first of all, Kristen, as typical for NBC and the biased media, you played one excerpt of my speech. I stand by my comments that I made on the House floor.
I stood up for election integrity, and I challenged and objected to the certification of the state of Pennsylvania because of the unconstitutional overreach. So I absolutely stand by my floor speech.
I am proud to support President Trump. And I want to correct another statement you made, that there is no coordination with Joe Biden and the Department of Justice in prosecutions against President Trump. We just saw Hunter Biden defy a congressional subpoena and the White House admitting it was in coordination with Joe Biden the morning of. That is coordination, and I believe that Joe Biden will be found to be the most corrupt president in our nation's history.
And that's why all of the investigative work that we're doing is so, so important, because the American people, they deserve transparency and accountability.
In summary, Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah! But also, Blah blah blah.
For the record, this was Stefanik's second filibuster of the day. You'll note that she did everything except respond to the question she'd just been asked.
She started with the standard cry concerning the biased media. She then transitioned to the parts of her five-minute speech on January 6 which were irrelevant to the question Welker had asked.
Gorilla dust was everywhere as this "odious demagogue" (Rep. Torres) blustered on and on. To her credit, Welker almost refused to take the bait:
WELKER (continuing directly): A lot to unpack there. Of course, the White House has said that Hunter Biden is acting unilaterally. On the issue of election integrity, though, as you know, Trump took his case to court more than 60 times that there was fraud. He didn't win.
But I want to get back to this key question. Do you still think it was a tragic day? Do you think that the people who stormed the Capitol should be held responsible to the full extent of the law?
After being briefly sidetracked, Welker restated a somewhat milder form of her original question. Does Rep. Stefanik still believe, as she did on January 6, that the perpetrators of that day's violence "must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?"
Please note: By now, Candidate Trump's peculiar statements have already been dropped from Welker's question. Below, you see what Stefanik said next.
Spoiler alert! By the time this next filibuster was through, Stefanik's steamrolling of Welker had been accomplished:
STEFANIK (continuing directly): I have concerns about the treatment of January 6th hostages. I have concerns—
We have a role in Congress of oversight over our treatments of prisoners. And I believe that we're seeing the weaponization of the federal government against not just President Trump, but we're seeing it against conservatives. We're seeing it against Catholics. And that's one of the reasons why I'm so proud to serve in the Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Government, because the American people want answers. They want transparency. And they understand that, as you look across this country, there seems to be two sets of rules. If your last name is Clinton or it's Biden, you get to live by a different set of rules than if you're an everyday, patriotic American.
I've been clear, Kristen. If you go back and play the full speech I gave on the House floor, I condemn the violence just like I condemned the violence of the BLM riots. But I also, importantly, stood for election integrity and security of our elections, which, if we don't have that, we do not have a democracy.
So, the real threat to our democracy is these baseless witch hunt investigations and lawsuits against President Trump, whether it's Tish James or whether we see in the DC Circuit Court. And that is undemocratic, and it's shredding our Constitution.
And you know who agrees with me, Kristen? The American people. That's why President Trump is winning in poll after poll against Joe Biden.
Gorilla dust filled the room by the time this third 'buster was finished. In the demagogue's standard play, Stefanik had touched on a wide array of other topics, hoping to lure Welker away from the initial question she'd asked.
A skillful journalist has to know how to repel such attempts at misdirection. On this particular day, Kristen Welker—Harvard class of 1998—simply wasn't that type of skilled person:
WELKER (continuing directly): The Justice Department has indicted a number of top-name Democrats as well, including the president's son, twice. So, I mean, a lot of critics would argue that undercuts your argument there are two systems of justice.
Sad! Welker had now been lured away from her original question. As you can see if you review the rest of the transcript, she'd been lured away from that original question—and as she argued about other topics, she would never return.
Meanwhile, please take note! It isn't just Candidate Trump who's now referring to those perpetrators of violence as political "hostages." Right at the start of Stefanik's first reply, she referred to those perpetrators using the very same term!
Stefanik was calling them "hostages" too! Why in the world had Stefanik done that?
Welker never asked.
In fairness, it's possible that Welker didn't hear what Stefanik said as this new tsunami of misdirection washed over her head. But right there, you see how easy it is for a red demagogue to steamroll a blue tribe elite.
Plainly, Kristen Welker is a good, decent person. As an angry, unpleasant Bob Dylan once said in a very famous song, she had gone to "the finest schools"—first to Germantown Friends, then to Harvard itself.
From there, she had advanced to the very top of this nation's mainstream press elite. But she had emerged from those finest schools in the absence of some basic skills.
She was facing a standard-issue demagogue on Meet the Press this day. When the demagogue began to offer filibusters, she apparently didn't know how to make those distractions stop.
After the first filibuster posted above, she tried to return to her original question. But after the next, extremely long filibuster, the steamrolling was complete.
She submitted to the demagogue's misdirection. As you can see from the Meet the Press transcript, she began to debate Stefanik about other claims—and she never returned to her original, unanswered question.
Along the way, the demagogue had referred to those perpetrators of violence as "hostages." And sure enough: Welker never asked the demagogue to explain this apparent vast change in her stance!
"Men [sic] labor under a mistake," sacred Thoreau once said. Our own blue tribe has been laboring under a large mistake for at least three decades now.
We've long believed that we can trust the intentions and the skills of our blue tribe's mainstream press corps elites. In fact, whatever their intentions may be, their skill levels tend to be very weak.
"Blue moon," an old song says. "You saw me standing alone."
That famous old song has a happy ending. But if you're a member of our current blue tribe, you'll still be standing alone when the red tribe's demagogues arrive on the edge of your town.
On December 5, Stefanik blew past three college presidents. Pathetically, Professor Tribe actually said that she'd been right in what she said and did!
Stefanik blew past three hapless blue tribe elites. Last Sunday, Welker was next.
People who do their own research overwhelmingly support reparations for slavery.
ReplyDeleteWell, Bob seems to be catching up to the notion that Jan 6th was a bad thing. We might not have anticipated this. Maybe had Lawrence Tribe been mildly critical of the Jan 6th committee he might have come around sooner.
ReplyDeleteWhat Welker coulda shouda done was point out that her bitching about Trump’s election grab was litigated and soundly judged, in Bill Barr’s word, as “bullshit.” But that might have made her look genuinely bad, and then Bob would take her part.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1650&context=etd
ReplyDeleteI am a liberal and I like tha definition in this post. Like with Israel, liberlas are sometimes taking the side of a religion which demeans women and gays.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like the definition of a moderate Republican as a person who throws a 12 foot rope to a drowning man 20 feet offshore and says they have gone more than halfway.
The liberal tells the man the government will take care of him, so he doesn’t have bother swimming.
DeleteSuch a funny joke!
DeleteThis is a culmination of what Somerby has been saying since Gingrich and Medicare. Blue team elites lack the skill to expose red team demagoguery.
ReplyDeleteDo you need some search light or something?
DeleteAccording to Somerby, a demagogue’s “standard play” is to evade a direct question by raising multiple tangential issues rather than answering the question. What should a skillful interrogator do in the face of this tactic?
DeletePied Piper, a skillful interrogator would do the obvious thing and that is to keep repeating “the question” until it’s answered.
DeleteHowever, In this case Stefanik was the interrogator and the college presidents were the people who were obfuscating. .
As an interrogator, Stefanik's demagoguery took a different form. She placed the "gorilla dust" in her question - raising numerous topics, rather than focusing on one - to slide in among the particles of dust the suggestion that "intifada" means "genocide of the Jews." Ms. Gay was not skillful enough to respond to this tactic, to say that "intifada" means "shaking off" the Israeli oppression, not "genocide of the Jews."
DeleteAny politician at Stefanik's level, some more skillfully than others, can dodge and deflect direct questions, though often the questions from the press aren't very skillful either. Dems as well as GOP pols. I would think this is obvious - at all the presidential debates I've seen, or interviews with pols, they seem to always deflect, dodge, filibuster, questions that they don't want to be pinned down to answer. That said, I think Welker could certainly have done a better job. One perhaps unavoidable problem is that the format of these interviews doesn't provide sufficient time for the interviewer to pursue the questions. Stefanik wanted the college presidents to answer her stupid unfair questions "yes or no"; I'd like to ever once see Stefanik have to answer yes or no in an interview, see how she'd like it.
DeletePied Piper, Stefanik directly conflated intifada with genocide. She didn’t try to slide anything in there. She boldly went.
DeleteIt’s my understanding that a technique of interviewing someone who is not answering certain questions, is to approach the question from other angles. The same question asked in ten different formats, in an attempt to pin them down.
The college presidents weren’t able to do much more than shrug and repeat themselves when talking about context. It’s probably good that they didn't go into the meaning of intifada. Lord knows what hash they would have made from that. They may have been told not to hop on that horse.
The Gorilla Dust was to suggest that something was suspect about the results of 2020. This is something Republicans say over and over offering no proof, and failed miserably to prove in Court.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:19pm, I didn’t catch that when I listened to some of the questioning. Interesting.
DeleteHow did Stefanik work that in?
CC - I think Stefanik did slide the conflation of "intifada" with "genocide" into her question. Here's her question:
Delete"And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?"
She asks a complicated question which asserts that "intifada" means: 1. violence against the state of Israel; 2. violence against Israeli civilians; and 3. genocide of the Jews. By putting these three in quick succession, she slips the last one in, and Gay, under pressure, either did not realize what Stefanik had done (which I think likely) or chose to evade rather than to dispute this assertion (which I think possible).
Pied Piper, Stefanik went directly to conflating intifada into genocide.
DeleteI’m not sure how she worked in the 2020 election.
I'd note that there were two past occasions where the Palestinians engaged in an "intifada" and I recall there was no "genocide" that occurred then. I recall much of it involved throwing rocks, but probably also firing rockets. I think Stepanik is sleazy, but also that someone at gay's level should have handled it better, seems also the Harvard's lawyers didn't do a good job prepping her. At her level though she should be able to think on her feet, unless she's so wrapped in the world upper echelon Harvard that she is unaware of how things are among the earthbound commoners.
DeleteAC/MA, there were suicide bombings.
DeleteThe right targeted her. She was scapegoated.
DeleteGay deserve's all the wrath she gets for not calling Stefanik " a piece of shit."
Deletelike that could happen
Deletebabe, trust in me, I'm the pied piper, and I'll show you where it's at
Delete2:07,
DeleteThat doesn't work. I've been asking what Republican voters care about besides bigotry and white supremacy, many different ways, and all I get back is nonsense answers that can't be pinned down.
Bob listed some unasked questions. Here are the questions I wanted:
ReplyDelete1. Is there antisemitism on these campuses and what is its nature?
2. Are Jews treated worse than other minorities?
3. What is the university doing that discourages or encourages antisemitism?
Here’s a question that I wanted posed:
Delete“Since when has “intifada” become synonymous with “genocide”?
It would be interesting to know if some charges of anti-Semitism are really attempts to censor legitimate and legal Pro Palestinian speech against the actions of the current political leadership of Israel. And how can students exercise their legitimate and legal right to protest against the way this small faction of leaders have treated their neighbors. It's not about whether such protesters are right or wrong but about their right to be right or wrong and express it publicly.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:13pm, I agree.
DeleteOne of things that has complicated this is reports that Jewish teachers and students have been confronted on campus, as though they set war policy.
That behavior isn’t terribly surprising from young students, it’s much more concerning from university employees.
Either way, it should be addressed by the school administration.
Cecelia, agreed mostly. The students have a right of free speech to confront the Jewish teachers and students as though they set war policy. They have the legal right to write and talk about that all day long. (In this country, we all have the right to be wrong in speech) but of course if students and school administration are confronting Jewish teachers and students in a harassing way it's extremely concerning. I'm more interested in the exercising of free speech and its subset, the right to be wrong.
Delete(And using accusations of anti-Semitism as a way to censor student's right to be wrong or right in free speech.)
DeleteDo you think that's an interesting topic to discuss?
@10:17 wrote, " The students have a right of free speech to confront the Jewish teachers and students as though they set war policy."
Delete1. How about minorities? E.g., should students have the right to announce that trans people are really mentally ill?
2. Should students have the right to "confront"? E.g., should it be OK to march right up to a black student and confront her with the high murder black murder rate?
IMO it should be OK to take an unpopular position, but it should not be OK to confront a student with something done by others.
There are 19 million college students, so I feel confident that there must have been some incidents of antisemitism among this population. It seems to me that the pertinent question is not *whether* there are incidents of antisemitism but *how many* such incidents there are. And, as far as I can tell, there are remarkably few, especially considering that Israel is warring upon those who live in Gaza.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:47pm, people have a right to ask questions and the people being questioned have the right to walk off. It’s the school’s job to address problems when they arise and to remind people that ethnicity doesn’t automatically denote someone’s politics and is not an indicator of some insider access to information.
DeleteSo too the reminder that it can be intimidating to be approached in a challenging manner by someone who may be no more than a stranger.
A complaint was filed a couple of days ago against Harvard in the U. S. district Court for Massachusetts, Kestenbaum v Harvard, claiming that Harvard was tolerating rampant anti-Semitism. It is 72 pages long and gives specific examples. I do think there is a blurring between "anti-Semitism" and anti-Zionism and/or opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the complaint. It's a complaint, so it has allegations, some of which may be taken with a grain of salt until the allegations are proved. I had been curious just to what extent there was actual anti-Semitism or only opposition to the practices of Israel, which seemed to me to be conflated. The complaint can easily be found on-line for free, just type in the name of the case.
DeletePied Piper, Muslims, Persians, and Arabs, the same.
DeleteDavid - it depends on how you define confront. In terms of free speech we all have the right to announce that trans people are really mentally ill or voice an opinion directed at blacks about high murder black murder rates loudly and compassionately. That is our right. A confrontation that is physical harassment is off limits.
DeleteBut the question is is anti-Semitism being used as a way to censor legitimate and legal, inaccurate criticisms about the Israeli government's choices?
"but it should not be OK to confront a student with something done by others."
DeleteIf it is simply confronting a student with something done by others by way of speech, it may not be okay but it is 100% totally legal and protected under the first amendment.
Under the First Amendment, with regard to speech, we all have the right to be wrong.
DeleteI personally believe supporting that, when the speech is not okay and repulsive or just wrong, is very important and strengthens our country.
Cecilia, "it can be intimidating to be approached in a challenging manner by someone who may be no more than a stranger."
DeleteHell yes. That is harassment and should be punished.
Anonymouse 2:00pm, I’m sure that is happening somewhere, as surely as the possibility of violence or suicide is used to squelch opinions that differ from the gender politics of our day.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:17pm, and a good start in addressing such behavior would be for the university to actually…address it.
DeleteThen don't you think major journalists should the discuss that phenomenon with guests like the one mentioned in this piece and in general? That we should be careful to differentiate between "anti-Semitism" and legal, perhaps inaccurate free speech?
DeleteCecelia 2:21. Totally agree. Are they not? I don't follow the issue closely.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:23pm, they may have by now. It occurs to me that complaints are shouted, resolutions are whispered.
DeleteIf I saw someone confronting a Jewish student in such a way on a campus I would fucking kick their ass right there on the spot. Which would probably be illegal. But if they were to have a free speech protest that was not harassing and confrontational in that way, I would support it even if I thought they were wrong.
DeleteWhen free speech goes, our country is over.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:02pm, indeed, and freedom to hear free speech is nice too.
Delete"If I saw someone confronting a Jewish student in such a way on a campus I would fucking kick their ass right there on the spot."
DeleteAnd you're probably not alone. Yet you can find remarkably few such ass-kickings, either by Jewish partisans or by Palestinian partisans.
Cecelia, Muslims and Arabs are not the same. There are Arabs who are not Muslim and Muslims who are not Arab.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:37 pm, that’s why I distinguished them from Arabs and from Persians.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:37pm, I meant “the same” in the sense of how Pied Piper 3:32pm described the behavior of partisan Jews and Palestinians.
DeleteIn the U.S., anyway.
Sorry. I meant that I was responding to what Pied Piper said at 1:26pm.
DeleteIt wouldn't be fair to use accusations of anti-Semitism as a way to intimidate people away from their right to free speech concerning actions on the part of the Israeli government.
DeletePalestinians and Trump are the world’s only true victims.
DeleteI looked up "intifada" in Google Translate. It means "uprising". If so, the American Revolution and the confederate rebellion were intifadas.
ReplyDeleteThe word has whatever meaning assigned to it by the Israeli apologists lest one become listed as an antisemetic for using it.
ReplyDeletePaul Campos asks a question that Bob won't touch:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/01/will-jews-ever-be-welcome-in-hollywood
12:23: 2.7 per cent of the US population is Jewish. Is there any data supporting the contention that they are underrepresented? Some Hollywood types declaring themselves victims is not enough. It is not even clear that the Jewish population would support that idea.
ReplyDeleteThis question looks at the wrong variable.
DeleteThe racism of American segregation ending looks like people not bothering to check what their neighbor's racial background is. Some music, jokes and food can be enough.
In this way, racism is a function of preventing a society from enjoying the trust enjoyed by block-by-block social intensity and social stimulation.
We can see the reason America did this, to create as many profitable brownfield invested industries across the entire world as en empire, and maybe a few who talked their way into their favors get to join along with their own country somewhere.
America's issue is it segregates and the class interest in maintaining this gatekeeping is defeated through serious questioning about class labels and what the heck we are thankful for in life.
There are still neighborhoods around me where it's very clear nobody with skin kissed by the Sun have been allowed in for a long time, some White Catholic suburbs. The same rowdiness we see in Orthodox Yeshivas are in the rowdy frat boys of these elitist universities and their petty obsessions with sadistically tearing into each other with language.
What vision can we have for this country that builds bridges and doesnt require your politicians attend political interest meetings calling themselves communities, and have real community politics?
I admire DiC and Cecelia. I am not Mao, I am Corby.
DeleteIt's very difficult to measure discrimination by pure numbers. Traditionally a lot of Jews worked in Hollywood. it's possible that there could now be discrimination against Jews, yet Jews in Hollywood could still be more that 2.7%.
DeleteYears ago, there was an unwritten "rule" that a baseball team would not have a majority of blacks on the field. Of the nine players out there, no more than 4 could be black. Teams discriminating in this way might still have more than 12% blacks.
Gentlemann’s Agreement was made because there was anti-semitism in Hollywood in the aftermath of WWII. You should read the links people bother to put in their comments. David.
Delete77 pages of antisemtism examples
ReplyDeleteA group of Jewish graduate students at Harvard, including several from the law school, have sued that university alleging rampant anti-Semitism in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint is... 77 pages long. What is striking about the complaint is the breadth and depth of its factual allegations...
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/01/jewish-students-sue-harvard-mit-up-next.php
"What is striking about the complaint is the breadth and depth of its factual allegations..."
DeleteWhat is striking to me about the complaint is the exact opposite. There doesn't seem to be a single instance, for example, of any physical harm - even a bloody nose - suffered by any Jew on campus. Instead, there are complaints about *verbal* intimidation, such as complaints that Palestinians were chanting while marching around campus. One Jew was surrounded by people yelling "Shame!" That seems to be the very worst incident.
That is very bad. Who are you to tell others how they should feel about intimidation?
DeleteI'm not telling anybody how to feel about anything. I'm saying that many Jews and many Palestinians feel, with some justice, that the other is trying to exterminate them. I would expect this to lead to widespread violence on campus, but that is not at all what we see.
DeleteIs physical harm the only form of intimidation you recognize?
DeletePied Piper -- the norm at universities is that the most minor discomfort caused to favored groups, such as trans and blacks, is met with powerful sanctions. A double standard is bigotry.
Deleteparanoid
DeleteThe words of Harvard alumni are a bigger problem than the words of Harvard students.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteYes, treating people who aren't you with empathy and kindness is a way to make you the victim.
Do you have any Right-wing claims, that aren't tired, old and lazy?
Not sure what you are getting at here but your sentence structure beginning with the second sentence is obtuse at times.
ReplyDeleteThat was for 1:17
ReplyDeleteLiz Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth are not blue tribe heroes.
ReplyDeleteSally Kornbluth has not resigned. I guess she isn’t going to. Good for her.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:34pm, has she ever been asked to resign?
DeleteShe doesn't have to be asked. She can resign on her own initiative. But it seems she'd rather not. Anyway, Elise Stefanik told her to resign.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:59pm, give the other two college presidents some credit too.
DeleteThey too did not resign before it was demanded of them!
They were targeted by the right. They did nothing wrong.
DeleteSomerby does not suggest they did something wrong. He says they lacked the skill necessary to deal with a demagogue. The moment called for a stand, such as: “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” Instead, they wilted.
DeleteNot taking a stand when the moment called for it…but that’s not doing something wrong, pied piper? Do you usually reason like this? “I’m going to say you didn’t take a stand when you should have…but I’m not criticizing”, says the passive aggressive fool
DeleteWell, I guess I can’t accuse you of being a “passive aggressive” fool.
DeleteYou didn’t answer the question. His is he not saying they did something wrong, when they failed to take the stand the moment called for? (For clarity, I was calling the one saying the statement in quotes a passive aggressive fool)
DeletePied Piper, give it up, bro.
DeleteYou’re talking to 21st Century Moonies.
How can a sane serious person prepare to be interrogated by a pack of wild monkeys flinging poo?
DeleteWhat is wrong with acknowledging that Somerby is saying the college presidents did something wrong? Isn’t that obvious? He is saying they failed. That would be … doing something wrong.
DeleteLacking the skill to do the right thing and doing the wrong thing are two different things. But conflate them if you wish.
Delete(And now, CC, I feel like a fool for not following your advice.)
Pied Piper, you needn’t, and I’ll add that this is not the typical anonymouse.
DeleteThis is the flying monkey version.
takes one to know one
DeleteCecelia seems like such an interesting person, one I’d enjoy meeting. She always responds with thoughtful, often funny responses. No ad hominem there!
DeleteAC, flying monkey anonymices are proud to be that. There’s a place for them.
DeleteSorry, Cecelia. I’m not AC in MA. I was being sarcastic, especially about your not using ad hominem, after you called commenters flying monkeys.
Delete(the real one) - flying monkeys are phenomenal, and being called one shouldn't be taken as an ad hominem attack.
DeleteAC, I know.
DeleteAC/MA, you’re speaking for yourself with that one.
DeleteAC/MA is not real in the sense of having an official Blogspot nym. If he had one, his name would appear in green, like Cecelia's. He is easily impersonated by any troll who comes down the pike.
DeleteNo, he is not.
DeleteAC/MA here -- I'm an attorney myself but I don't understand the advice given to Gay and the other presidents. Clearly if I had been advising them, they wouldn't have been run out of town the way they were.
DeleteSee, Cecelia, how easy it is to be AC/MA. I could even be AM/CA or CA/CA if I wanted to be.
It’s crystal clear now, AM/CA or CA/CA. Go in peace.
DeleteI'm AC/DC. The three university presidents did great work exposing elise stefanik as an odious demagogue.
DeleteFreedom of speech in the Sunshine State:
ReplyDeletehttps://truthout.org/articles/florida-bill-could-lead-to-a-35000-fine-for-accusing-someone-of-racism/
“Professor Tribe actually said that she'd been right in what she said and did!”
ReplyDeleteDid he approve of everything she said and did?
“Have our blue tribe's elites ever performed with such an absence of basic skill?
ReplyDelete(The answer to that is plainly yes. For the record, we've been discussing that problem at this site since early 1998.)”
The big difference being that back in 1998, Somerby didn’t call mainstream journalists “blue tribe elites.” He called them … mainstream journalists.
Twenty-six years ago..,
DeleteCecelia can do basic arithmetic.
DeleteAnd reckon time and change.
DeleteWhose change?
DeleteMy knees.
Delete(The country’s, Einstein)
The country’s? Meet the press has been on NBC since 1947. The Sulzbergers have been running the New York Times since 1896.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:42pm, so that means the NYT and the media still thinks like it’s 1947 and 1896.
DeleteOr maybe the 2024 Sulzbergers are the same people from 1896.
I want their genes.
Prove that management priorities at NBC or the New York Times are any different now than 26 years ago.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:08pm, let’s start with the things that are the most obvious for your sake.
DeleteWould management in those eras have hired women in prominent roles? Would they have hired people who were openly homosexual?
Would they have supported any woman for president?
Would they have supported the deindustrialization of the U.S?
“back in 1998, Somerby called them mainstream journalists”
DeleteYes. Back then, the right-wing echo chamber was constantly blathering on about how the NYT and WaPo were left-wing organs, and Somerby was patiently detailing how they actually spent their time making absurd attacks on Clinton and Gore. Over the years, however, Somerby has come to accept the framing that the NYT and WaPo are part of the blue elite. I’d be curious to hear his reasons why (other than those hefty payments from Putin, that is).
The culture and the media has obviously changed for the better in some ways.
DeleteThe country has become much more liberal and that is obviously better in some ways.
It’s astounding to me that anonymices can’t ascertain that things have indeed changed because they are ascendant.
Don’t generalize to all anonymous commenters.
DeleteThe media (such as the NYT) are currently very negative towards Biden, for example. The bottom line, as always, is profit. That hasn’t changed in the past 26 years.
Delete7:08 Basically, it was when, due to the decentralization of media, the Times began getting its revenue from subscriptions instead of ads. This necessitated the production of emotionally charged stories, particularly those evoking anger, to boost reader engagement and drive subscription numbers.
DeleteAnd here is a New York Times report that suggests working journalists should "throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.".
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
The priorities of the Times have obviously changed drastically. It's been well documented but is obvious.
Earth to 8:04 - a majority of Democrats are negative towards Biden.
DeleteHere is an article about how the reliance on digital subscriptions altered journalistic standards and led to increased polarization and bias in media coverage.
Deletehttps://www.city-journal.org/article/how-the-media-polarized-us
The change at the Times isn't obvious to you?
Between 2010 and 2016, digital subscriptions remained insignificant from a business perspective. The news media wooed the digital progressives, but it was not until the conservative demographic—and Trump—arrived as forces on social media that the news media started raking in digital subscriptions. Until then, the mainstream media did not have any commodity to offer their newly chosen referential group. Trump helped fix that. He became that missing commodity immediately after his shocking victory. The mainstream media understood the signal, upgraded Trump from amusement to existential danger, and started selling the Trump scare as a new commodity.
DeleteThe media quickly learned to solicit subscriptions as support for a noble effort—the protection of democracy from “dying in darkness,” as the Washington Post put it. A new business model emerged, soliciting subscriptions as donations to a cause. Donations required triggers that the love-hate alliance of Trump and the media readily supplied.
WORD.
Anonymous 8:09pm, you want individual treatment, get a nym.
DeleteSo, it is still about profit, which was my point. And negative stories about Democrats are a tradition at the New York Times. You might think that the new (supposedly progressive) subscribers would drive the media to be more progressive, but that isn’t the case. The negativity directed at Clinton (bill and Hillary) and gore is alive and well. There is no progressive economic message at all at the times.
DeleteSo Trump is good for subscriptions. Maybe so, but it does not mean the media is functioning as a member of the blue tribe. Besides, Trump is viewed as a threat by many conservatives, such as the Kochs, so that is not a sign of blue tribe membership.
Anonymouse 10:08pm, just to get basic, the last time the NYT endorsed a Republican for president was 1956.
DeleteThe Washington Post has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate.
Cecelia, your lack of civility is typical of Republicans and especially conservatives.
DeleteCecilia, the NYT Magazine published an article abou Bush Jr., that was a pure paean, and it was pretty pro Iraq invasion - give them some credit.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:26pm, welcome, You must be new here.
DeleteAC/MA, twenty-four years ago.
DeleteAC and Pied Piper are pretending to be new here.
DeleteWe’ve been through this before, Cecelia. The newspaper’s editorial endorsement of a candidate doesn’t dictate its coverage of the candidates, nor does it determine the opinions of the oped writers. That does not mean management treats the paper as a mouthpiece for liberal or progressive views. It does not.
DeleteFor example, they endorsed bill Clinton and al gore. Would you say Bob approved of their coverage of either?
Delete"The mainstream media understood the signal, upgraded Trump from amusement to existential danger, and started selling the Trump scare as a new commodity."
DeleteThe real question, is why was this necessary? They had already designated Hillary Clinton as the world's biggest bogeyman, and had been selling that as a commodity for years.
First the NY Times came for Osama bin Laden, but I said nothing, because I wasn't a Muslim scholar...
DeleteThe right to life:
ReplyDeletehttps://time.com/6303701/a-rape-in-mississippi/
“whatever their intentions may be, their skill levels tend to be very weak.”
ReplyDeleteTheir skill level should be assessed based on their actual intentions. For example, it’s not at all clear that Welker intended to hold Stefanik’s feet to the fire. It may be that she intended to allow stefanik to respond without significant pushback precisely as she did. After all, stefanik is important, a viable politician who happens to be a Republican, and is an “other.” Welker just wants her side of things. We must’nt upset them too much or they won’t come back on meet the press.
Welker was roundly criticized in the media over her interview with Trump,
DeleteGo ahead and google the media’s response to her skills over that exchange.
Even if true (what “media?”), that has nothing to do with her intentions and whether she did what she intended to do.
DeleteSo Welker’s personal intentions outweigh the estimations of success via her more seasoned colleagues?
DeleteHer mother agrees.
Why does Somerby care about any of this when Laura Loomer says the Deep State is manipulating the weather to keep Trump out of office?
ReplyDelete“We all sit there, because we all know, the first time we bark is the last time that they do the show. You say something, and sometimes it is last time they will ever come on your show. There is that balance.”
ReplyDelete— Chuck Todd, former host of Meet the Press
Did Somerby ever call Todd a “blue tribe elite?”
And how many Trump defenders did NBC and MTP anxiously give air to on Todd’s show, as compared to Trump critics and denouncers, which includes Todd?
DeleteThere was a lot wrong with Chuck Todd's performance on Meet the Press including that he had a reputation for not asking follow up questions, but balancing the ratio of guests based on their support for Trump was not one of them, unless you can provide numbers that suggest so. I found him to be a superficial horse race kind of host who valued the status he had obtained more than the job it required of him. It was mostly about Todd and he didn't seem to care other than superficially about the subject matter of his interviews; that is why he was lambasted for his lack of follow up questions. His agenda seemed to be primarily to get through the segments; there was little organic substance in them. Ultimately unwatchable, by me, anyway.
DeleteHello my friend. a question for the smart career is that i will make much money in month 1 or 2?
ReplyDeleteGood Jobs For You If You Take Good And Handsome Monthly Qa Income No Need Working Skills Just Do Copy And Past Online Work And Take Income Very Easily
ReplyDeleteFollow This Link ……..>>> Www.Smartcareer1.com
hi friend. i ask it again that smart career 1 make me big income in month 1 and 2?
Delete