Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I look at inane and endless reports about Anna Nicole Smith, or Brittany Spears, or Paris Hilton, as a good thing. It means that there's no real news to report, which for most of the MSM, means no bad news to report.

Days where CNN is indistinguishable from E! are good days indeed.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 10, 2007 06:52 AM

It means that there's no real news to report, which for most of the MSM, means no bad news to report.

It actually means that there's good news to report. From Iraq. It's a diversion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 10, 2007 06:59 AM

I turned on the Weather Channel first thing this morning. As I do any morning. This morning I had to hear about the weather forecast in the Bahamas. And how it would affect the reporters down their trying to find out who dat baby daddy is.

That kid would be better served if she was to be placed for adoption into a normal family with no pile of money to be fought over.

Posted by Steve at April 10, 2007 07:42 AM

Heck, I'd rather see/hear endless loops about the soldier in Iraq who only found out he'd been hit in a fight was when he pulled out his iPod and it had a bullet hole in it.

Sure, it's still a fluff story, but hell, it's got a lot more worldly relevance than Anna Nicole Smith....

BTW, Rand, what does your comments submission thing have against "n e t c r o p *"? It won't let me put in my URL, or even type it in the comments. I assume it's some phishing site or summat?

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at April 10, 2007 09:16 AM

I agree...it is like the Don IMus thing...please please cant we move on!

I assume that next on the hit list will be every black rapper that uses the word "Ho's".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 10, 2007 09:16 AM

It actually means that there's good news to report. From Iraq. It's a diversion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 10, 2007 06:59 AM

There is good news to report from iraq...we are winning.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 10, 2007 09:17 AM

I've removed "netcrop" from the blacklist, for future reference, Ian. I'm sure that I was being hit by spammers at some time in the past with that string.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 10, 2007 09:25 AM

Rand: "It actually means that there's good news to report. From Iraq. It's a diversion."

ROFL. It means the bad news has become so ubiquitous that the market is saturated with it, and the value of fluffery has gone up as a result.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 10, 2007 09:49 AM

I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who voluntarily watches cable news. They haven't decided to tell you, you've decided to listen.

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at April 10, 2007 10:10 AM

I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who voluntarily watches cable news.

I don't watch it, much. I have it on in background, audio only.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 10, 2007 10:15 AM

It means the bad news has become so ubiquitous that the market is saturated with it, and the value of fluffery has gone up as a result.

I don't agree that the 'market is saturated' as you put it, but I do find it interesting that even you see that the MSM places 'fluffery' ahead of 'good news' on their priority list.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 10, 2007 10:37 AM

Rand: "I don't agree that the 'market is saturated' as you put it"

How long do you imagine "50 Killed in Iraq Bombing" can top the headlines before people stop reading it?

"but I do find it interesting that even you see that the MSM places 'fluffery' ahead of 'good news' on their priority list."

The marginal anecdotes you want to see *are* examples of fluffery, but for anyone who isn't ideologically invested in the war it only reinforces how bad things have become. A hundred straight days of "50 Killed in Iraq Bombing," followed by a story about a village getting toothbrushes and portable water filters? Come on, Rand--the people who cling to this disaster don't care if the news is good, just the coverage of it.

Now, if a source has an option of cramming one more day of "50 Killed in Iraq Bombing" down the throats of people who already feel powerless and exhausted by it, or talking about celebrity foibles that amuse and titillate, which do you think a profit-driven media outlet is going to choose? This is how the market-driven approach to news functions, which is what people on the right and in libertarian circles have always wanted, so bon appetit.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 10, 2007 12:52 PM

I didn't write the things you quote me as writing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 10, 2007 12:56 PM

BS,

How many times can you take what people say out of context or attribute things to them that they never said before your credibility is completely gone.

It is well understood that I think you are a liar, but some people have tried to give you some credit on space related topics. You think that is going to continue while you make up lies about the Host?

Posted by Leland at April 10, 2007 01:35 PM

Rand: "I didn't write the things you quote me as writing."

My mistake.

Leland: "How many times can you take what people say out of context"

What did I take out of context?

"or attribute things to them that they never said"

This is the first time I've made such a mistake that I can recall, unless you can cite another.

"before your credibility is completely gone."

My credibility is in no danger, Leland. And certainly not from any of your compulsive attacks on my character.

"It is well understood that I think you are a liar"

If anyone understands why you believe what you believe, you don't appear to be among them.

"but some people have tried to give you some credit on space related topics."

Jealous? >:)

"You think that is going to continue while you make up lies about the Host?"

Leland, do me a favor. Ring a bell and say "De plane! De plane!"

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 10, 2007 02:36 PM

How long do you imagine "50 Killed in Iraq Bombing" can top the headlines before people stop reading it?

Hopefully pretty quick, about as quick as people would get bored with reading "100 Americans killed in traffic accidents today!" or "45 Americans murdered today!" -- both of which could be published on any average day of the year.

That is, I hope people in general are smarter than journalists think they are, and realize fairly quickly that low-level ongoing criminal violence, accident, and political struggle are not nearly as dramatic and meaningful a story as your generic hysterical journalist thinks it is. (Or maybe they don't really think that, but they need some kind of dog-bites-man story to fill up the page and airspace every day. Cluelessness or cynicism? Who knows?)

No doubt there is an important, long-term story emerging in Iraq. Perhaps the big story is actually that, four years after the invasion, a democratically-elected government is still standing, neither Iran nor Turkey has invaded, and the economy is growing steadily, despite the punctuations of jihadis going boom. Or perhaps the story is growing isolation of the factions, promising at least a de facto partition of the country.

Honestly, who knows? Because the MSM views the Iraq war only through the prism of: How can this help us take down that bastard George Bush? So whatever the long-term story that is emerging, that might be read in subtle signs and trends, we'll never know about it, because the folks who purport to be on the look-out for it have an obsession to feed instead.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 10, 2007 03:13 PM

> I agree...it is like the Don IMus thing...please please cant we move on!

This, after all the posts about which restaurants and bars you hang out at near JSC?

Oh, the irony! :-)

By the way, Robert, there's a difference between "cant" and "can't." e.g.: "It's sad that he can't even punctuate his cant."

Posted by Edward Wright at April 10, 2007 04:24 PM

Carl: "Hopefully pretty quick, about as quick as people would get bored with reading "100 Americans killed in traffic accidents today!""

Why hopefully?

Carl: "That is, I hope people in general are smarter than journalists think they are"

The entire premise of your comment is fantastic. For one, if the MSM still employed journalists, the invasion of Iraq could never have happened. Secondly, the only reason the profit-driven abominations that have replaced journalism report what they do is to win business, so they have to balance the demands of powerful interests capable of shutting them out (i.e., the Bush regime) with those of consumers looking for the illusion of civic due diligence. Since Katrina, that balance has been consistently further from the interests of the regime than it would like, although still light years from actual investigative reporting.

Carl: "and realize fairly quickly that low-level ongoing criminal violence, accident, and political struggle"

The subject is Iraq, not Mexico.

"Perhaps the big story is actually that, four years after the invasion, a democratically-elected government is still standing"

"Standing" is a rather generous way of putting it. They govern the Iraqi contingent of the Green Zone, and coordinate ducking maneuvers when the latest mortar volley flies over the walls. If you think it's a "big story" that the insurgents haven't managed to overrun the GZ, then your expectations are even lower than mine.

"neither Iran nor Turkey has invaded"

Nor would they have if Bush hadn't.

"and the economy is growing steadily"

What economy?

Carl: "Because the MSM views the Iraq war only through the prism of: How can this help us take down that bastard George Bush?"

Sure it does, Carl. They spent the last six years covering for him only as a devious ploy.

"So whatever the long-term story that is emerging"

Here's the long term story: Because of a handful of homicidal maniacs put in office by people looking for tax cut handouts, virtually the entire world now regards the United States as a belligerent and violently insane rogue state. Everything we do is now suspect; every national fault is magnified; every national virtue diminished; all friendships flushed down the toilet, all preexisting animosities intensified, all prejudices reinforced, and all potential enmities enthusiastically provoked. The reasonable have been convinced we are mad; the democratic that we are fascist; and the real fascists that we are weaklings who will only attack emasculated straw man enemies while respecting only those capable of retaliating. The glorious murder spree you praise has laid the foundations for an anti-American century, and threatens the survival of this country.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 10, 2007 06:08 PM

Brian said: Everything we do is now suspect; every national fault is magnified.

That is absolutely correct. The MEDIA magnifies it. By reporting deaths and destruction with well timed questioning of the administration yet showing next to nothing of good that IS happening, and if they do show something good they cant it with how insignificant it might be to cover it up.

Posted by Mac at April 10, 2007 07:28 PM

Mac: "The MEDIA magnifies it."

Oh get off it, you sound like Al Sharpton.

"By reporting deaths and destruction with well timed questioning of the administration"

In other words, doing their jobs?

"yet showing next to nothing of good that IS happening"

Ah, I see. They are reporting the bloodbath, but failing to note the new soapdish beside it. Clearly a conspiracy of massive proportions.

"and if they do show something good they cant it with how insignificant it might be to cover it up."

Huh?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 11, 2007 12:35 AM

They govern the Iraqi contingent of the Green Zone, and coordinate ducking maneuvers when the latest mortar volley flies over the walls.

Sigh. If only we could have such a nicely limited government. I wish those parasitic rodents in Washington or Sacramento were confined to ordering their secretaries and janitors about, for fear of mortars pitched over the wall by angry citizens if they got more ambitious. Fill out this long tax form and send you a check for a third of my earnings or else you'll seize my house and car? Ahmed, get me the launcher and a few of those extra big rounds...

But to return to the subject -- what would you call an effective or even acceptable government? Try not to say "a government that can prevent the murder of any of its citizens", so we can confine ourselves to earthly governments, not the perfect reign of Christ the King when he remembers us and comes back. As noted above, the US government is unable to prevent the yearly murder of 16,000 of its citizens, and incidentally the yearly rape of 93,000 of its female citizens. You might also want to avoid saying "a government entirely free of corruption or the corrupting influence of tribal politics." We are talking about the Middle East, here. You wouldn't want to exclude the governments of every other state in the region.

My larger point is that a government which is functioning, albeit weakly, but not actively grinding down its people is not such a bad thing. How about you jcompare the government of Iraq with such modern marvels as the government of Cambodia during the killing fields, or that of Vietnam after the US thoughtfully bugged out? Remember the millions of government-issue corpses, the re-education camps, the boat people dodging sharks in the China Sea? The Iraqis could do a lot worse, given their pre-existing tribal and religious hostility, and haven't, yet.

Because of a handful of homicidal maniacs put in office by people looking for tax cut handouts, virtually the entire world now regards the United States as a belligerent and violently insane rogue state. Everything we do is now suspect...

Yawn. You know, I remember hearing exactly the same apocalyptic Beware The End Is Near! rhetoric during the Cold War. You could be quoting almost word for word any number of nightly-news commentators circa 1983 (Reagan's first term, for the youngsters, if any). Your predecessors were utterly wrong then, and I think it's a pretty safe to assume you're in the grip of a similar hysteria now.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 11, 2007 12:54 AM

Brian, did you forget to take your meds today?

My my, it is saddening to see someone lost to effects of schizophrenia.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 11, 2007 01:29 AM

Squiddie says: Ah, I see. They are reporting the bloodbath, but failing to note the new soapdish beside it. Clearly a conspiracy of massive proportions.

The bloodbath and only the bloodbath, nothing else but the bloodbath. With the formally discussed 9/11 deaths being insignificant, how come these deaths are more important? How come the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed are forgotten so easily by the press? Why is it that a good thing happens and it doesn't get covered? (I know, its all the ratings game. There is no left leaning of the press, its all that right leaning FOX that's screwing it all up)

Posted by Mac at April 11, 2007 01:53 PM

Carl: "If only we could have such a nicely limited government."

It's not limited, it's fictional. And contrary to anarchist fantasies, what fills the void is not individual initiative and free association.

Carl: "I wish those parasitic rodents in Washington or Sacramento were confined to ordering their secretaries and janitors about"

I would rather they did their jobs, and performed their responsibilities as constitutional officers and citizens.

Carl: "for fear of mortars pitched over the wall by angry citizens if they got more ambitious."

Citizens don't wage war on lawful government. What you're describing are insurgents.

"Fill out this long tax form and send you a check for a third of my earnings or else you'll seize my house and car?"

Oh, so this is about money.

"But to return to the subject -- what would you call an effective or even acceptable government?"

For Iraqis, three separate states tailored to the character of the governed, and constituted with enough flexibility to avoid self-fulfilling prophecies.

"As noted above, the US government is unable to prevent the yearly murder of 16,000 of its citizens"

The difference is they're not dying 50 at a time in terrorist attacks and mass executions. If the per capita numbers were applied to the US population, we'd be losing the entire population of Utah every year.

"How about you jcompare the government of Iraq with such modern marvels as the government of Cambodia during the killing fields"

We've come a long way from "freedom and stability" to "not quite as bad as Cambodia," so tell me: What does it say that you now have to look into the deepest, darkest corners of Hell to find an example of something worse than what your own agenda created?

"The Iraqis could do a lot worse"

Not really. The US doesn't interfere in militia death squads and sectarian clashes because neither side wants our help, and they both blend in seamlessly with civilians.

Carl: "You could be quoting almost word for word any number of nightly-news commentators circa 1983"

Reagan was criticized for pursuing a military buildup and approaching the Soviet Union with a strident tone. Those are matters of concern due to the attitudes they signify, the relative lack of consideration about potential consequences, and many people felt (quite rightly) that it betrayed a certain carelessness. But that is an entirely different moral universe from people not content with military strength; not content with "hard line"; and not content with skirting the laws and principles of peace for an ulterior agenda.

Reagan's recklessness was infinitely removed from the inhuman horror of a regime for whom war was not merely an ignored potentiality, but the desired outcome; and not merely something they wished to provoke from an enemy, but something they themselves initiated, as soon as possible, with no concern whatsoever even for the appearance of legitimacy. Therein lies the comparison to Hitler--for the Bush regime's absolute, utterly naked brazenness in open violation of every legal principle and human value in existence.

I have always referred to Reagan's government as the "Reagan administration" even though I say "Bush regime," because despite the numerous laws Reagan's people broke and institutions they corrupted, they never crossed the fundamental lines that Bush's people did at the first opportunity. North, Weinberger, and the other scumbags may have sold arms for hostages, laundered money to Contra terrorists, and trained dictators in the methods of torture, but it wasn't THEY who were the hostage-takers; wasn't THEY who were the terrorists; wasn't THEY who tortured people. They funded brutal wars of aggression, but it wasn't American soldiers fighting them. When Bush's people were still part of the Reagan administration, even the other Reaganites called them "The Crazies."

Josh: "My my, it is saddening to see someone lost to effects of schizophrenia."

Especially since you voted for him. That must be a real ego boost, knowing you're such a good judge of character and fitness.

Mac: "The bloodbath and only the bloodbath, nothing else but the bloodbath."

I'm sorry, is the bloodbath you voted for boring you?

"With the formally discussed 9/11 deaths being insignificant, how come these deaths are more important?"

Nobody said the 9/11 deaths were insignificant, only that the nature of their significance was other than the scale of the attacks suggested. But Iraq deaths are significant because they are a direct consequence of policy, and therefore pertain to what policy changes should be pursued.

"How come the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed are forgotten so easily by the press?"

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Would you have the media preface every story with an infinite regression of irrelevant historical review? They don't bother reminding people that the invasion was illegal while covering debates about tactics, and they're not likely to remind people that a dead man was bad while the living are still being fed through a meat grinder for no damn reason.

"Why is it that a good thing happens and it doesn't get covered?"

You might want to consider the credibility of the source whose positive stories you seem to think are being "ignored." The fact is the truly right-wing, truly Bushista sources function as extensions of the White House Press Office, and routinely report complete nonsense. When other sources who still cling to the nominal appearance of journalism fail to back them up, they just say "The librul media killed the story!" Seriously, these sources just make things up, because they know their audience wants to hear "good news" about Iraq, won't question it, and will believe them if they slander the rest of the media. At a few points I dipped into Fox News just for the hell of it, and their coverage in many cases was, for lack of a better word, fictional.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 11, 2007 10:40 PM

Squiddie saud: Nobody said the 9/11 deaths were insignificant, only that the nature of their significance was other than the scale of the attacks suggested. But Iraq deaths are significant because they are a direct consequence of policy.

I believe you've stated before that one cause of 9/11 was the lack of policy dictated towards our safety, a failing of the new administration, but that may have been someone else, but it was posted. So, in other words, both sets of deaths were a direct consequence of policy means they should be held in the same regard.

Then he says: You might want to consider the credibility of the source whose positive stories you seem to think are being "ignored."

Servicemen are the source, hundreds to thousands of them complain that the good things are not being reported. So, I should question the credibility of servicemen? hmmmm

Posted by Mac at April 12, 2007 11:38 AM

Post a comment