Liars, damned liars, and Karl Rove

I'm not usually a big fan of Andrew Sullivan's blog, but the man is right on the money here:

Every now and again, one is shocked by the Big Lies and chutzpah that come out of a man as utterly indifferent to the truth as Rove. And then one realizes: this is what these people do for a living. They say anything to retain and wield power.

Shine a Light.

Seems like anyone who's anyone on the intertubes is commentating at length all about Eric Alterman's "Out of Print" article. My perennial favourites Matthew Yglesias and Tim Lee both have interesting things to say about it. Predictably enough, they both think he overstates the problems and understates the benefits of us getting more of our news online. This being more of a random-thought-that-I'm-getting-down-for-later sort of blog, I'm just going to say a few general things that struck me about the article and the ensuing hubbub.

In the first place, it's a nicely written article. I like to think I know as much about US news media as the next man, but it clued me into a few things I didn't know. Really enjoyed all the talk about Walter Lippmann and John Dewey, and Alterman's contention that newpapers have been far more about a Lippmannite process of privileged insiders trying to shape public opinion, rather than being a purely democratic force.

I'm old enough to remember when this sort of talk was the preserve of Chomsky-reading anarchists ("Manufacturing Consent" was originally Lippmann's description of the process by which journalists should shape the opinions of a public unable to negotiate the complex workings of modern democracies). Nowadays talk about how advertising inevitably shapes coverage and government can cow media outlets is the stuff of New Yorker articles, BBC Series and books by Harvard Law Professors. Which I guess is all to the good.

Was also interested to hear about the increasing involvement of the non-profit sector in journalism:

The survivors among the big newspapers will not be without support from the nonprofit sector. ProPublica, funded by the liberal billionaires Herb and Marion Sandler and headed by the former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger, hopes to provide the mainstream media with the investigative reporting that so many have chosen to forgo. The Center for Independent Media, headed by David Bennahum, a former writer at Wired, recently hired Jefferson Morley, from the Washington Post, and Allison Silver, a former editor at both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, to oversee a Web site called the Washington Independent. It’s one of a family of news-blogging sites meant to pick up some of the slack left by declining staffs in local and Washington reporting, with the hope of expanding everywhere. But to imagine that philanthropy can fill all the gaps arising from journalistic cutbacks is wishful thinking.

This he thinks, is unfortunate because:

Finally, we need to consider what will become of those people, both at home and abroad, who depend on such journalistic enterprises to keep them safe from various forms of torture, oppression, and injustice... Just how an Internet-based news culture can spread the kind of “light” that is necessary to prevent terrible things, without the armies of reporters and photographers that newspapers have traditionally employed, is a question that even the most ardent democrat in John Dewey’s tradition may not wish to see answered.

Obviously dedicated media replacement non-profits aren't going to spring up in great enough volume to fund the sort of journalism that the mass media has traditionally produced, but that's not really the issue. It does strike me (admittedly having given the matter only two seconds thought) that non-profits already serve quite a big role in getting out information about "torture, oppression and injustice." Indeed, if I'm looking for reliable statistics on, say torture in Chile under Pinochet, I'm at least as likely to turn to Amnesty International as I am to the New York Times. Whilst they're an important part of that ecology, it's not like journalists have some sort of monopoly on getting out information about worthy causes. If their role diminishes, though, I think it's at least plausible that other interested parties might start to take up some of the slack.

"Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on air power"

As the Bush administration lurches towards its end like some drunken psychopath finally fleeing the scene of a massacre, Mark Danner feels its time to do some stock taking on the administration, Iraq and the "War on Terror." Mostly its the stuff you probably already knew, but it's a well-written piece by a man who has a good grasp of the details of the situation. Some highlights.

For the attention of John McCain:

In this sense, many of the Bush administration's leading Iraq War backers comprised a kind of guerrilla force within the U.S. government, fighting against a longstanding strategic alignment in the Middle East. This guerrilla status, which defined many of the government's most knowledgeable Middle East hands as enemies to be isolated and ignored, helps to account, at least in part, for a great many of the extraordinary incompetencies and disasters of the war itself. That the roots of the war lie in stark opposition to established U.S. policy also helps explain the central conundrum of the current U.S. strategic position in Iraq and the Middle East. This was defined for me with typical concision and aplomb by Ahmed Chalabi in Baghdad last year. "The American tragedy in Iraq," said Chalabi, "is that your friends in Iraq are allied with your enemies in the region, and your enemies in Iraq are allied with your friends in the region."

Chalabi's concision and wit are admirable (and typical); but his point, once you look at the map, is obvious. The United States has made possible the rise to power in Iraq of a Shiite government which is allied with its major geopolitical antagonist in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And the United States has been fighting with great persistence and distinctly mixed results a Sunni insurgency which is allied with the Saudis, the Jordanians, and its other longtime friends among the traditional Sunni autocracies of the Gulf.

For those who still buy that whole "The surge is working and we can all leave soon" line:

At this moment, the Iraq War is at a stalemate. Confronted with a growing threat from those "enemies allied with its friends in the region," the Sunni insurgents, the Bush administration has adopted a practical and typically American strategy: it has bought them. The Americans have purchased the insurgency, hiring its foot soldiers at the rate of $300 per month. The Sunni fighters, once called insurgents, we now refer to as "tribesmen" or "concerned citizens."

This has isolated al-Qaeda, a tactical victory. But because these purchased Sunni fighters have not been accepted by the Shiite government -- the allies of our enemies -- the United States has set in motion a policy that will require, to keep violence at current levels, its own permanent presence in the country. This at a time when two in three Americans think the war was a mistake and when both surviving Democrat candidates vow to begin bringing the troops home "on day one" of a Democratic administration.

I am so depressed now.