|
There are a whole host of social habits available to elite journalists and political actors which marginalize liberal or dissident voices. One of them is the use of anonymous sources to spread rumors about populist politicians. Another example is using vague terms, such as 'bloggers', 'progressives', or 'some' as straw men instead of referring to specific people making specific political claims.
All of us to some extent are guilty of generalizing, and generalizing is just a way of recognizing patterns and explaining them to the world. But taken to an extreme, this is simply a political weapon used by dominant political actors. George Bush uses straw men precisely in this manner, as Liz Cox Barrett noted. Read this passage.
There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world... And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world... I - I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking... there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free - they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved - proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy.
|
| By refusing to actually named anyone who thinks that Afghans don't 'long to be free', Bush is belittling responsible critics, using a grade school debating trick to misrepresent the motives of those who don't agree with him, and preventing named parties from responding. Bush will be gone soon, but the habits he practices are actually long practiced rituals of those in power.
This practice is widespread in DC, among establishment journalists. I'll take two examples. New York Times journalists Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti blog about Dianne Feinstein's stance on torture, which generated conversation and reporting primarily from two prominent people who publish online.
After some bloggers raised concerns that Senator Dianne Feinstein might be shifting her stance on the issue of American interrogation policy, the California Democrat has sought to clarify her views.
Actually, Glenn Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman raised concerns. They have names, and their work can be cited (instead of stolen, as it often is). Glenn Greenwald, a published author, an attorney specializing in the first amendment, and a consultant for the ACLU, wrote about it here. Spencer Ackerman, a journalist who has traveled extensively in both Iraq and Afghanistan and worked at an important think tank, wrote about it here, in fact doing original research on the story as a journalist.
Because their names are withheld, readers can't know or read the original work, so their reading is devoid of context. Moreover, they can't respond to this piece directly as objects of criticism, because Shane and Mazzetti aren't explicitly referencing them. They are simply pesky unnamed and irresponsible bloggers asking for information, as likely to be Chris Crocker as a respected constitutional scholar or war correspondent.
This is not isolated to establishment journalists at nonpartisan centrist institutions; liberal journalist David Corn did something similar with 'progressives' in this piece for the Washington Post titled 'This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured' about what progressives think about Obama. Corn would probably call himself a progressive, and to be fair, he does have one $250 donation listed in the FEC database to a pro-choice group in 1998, but in this piece, he's presenting himself as some sort of representative of all progressives. The piece is peppered with references to what progressives think, ten unnamed assertions total.
For evidence with actual context, he cites a well-worn quote from Chris Bowers, a quote from twp anonymous labor officials, and quotes from a few anonymous Nation writers backing up his points. Is this what progressives think? We have no idea. It could just be what David Corn thinks, with a carefully parsed selection of quotes. And that's fine, if he weren't acting as the representative of progressives to readers of the Washington Post. Without evidence that this piece is representative of a broader community, it's irresponsible for him to speak for anyone except himself. By making a claim to speak for a broader group without specifying the members of that group, Corn avoids having to actually show the work he might have done of talking to elected officials that might have a claim of speaking for a broader group and avoids showing that he actually examined and summarized a wide variety of opinions by a heterodox group of people.
The habits Shane, Corn, and Mazzetti use are cut from the same cloth as that of Bush, a vague set of allusion to an out group, without references to many members of that out group. It's very annoying, gossipy, and insipid. It is also a specific power play, often done inadvertently, so hopefully by calling attention to it we can gradually help whittle it down. |
STATE BLOGS
