Home » Update on Rosen’s rollback: be careful what you wish for

Comments

Update on Rosen’s rollback: be careful what you wish for — 19 Comments

  1. Point 1

    We don’t have duels anymore.

    Point 2

    If the press are traitors, then we cannot shut down the press as that would go against conservatism. A Democrat can get away with lying to the press and intering Japanese-Americans, but a Republican is not adept at Propaganda enough to get away with it. Therefore a Republican must diminish the negative effects of a press, regardless of whether their negative actions reach treason levels or not.

    Point 3, since point 2 supports rollback, and Rosen doesn’t like rollback, Point 2 is ignored.

    Point 4, When Republicans talk about treason, negativity, and what not, it is not the same as the Democrats saying Bush Lied. Democrats say Bush Lied because they know it to be a fact, Republicans are open to a debate about the aid and abetting of the enemy by journalists.

  2. Actually, David, Jay made several comments over the course of a fairly long period of time alluding to how awful the thread was without explaining himself at all. He was exceptionally unclear and generally condescending in his upset with the entire thread.

    Every single blogger is frequently going to get all sorts of posts in a comments thread that make statements the blogger finds absurd or ridiculous or wrong or so foolish as to be not worth bothering with. So what? That goes with the territory. If Mr. Rosen wants no comments on his threads, or if he wants to ban everyone who says something that he considers outrageous, that’s his prerogative. But it certainly goes against his stated intent of encouraging dialogue. Does one shut down a conversation because of a few hecklers?

    And this “treason” thing–by no means did most of the posts on that thread critical of the press accuse it of treason.

    Did you read Neuro-Con’s critique of Rosen? Here is a relevant quote from it:

    Most importantly, though, Rosen misses the point of the very first commenter, who stated (inter alia) “”the goal of such a press is Public Relations against Bush, implicitly supporting the death squad terrorists in Iraq.” To which Jay responded: “Did you hear that? The press, in effect, supports the death squads who are murdering innocent Iraqis– and journalists!” In the context of his post, Rosen seems deeply offended, as if the MSM has been accused of explicitly or deliberately supporting the terrorists, and as if he has never heard of Orwell’s critique of the pacifist Left in WWII and its applications today.

  3. Most of the posters here seem to be missing the point. The comments that riled Jay were clearly the ones that essentially accused the press of treason. Once that charge is made, there really is no room for further discussion. If reporters are traitors, then they should be prosecuted, not roasted over a blogging flame. If they aren’t traitors, then those making the charge must either apologize or offer a choice of weapons. Either way, the time for talk has ended.

    My own take is that reporters aren’t traitors, and those making the charge without taking their case to a grand jury are either liars or cowards.

  4. Isn’t there any justice in the universe? Why does life have to be so difficult for Jay Rosen? The journalism professor is irritated because he is so kind hearted and wonderful—and yet, a number of people apparently fail to appreciate these virtues. Rosen has nothing to learn from the hoi polloi and is going out of his way to share his wisdom with the unwashed masses. The rabble believe that the MSM despise President Bush, want the war in Iraq to fail, and help the Democratic Party achieve its goals. Should he perhaps reread Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in America for comfort and guidance? Why can’t these intellectually challenged individuals learn that Rosen and his highly credentialled buddies are merely objective, dispassionate, and above the fray? It’s merely a matter of the elite possessing a far better grasp of these issues. Why does Rosen waste his time with such ungrateful louts? Alas, If they were only students in his class. He could fail them and be done with it. This Internet blogging stuff complicates everything. Why can’t we go back to the old days when the MSM and rest of the liberal establishment exclusively ruled the roost?

  5. Jay’s trying to change his mind without changing his mind (or losing his mind?).

    He should read your fine posts on it.

    There is Moral Hazard to a Free Press, where more US Soldiers die than if it was merely Public Relations for Bush.

    Journalists need to deny this issue.

  6. I would also add something I’ve notice from the “j-school” blogs. I’ve never read them before and have in the last few weeks because of the number of links i have seen. Never really cared too much.

    You know, I can be vain and arrogant, in fact an arrogant bastard from time to time – but I don’t hold a candle to these people. Notice the parts quoted – the guy never realised that his readers know (only collectivly) more than he does on his subject? Well damn, what the hell did I go through 7 freaking years of college and 5 as a junior researcher for? All I needed to do was be a journalist and I could only be beaten by the collective might of silicon valley! Umm, know what buddy? I bet I know more singularly about technology than you do – ever written a b-tree, A binomial tree, hell even a bubble sort, know what the halting problem is, know why proving p=np is the wet dream of every comp sci researcher (or even what p or np means)? No? So why did it surprise you that we know (collectivly) more than you do about technology? Arrogance doesn’t even begin to approach that attitude. I’ve dedicated my freaking *life* to this field of study and you are surprised that many of “me” know more than you do about it? No freaking wonder they do not handle criticism well and don’t research their topics well – they are already experts on everything.

    I always found the term “J-school” to be somewhat self important, but I gave the benefit of doubt that it is like typing “comp sci” – lazy bastards trying to shorten things with a touch of arrogance (I only use CS in context with other computer scientist, the vast majority of people I know do so also). I don’t use the phrase “comp sci” in real life and I know no one who does. Turns out that “J-school” is the actuall term used in conversation. Even law professors don’t talk about “L-school”.

    *sigh* maybe I’m being too harsh here. But people shocked, shocked they say that computer scientist know more about tech news than a journalist (but only collectivly), going into it to “change the world”, and figure thier profession is so grand it only needs a letter “J” – well what does one expect?

  7. The fact that he closed down the comments in and of itself means nothing. Unlike most blogs, he always closes the comments on a topic after a certain point, seemingly regardless of where the discussion is. I guess when he’s ready to move on to a new topic he doesn’t want to bother with the old one any more.

    However, in this case, the manner of the closing was certainly eye-opening and jaw-dropping. I don’t know what was going on but can only conclude there might have been a personal situation transpiring behind the scenes (perhaps tied up with his vacation) that we don’t know about. Either that or he just finally reached a personal breaking point that was building up in him. Maybe he needs a sabbatical and not just a vacation.

    Somewhat off the direct topic but also mentioned by Neuro-con is the matter of Steve Lovelady. Why he apparently is a member in good standing of the PressThink comments thread is beyond me. While railing against the more conservative oriented bloggers regarding their debating techniques and style, Jay gives Steve Lovelady’s juvenile, illogical, and snide posts a completely free pass. At least based on his posts at PressThink, I honestly can’t even comprehend how Steve Lovelady has a job in journalism, let alone a job at an outfit that is supposed to monitor and critique journalism. I wouldn’t hire him for my school paper.

    Every once in awhile he fools me with a semi-sane post but usually I only have to get a few sentences into one of his comments before it’s entirely clear whose posting it is and I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at the utter inanity of what he’s saying. I’m not talking about disagreeing with his politics, I’m talking about the utter lack of a logical and consistent argument in most of what he says. And when people call him on that he almost invariably sidesteps their point and goes off on a completely different (usually more personal) tangent that serves as cover for him to escape from the rhetorical noose closing around him. And yet Jay never seems to have a problem with it. If I were in Jay’s shoes, and Jay’s profession, that’s what I would be embarrassed about.

  8. There is some kind of hot button about the “bias” argument, about which he seems to think there is NO MORE to be said. See comments at http://goodandhappy.typepad.
    com/g_as_in_good_h_
    as_in_happ/2005/04/
    media_comments_.html
    #comments

    The closedown of the Bay/Rollback comments has the same fed-up quality. I don’t get it, and he really hasn’t explained himself. He must think he has…

  9. You will find the expression ‘breathe truth’ in this speech from Richard II:

    The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.

    NUMBER: 51852
    QUOTATION: O, but they say the tongues of dying men
    Enforce attention like deep harmony.
    Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain,
    For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain.
    He that no more must say is listened more
    Than they whom youth and ease have taught to glose.
    More are men’s ends marked than their lives before.
    The setting sun, and music at the close,
    As the last taste of sweets, is sweetest last,
    Writ in remembrance more than things long past.
    ATTRIBUTION: William Shakespeare (1564—1616), British poet. King Richard II (II, i).

    OHFP. The Unabridged William Shakespeare, William George Clark and William Aldis Wright, eds. (1989) Running Press.

  10. On the comment thread to your previous post on this, nittypig quoted from an interesting earlier post of Rosen’s, but I think misinterprets the quote. Here’s a bit of Rosen:

    Similarly, “making a difference” was never a good enough standard for teaching or doing journalism. It was a lazy idea, the press putting one over on itself.

    nittypig says that “You can see that he’s clearly on the side of the ‘make a difference’ rather than the ‘impartial’ side. But he sees that it’s a choice.” But that’s not what I see. The title of Rosen’s post (taken from a panel of the same name) was “Things I Used to Teach That I No Longer Believe”, and this quote, coming near the end, reflects a kind of weary disillusionment with certain ideals, values, goals, politics, and perhaps with the culture generally. Here’s how he ends it:

    Later the language of politics took its revenge, and overwhelmed “mission” talk, which had failed to impress the public, as well, because it was increasingly non-descriptive. Natalee Holloway [CourtTV?] mocks the mission night to night. Culture war mocks the mission left to right. And in the mutually incomprehensible classroom encounter the mission is clearly expiring. It seems to me we’re better off knowing that.

    To my mind, this places his reaction in the subsequent post in a different light, perhaps explaining his irritability. He seems like someone whose mind is changing, but doesn’t like to be pushed.

  11. This Rosen bit has the ingredients of a world class comedy. Act 1: Wise man in the castle declares his job is to “feed and sustain” the poor people outside. Act 2: Wise man decides to go out into the world, let the poor people bask in his glory for a day. Act 3: Poor people are rude and ill-spoken; they seem ungrateful! Act 4: Wise man retreats to castle in panic, vows revenge on the poor people. Act 5:? Think what a Moliere or Aristophanes could do with this. –timmah!

  12. Perhaps it is revealing that Prof. Rosen assumed that folks would know what his parting remarks meant. Instead, we are all scratching our heads. Maybe he needs to get out more.

  13. Jay Rosen is only doing what human nature drives most uf us to do. He
    accentuates positive views and stays mostly mute on contradictory
    ones. It’s kind of tricky to escape unscathed once the gauntlet has been set. The Bay -Rosen exchange has a lesson for us all. Be ready to back-up your convictions.. there is no room for half-measures in the blogoshere.

  14. It’s clear that people like Rosen live in their own small worlds and don’t have much contact with other people. They think that because they read a lot, they’re well informed.

    When anonymous commenters question their beliefs, Rosen-types assume that the anonymous people are stupid–that they are the Christian rightwing fanatical obese stupid American public we’re always hearing about.

    I’ve learned a lot just by reading military blogs and Iraqi blogs. Has Rosen even looked at any of these blogs? I doubt it. The Rathergate scandal was outrageous–attempting to use the public airwaves to throw an election by means of FORGED documents. If I were rich like George Soros, I would use my billions to prosecute CBS so that MSMs wouldn’t try to commit a crime of this magnitude again. Rosen probably thought it was just a “little thing.”

    P.S. I’m an expert on the kind of tiny world that Rosen lives in. Been there, done that. I could write a book–and maybe I will. 😉

  15. Jay is in a box constrained by his vocation. As an example, here is one comment from him and my response based on a post during the RaTHergate flare-up:

    [1] (Jay Rosen responding)

    Well, Tim. I may well have been too heated. Or extrapolating overmuch, as I often do. I was trying to say that while I can, did, and perhaps will again express my outrage at CBS, I reserve the right to think it ever so slightly outrageous that you do ask me: where is your statement of outrage, Jay, as if I have some obligation to declare myself by a certain time, or to condem Rather for this because I hit someone else for that. I’m not saying you put it that way, but perhaps you’d like to explain… what does Gee, Jay, where’s the outrage? mean, and, underneath the words themselves, what is it asking me to do?

    But what I really want to know is… what significance is there in when I express outrage at Rather and CBS? “Unless I missed it,” you wrote, “that’s the first time you’ve expressed your outrage on this.”If I were Colin Powell, then it seems to me you have a point. First time outrage expression for a secretary of state is news. I represent no one but my self and my writerly obsessions. My “positions” on things, while they exist, I often choose to de-emphasize in my writing.

    Yet I see your point. Links and a few sentences, which I recommend as a comment style, leave much room for misreading.

    Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 16, 2004 12:24 AM | Permalink

    [2] (my response to Jay)

    Jay Rosen, I’ll tell you what I want and expect from you. A news conference. One announcing how outrageous the conduct of CBS and Dan Rather is and what an absolute stain it is on the craft of Journalism.

    When I entered school at the University of Florida, it was with J-School in mind. I did in fact enter the program but soon left — it was a great program but quite time consuming and really focused on the craft. I wanted to study more of the world. I think I made a good decision. I’m still a news junkie, though, and I am disgusted with CBS.

    But I’m more disgusted with the J-School deans (yes, I mean this — these people are usually substantial figures within Journalism circles in their state) and the editorial boards of major newspapers around the country. Like someone said above, WHERE THE HELL IS THE OUTRAGE???

    This action by CBS should be publicly condemned. How hard is that?

    This isn’t some garden-variety stunt at CBS but all of you guys seem to be treating it as something close to garden-variety stuff that comes with the territory.

    Amazing.

    Posted by: RattlerGator at September 17, 2004 08:54 PM | Permalink

    Now, maybe that was over the top but I was completely blown away by CBS and could not believe there was not a complete and resounding condemnation of their actions. He didn’t seem to share my disbelief and as chair of an influential department, saw no public role for himself.

  16. I read the first posting by Rosen. It seemed to contain the usual stuff one sees in comments, and I stopped reading about halfway through. Saying and demonstrating that the media are biased because of background, education, and daily experience is not the same as saying that the media are pursuing a political agenda. You have to take it as a given these days that honest journalists have got the message and they are trying their best to recognize and compensate for innate bias. With Bush and Iraq, however, things are different. The coverage of Cindy Sheehan is pushing a political agenda. Yes, it is a slow month. Yes, public protest by the mother of a dead soldier is obviously newsworthy. But nothing is said about her reaction to her initial meeting with Bush. Nothing is said about her past political involvement and some of the statements she has made. Nothing is said about her son’s voluntary enlistment and reenlistment. Nothing is said about her son volunteering for the mission that resulted in his death. Nothing is said about the likely consequences of a precipitate pullout from Iraq. Perhaps Rosen does not want to believe that the media sometimes do their thing in pursuit of a political agenda. People with friends and relatives in the military get a different picture from what is reported in the media. Why? Is that effectively supporting suicide bombers in their mission of destabilizing Iraq despite the heroic efforts of our soldiers and marines?

  17. Gilmor is reaching for a phenomenon which is considerably more common than writing tech in Silicon Valley.

    Whatever happens, there are people making it happen (production of iron, say) and/or people whose profession or avocation is watching it happen (hurricanes, say).
    These people know more than the reporters who come in when something’s popping, or when absolutely nothing else is going on.

    Anecdote after anecdote–not to mention personal experience–shows that when people who are actually involved in something are asked how it’s reported, they routinely and consistently say the reporting got it wrong in important ways.

    So when a guy working at a foundry finds the media can’t tell iron from steel, he ought to think they can’t tell very much else, either.
    The general failure of the public to apply this rule is journalism’s salvation.

    IMO, we want information so badly we’ll take it, no matter what we ought to think about it.

  18. I highly suspect that his past interviews were theory and this is practie.

    People support many things when it’s applied to someone else (lets raise taxes on the rich – they deserve it! Wait, I’m rich? Lower taxes!!).

    If you want to see how much people believe what they say see what they do when it is applied to them in a way they do not like. Many times free speech and such flies right out the door.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>