Freedom, Media, Constraint & Law

So compartmentalized is our world that we can hardly tackle any major problem without treading on sacrosanct fields. But I have no credentials and I must speak.

First, what is the freedom that results in displays of arms at Town Halls and the emission of hate speech and hate graphics. It is not the internal freedom that emerges from a spiritual release from one’s burdens. It is not the freedom St. Paul speaks of when he says Christ has set us free. What is it? It appears to be an interpretation of what is permitted by right. Such freedom is necessarily confrontational. No matter how it gets dressed up, a freedom tied to a right, regardless of how preciously it is held, carries with it the statement, I have a right to do this. As such, it is necessarily contextual. It can and does involve an adjudication of rights among potentially conflicting persons and groups.

Second, what is the role of media in spreading hate speech and public displays of hate and threat. Given the “right” to do and say most anything and its extension to anyone with the capacity to publish, online or off, the answer is: it is pervasive. Hate speech and violent threats have been endemic in the U.S.  since the days of Cotton Mather and Shay’s rebellion. But now there are no brakes upon its circulation and display. We delude ourselves if we do not look this fact in the eye and acknowledge that even if we limit our participation, we will always have media that will do what we may regard as inflammatory, despicable or small-minded. The role of media does not exist. Media do what media do and delude themselves talking about their role.

What of constraint? Are there any constraints? Is boredom our ally here? People simply tiring of idiotic posturing and silly display. I would not underestimate that.  Could we hope for a growth of consensus — such as took place when we finally began to abolish smoking? We might gradually concede that the false cry in the theater has wide and obvious application to public behavior that indulges in hate and provocation.  Such constraint might include the behavior of the media. A gradual willingness to stanch the flow of  hateful material.  But here my credulity fades. I do not believe the present crisis will be so easily resolved. The genie that is being unloosed leaves too many questions unanswered.

What is society’s tipping point?

Can a progressive current gradually prevail?

Or is it likely that the back and forth between progress and repression will intensify until even thinking like this becomes impossible?

And what of law?

Shall we increase the perimeter around the President?

Shall we outlaw certain expressions as too inflammatory?

Shall we limit access to certain weapons that have no use beyond the quick killing of a whole bunch of folk in a very short time?

Such questions always suggest the tragedies that give rise to laws of restraint. But notice that these laws have had little success in turning us in a more pacific direction.

+

My answer will be to support the President and do my best to convince other progressives that the most important task is not to complain loudly about the pace of change. It is to do what is called for every step of the way. Mobilize the grass roots to do the simple things that will win votes and create a body of accomplishment that will eventually convince even wingnuts that their chances of winning by condoning hate and unreason are declining, not increasing.

+

There was a time when I would have cried loudly for some action from the religious community. But if there is such action today, the media must be ignoring it. If the way the middle goes is the way the nation goes, then this religious community will bear some blame if things go, in a word, south.

My Problem With MSNBC

My problem is I hardly watch it any more. A while back I thought it had real potential. Now I think it is on its way down.

Not because I do not agree with what I assume to be its hopes for the President. But because they serve these hopes in the following ways:

1. I cannot believe the Rachel Maddow peremptory attitude that says essentially, “We’ll see what the President can do now…” As though it was up to him alone. It is up to us and if she is a true progressive she will get with the program and stop playing wise guy. I know she often does exemplary things. But I also know she has shied away from major global human rights issues that cried out for some progressive attention. I think she is probably the best of the lot now, but a shaky best.

2. Keith Olbermann’s format is becoming a bore to me. I liked Jean Shepherd and his music and other anachronistic things on Keith remind me that the next time around is never equal to what is being evoked. The plain fact is we do not care about the pissing contests and fun-making and grimaces and other posturing. The most recent denouement of the current style was the Glen Beck Daily Kos fiasco in which Keith went full bore and then pulled a Wizard of Oz nothing act on the air. It was literally unbelievable. And I think full justification for the President’s gentle chiding of progressives last night.

3.  Then there is Chris Matthews who has evidently decided that visible aging is an excuse for the emulation of a gravitas that he lacks. Many of us who have served in various ranks have a choice to make when we talk about our less-than-central role in things. One can shut up or write a novel or start celebrating yourself at every turn. Chris has chosen the last option with numbing effect. But that is probably a nasty jab, even if  true. The main problem I have with Chris is that while he is routinely being rude and interrupting his guests, he is also allowing his own opinions and feelings to so predominate that he becomes a most unreliable witness to events. Because he is dealing with important issues, this is bigger than just accusing him of being opinionated. He is using words to distort the truth at times. And this makes him no better than the more obvious examples of this sad tendency.

4. I reserve my last place concern for the Ed Show which I think would require a H. L. Mencken to adequately describe. Again I agree with many of his impulses and points but I find his show a travesty, a production bust and an exercise in blather and bloviation beyond my capacity to describe or adequately criticize. I do not think he serves the causes he so obviously represents. I think he toadys to some guests and thinks that off-the-cuff will play to his audience. I find the whole thing frankly unbelievable. A man of the people in 30 Rock ? Enough said.

This is the MSNBC lineup and this is how I see it. I know there are many who are happy with this channel.  I think it is precariously perched on the road to perdition. I wish CSPAN would put up a news channel that simply reads news in something like real time.

COMMENT ON — Arianna: White House Must Draw Line In The Sand On Health Care (VIDEO)

Keith and his guests have become a form of silliness and drama (to use two Obama terms) during this recess season. Oddly, the White House and the Obama administration has played this whole thing right and all the folk on the left and right who are busily trying to make each day a crescendo of angst (and succeeding) are helping the President to choose his proper moment to reiterate what has always been the case. The following post got more or less buried but it makes the point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/how-obamas-enemies-right_b_262185.html

Read the Keith-Arianna Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gibbs 12-minute Air Force One Press Briefing, June 15

Robert Gibbs 12-minute Air Force One Press Briefing, June 1

PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Chicago, Illinois

10:46 A.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: How are you guys?

Q How are you?

MR. GIBBS: Good. Fire away.

Q Does the President think the Iranian election was run fairly and that the announced results are accurate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t have a lot to add to what — the statement that we put out this weekend and what Vice President Biden said yesterday. Obviously we continue to have concern about what we’ve seen. Obviously the Iranians are looking into this, as well. We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.

But I think what’s important is the concerns that we have about their nuclear weapons program, and the concern we have about their support for terror isn’t any different than it was on Friday.

Q Does the margin of victory announced for Ahmadinejad seem reasonable or plausible to the White House?

MR. GIBBS: I think there are a number of factors that give us some concern about what we’ve seen.

Q Is the President open to including changes to medical malpractice rules as part of a health care overhaul this year? Does he think that’s going to be something that needs to be addressed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he will — as I told many people, he will mention this as part of the speech today. It’s a very small, short part of the speech. There aren’t specifics. So I think the notion that somehow — if you thought this was a speech on medical malpractice, you would — that would be wrong.

Q — take away from the fact that it’s a small part of the speech that he is not as committed to malpractice reform as he is to other things?

MR. GIBBS: No. This isn’t a med mal speech and that’s not what he’s come to talk about today.

Q Aside from the speech, is he open to the idea of setting caps on –

MR. GIBBS: You’ll see from the speech what he’s going to talk about today. The President, as a member of the Senate, worked on a number of different proposals that can bring relief from the cost of medical malpractice that don’t necessarily involve that.

Q What’s he going to tell the trial lawyers?

MR. GIBBS: About?

Q About medical malpractice reform.

MR. GIBBS: The same thing he tells the doctors.

Q — are skeptical. A lot of these guys I talked to over the weekend at the AMA are very skeptical. What’s the victory today? I mean, how does — what does he take away from his push today?

MR. GIBBS: This is about talking to the doctors, but also talking to the American people. I think you can understand, having covered politics, as well as all of you can, things get said in public to maintain your negotiating leverage, and things get worked on in a large table to make progress.

We’re very enthusiastic about where we are in this process. I think the President will outline a strong case that health care reform is not only necessary and needed but can’t wait. It can’t wait for the millions of people that are being crushed by skyrocketing health care costs. Our federal budget deficit can’t wait as Medicare and Medicaid — the costs of Medicare and Medicaid skyrocket.

So I think he’ll outline the case for necessary and needed reforms. But, again, this is just part of the process. We understand, as I said, what some people may say in public is different than what we see as progress toward real reform.

Q Is there something in it for the doctors?

MR. GIBBS: Oh, absolutely. I mean, look, I think you’re not — understand that health care reform is not just something that the President sees as a phrase or a hope. The goal is — and I’m sure — I know doctors share this, too — doctors want to practice medicine, right? They don’t want to be insurance administrators. They don’t want to spend a huge portion of their time filling out forms. They want to treat patients; they want to provide the best quality of coverage; they want to do so in a way that’s affordable. That’s why people get into practicing medicine. And I think those are all goals that are shared by the President.

Why do we as a country spend twice as much per capita as some countries do on outcomes that aren’t as good? I think those are concerns that are shared by both entities, both the President and doctors. That’s why we’re optimistic that health care reform is truly possible this year.

Q Is he going to push members of his own party about medical malpractice reform?

MR. GIBBS: He’s going to push members of both parties on all aspects of what it’s going to take to get reform through Congress and to his desk this year.

Q Does the President agree with Director Panetta’s assessment that Vice President — former Vice President Cheney almost wants another attack to happen?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I’m not going to get into motivations. That’s not what our business is. The President’s concern is keeping the American people safe. We’ve had policy disagreements, but I think what is true for anybody is doing what’s — doing what we need to to keep the American people safe and secure. That’s what the President is working on every day.

Q The AMA said last week that they were not against all kinds of public plans, but some kinds. Is he going to go into some detail today about what he sees as sort of a workable public plan?

MR. GIBBS: The President will obviously talk, as he did last week in Green Bay, about the benefits of choice and competition; the need to ensure that there is an affordable option for those that are getting the opportunity to get affordable health care. The President has always seen that as an important part of reform. And I think that’s what — the case that he’ll outline today, making sure that we have a public option that gives people greater choice, that brings competition to the insurance market is one that I think the President believes quite strongly.

Q — to get to that point?

MR. GIBBS: There are a lot of different ways to get to all these points. That’s why you heard the President in the campaign talk about having a big table with lots of chairs. I think this is another stop on the big table tour.

Q Does the President think that, when the doctors are saying that a public health program will run private insurers out of business, does the President agree with that assessment?

MR. GIBBS: I think you should see what — I don’t know which one you’re referring to. You should look at what the AMA put out after the so-called story about their opposition. I don’t think doctors are going to say that a public option would do that, since obviously that’s a healthy part of our health care system.

Q Robert, the President says that he wants to get $75 billion in savings from Medicare prescription drugs over 10 years. The pharmaceutical industry says that doesn’t necessarily have to come from lower prices for medications. Do you know of some other way to get to that target without lower prices?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to speak for them. I know what the President has outlined. I know what Peter and Nancy-Ann talked to you guys about in preparation for the Saturday radio address.

Again, I think the President believes strongly that reform can’t just — if “reform” is simply perpetuating over the course of 10 more years the way we’ve delivered medicine, the way we’ve practiced medicine, the way we’ve paid for medicine over the previous 10 years, then we’re not getting reform.

I think that’s why the President has outlined a series of proposals, including the ones he added to this Saturday, that not only make it affordable — make reform affordable, but also change in a positive way how we deliver health care and how we do it in a way that’s best for the American people.

Q Does he think Medicare should negotiate more strenuously with the pharmaceutical companies for better prices?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to get into negotiating here, but obviously we’re working with all entities, including the pharmaceutical industry, to bring about reform.

Q On the Netanyahu speech yesterday, the administration sort of welcomed the things that he had to say about a separate Palestinian state, but the Palestinians have pretty firmly rejected it. Did the President really get what he needed from Netanyahu in order to push the peace process forward?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the government — the Netanyahu government took a big step forward yesterday in acknowledging for the first time the need for a two-state solution. I think the President believes that there is a long way to go and many twists and turns in the road to get there, but is pleased thus far with the progress that’s being made. And I think yesterday’s speech certainly is a big part of that.

Q Is he going to be able to do something to get the Palestinians on board? What is he going to do –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’re working and discussing with all involved how we can move this process forward, how we can create a two-state solution whereby Israel and the Palestinians live side by side in peace and security. I think what Mr. Netanyahu said yesterday is an important part of that reform.

Thanks, guys.

Q Thank you.

END
10:58 A.M. EDT

How Journalistic Ineptitude Displays

Contessa Brewer on MSNBC offers an exact and chilling example of how TV is turning journalism into a shrug the shoulders. She blares out that scores have died of swine flu in Mexico. She then interviews a science guy who explains that in fact there have only been 19 actual deaths specifically attributed to this flu. She dismisses the expert she shrugs the discrepancy off. She does not say she was wrong. She does not say this is news. She breezes on to the next whatever. I think she is but an example of the interposition of barely-competent talking heads between expert reporting and us. This is unacceptable and shabby stuff. How MSNBC can allow it to stand is a question worth asking.

« Older entries