Over at Volokh, Eric Muller is discussing the standards that the mass media use when they select what works of history to cover and who to have as commentators. I’ve always assumed that they used the same standards they use in selecting what show to put on, which is – what will draw ratings without getting me in trouble?
That’s not enough for Muller (and possibly not for Timothy Burke, the historian whose post on HNN analyzing the same issue Muller riffs from). In both cases – more in Muller’s case than Burke’s, I think – the argument I read is that there is an ‘ought’ involved; i.e. that it is more than a question of
How does the mass media decide what’s worth their attention, what authors belong on talk shows and op-ed pages? This is what I take the Historians’ Committee on Fairness to have been asking about Michelle Malkin. I may have been harsh about the clumsy way they rhetorically invoked the norms of historical scholarship, but the basic question is a fair one. Why Michelle Malkin and not many other authors of readable, interesting works of history, or for that matter, authors of dense, scholarly works of history?
but that somehow, professionally legitimated works should have priority. Burke says:
If this is true, the question becomes potent: why is Michelle Malkin on the air now? Because if talk show producers consult experts on internment, they’d certainly find that almost everyone thinks Malkin’s work is shoddy and inaccurate, quite aside from its ethical character. If talk show hosts read and assess work independently to decide whether it is worth covering, then I’m hard-pressed to understand why they think Malkin’s is legitimate.
One thing that I will take away from my experience as a blogger (and no, I’m not quitting today or anything) is a profound change in how I read the newspapers and (when I do) watch the news. I am more aware of the ‘sociology’ of the media than I was before.
But as critical as I often am about the media, I’m not quite ready to write prescriptions just yet. And I’m certainly not ready to write a prescription, as Muller suggests in his letter, for ‘expert’ filtering of what we should see.
Somehow my response – that we need to be careful about filtering experience through our beliefs, no matter how legitimately held – brings up an old Latin phrase I read once in a biography of Galileo…
Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. – which means “For neither do I seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand.” –Anselm of Canterbury
Okay.
I don’t think I’ve really said what I fully think about his matter, so let me lay it out.
There are some points of view that are so fundamentally toxic to our democracy that journalists ought to be give them special scrutiny before airing them on national television.
I believe that condoning the mass internment of innocent American citizens meets this threshold.
It is poisonous.
A note: I’m not interested in debating this. If you don’t think this is a horrendous point of view, then we have nothing to discuss. Sorry.
Muller and Robinson, acknowledged experts on this topic, have amassed overwhelming evidence that Malkin’s book is deeply dishonest.
The case against Malkin is intricate and hard to condense into a 22-minute television program. Moreover, the standard cable show format generally pits one adversary against another. This “he said, she said” system immediately elevates Malkin to a place where, by dint of her dishonesty, she does not deserve to be. Malkin can say one thing, Muller says another, and it’s impossible for the casual viewer to sort out the facts. You really have to read isthatlegal very carefully in order to do so.
This isn’t a “free marketplace of ideas,” this is a marketplace in which Malkin’s noxious views are heavily subsidized.
praktike,
If Muller et al. are so convinced they can demolish Malkin’s work, then they should quit moaning about not getting on FOX News and do their job.
As to views that are “toxic to democracy”, for years marxist profs in Western universities have taught that the dictatorship of the proletariat on the way to perfect communist society is preferrable to liberal capitalist democracy. I can’t think of a more absurd, idiotic, incoherent idea than this, and yet we’ve survived its promulgation (and I’ve yet to see you get your panties in a twist over it). So we’ll probably survive Malkin’s little missive.
Look, I don’t trust you, the Committee, Muller, the media, journalists, leftists academics or anyone else to determine in advance whether a view is poisonous or acceptable. As long as there are a few poor slobs like me who refuse to give over our meagre ability for independant thought to the you and Ministry of Truth/Committee for Fairness, you’ll just have to endure views that you don’t like. Deal with it.
If you know of a process (other than free and open debate) that will do the job of sorting poisonous from acceptable views, then present it for consideration. Otherwise I have to assume you’re just looking to push your own bias, and this twaddle about the danger of my being exposed to poisonous views is just your attempt to sell me something I wouldn’t normally buy.
When I see Marxist professors defending Marxism on national television, I will vigorously condemn them.
This isn’t a “free marketplace of ideas,” this is a marketplace in which Malkin’s noxious views are heavily subsidized.
#28333 Posted by Mark on September 4, 2004 04:04 AM
*************************************************
All speech is free but some speech should enjoy more freedom than others and some none at all? 😉
So we should have Intellectual Dogma enforced by an Academic Inquisition? Must keep the unwashed masses from being corrupted by unapproved of ideas.
Ah; so, in the praktike world of toxic/non-toxic beliefs it’s ok if marxist profs spread “poisonous” ideas, without censure for decades, to young adults, but not ok for a bad amateur historian to go on FOX for 20 minutes. I’m curious: how do you measure the toxicity levels for each of these activities? Wouldn’t greater harmful exposure occur in the university setting as opposed to the media setting? Isn’t advocating the destruction of the entire democratic system more “poisonous” than advocating one bad (anti-democratic) policy?
Your theory has some remarkable features. I’m sure you can offer a spirited defense of it.
Okay.
I don’t think I’ve really said what I fully think about his matter, so let me lay it out.
There are some points of view that are so fundamentally toxic to our democracy that journalists ought to be give them special scrutiny before airing them on national television.
I believe that condoning the mass internment of innocent American citizens meets this threshold.
It is poisonous.
A note: I’m not interested in debating this. If you don’t think this is a horrendous point of view, then we have nothing to discuss. Sorry
************************************************
First I DO think Gulags arfe a horrendous idea.
Second I find the thought of your Facsism of a Jouranalistic Elite Worse.
Since you think that is an admirable point of view we have nothing to discuss, NOT Sorry.
Journalists maintaining standards of accuracy and fairness is worse than locking up innocent American citizens?
Interesting.
Aparatchiki control of information is.
Much deadlier to Liberty.
What you adovocate would be in effect turning a whole nation into a Gulag
There are some points of view that are so fundamentally toxic to our democracy that journalists ought to be give them special scrutiny before airing them on national television.
Becomes
Journalists maintaining standards of accuracy and fairness
How long before it occurs to someone like this guy that promotion of ideas should not only be controlled by a limited oligarchy of the elite but limited to that?
We end up with not only protection of the People from “toxic ideas” but also liscensed journalists and crimes of “promotion of ideas without a permit”.
Somebody give me a big Sieg HIEL!
wow, this really got turned around quick, huh?
Suddenly it’s perfectly okay to twist facts and actively defend gulags on the basis of specious evidence, but it’s not okay to want the media to be able to separate wheat from chaff?
Perhaps I should have moderated my language a bit, because I am not advocating censorship. I’m advocating basic decency. I’m advocating that factually wrong and offensive ideas should be relegated to the fringe where they belong rather than promoted in mainstream venues. I advocate best practices in journalism — community standards if you will. I don’t see a government role at all.
I seem to have hit some kind of hot button here, so I apologize if I’ve given a misimpression.
praktike, I think you’re just missing the point.
You want to control the flow of information for – admirable – purposes. Others (including me) think that explicitly controlling the flow of information in the ways you describe is a slippery slope away from becoming a gulag.
Because once I decide that someone gets to control the media for good reasons, pretty soon they are controlling the media – so they can keep controlling the media.
Sorry, nope.
A.L.
Because once I decide that someone gets to control the media for good reasons, pretty soon they are controlling the media – so they can keep controlling the media.
Sorry, nope.
A.L
**************************************************
Exactly A.L. and it is also exactly the “for good reasons” and “admirable – purposes” that raises my hackles.
Evil has its own set of rules and limitations. Sincerety can be far more dangerous, it is the true believer who is willing to consign tens of millions to death for the Good of the People.
Not that I think that praktike is a fledgling
Trotsky planning the extermination of the Kulaks
but the thinking is in the same direction.
If he has not, I would reccomend he make a trip
to the former Soviet Union. The people are extremely friendly and unless you are a total
jerk it is quite often you will get invited into their homes.
Find out what it was like when all the lines of communication were under centralised control.
For you see, praktike the Politburu had their OWN
DEFINITIONS for “factually wrong and offensive ideas”.
You may say, “But I did not mean it THAT way.”
I say, once you start down the road you are pointing to you may very well end up with
“THAT way”.
This thread and “its predecessor”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005451.php are about a general principal: the ‘gatekeeper’ function of the mainstream media. We are viewing it through the prism of a specific incident: Michelle Malkin’s book on the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Anyone who follows the links to Muller/Volokh and Malkin is in an excellent position to draw their own conclusions.
As an aside, I have a soft spot for revisionist history; a favorite WW2 book is “1943: The Victory That Never Was,” making the case that the Allies shoulda launched D-Day a year sooner. What’s good about revisionism? It makes the reader question her assumptions. What’s bad? It’s usually wrong, at least in part.
Historical cases are always about the details. Eric Muller has compiled his and colleague Robinson’s criticisms into “one lengthy post.”:http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html The link immunizing me from ‘gatekeeping’ charges, I will now summarize, from memory, three of their contentions.
1. Writing a work of primary history means checking primary sources. There can’t be absolute standards, but one expects the author of such a work to travel to archives and examine records, and to let the chips fall where they may. The timeline Malkin gives for writing her book means she couldn’t have done much checking, and she doesn’t represent that she has. One of the main archival sources she does cite is a small collection that is maintained in order to advance the case she is making.
2. Malkin’s case is not supported by the facts of the historical record on key points. The MAGIC decrypts don’t exactly say what she says they say. The threat of Japanese invasion was implausible, not only in retrospect but in 1942. The few people who were cleared to read MAGIC were not the people who made the early internment decisions. The later decisions were made after the military situation had entirely changed (Midway).
3. Malkin disregards the facts that are inconvenient to her case. She neglects the racial anti-Japanese tone of the mass media of the day, and the reasoning of some of the key decision-makers. For example, the Western governors who demanded that Nisei relocated to their states be confined to guarded camps had their racist words quoted on-the-record.
Check Malkin’s site for her rebuttals, in particular her “Errata” page. Spoiler: “it’s weak”:http://www.michellemalkin.com/errata.htm, as is “this (better) page.”:http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000446.htm
So…A.L. is against Expert Gatekeeping, but he has chosen, intentionally, to ground the discussion with a pretty obnoxious case. Malkin has written a contrarian book that has gotten an uncritical hearing by a portion of the mainstream media (talk-radio and Fox). Yes, the Historians’ Committee for Fairness “letter”:http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_08_29_isthatlegal_archive.html#109404285228914607 does ham-handedly prescribe “’expert’ filtering of what we should see.” In its first paragraph. The letter then goes on to detail why its authors think what they do about Malkin’s book and its reception, and the reasoning is, well, reasonable. It’s not an Appeal To Authority.
Anyway, there is a meta-discussion going on here, with ironic undertones that A.L. and others cannot fail to appreciate. For a privileged subset of media ‘consumers’ that includes A.L., praktike, Mark, and Dan Kauffman, the “gatekeeper” discussion is just so 20th Century. Whether Malkin, Fox, Muller, and The Historians approve or not, each of us can click the links and ply Google with our own searches, and–fairly quickly–arrive at our own, idiosyncratic, points of view.
Anyway, there is a meta-discussion going on here, with ironic undertones that A.L. and others cannot fail to appreciate. For a privileged subset of media ‘consumers’ that includes A.L., praktike, Mark, and Dan Kauffman, the “gatekeeper” discussion is just so 20th Century. Whether Malkin, Fox, Muller, and The Historians approve or not, each of us can click the links and ply Google with our own searches, and–fairly quickly–arrive at our own, idiosyncratic, points of view.
*************************************************
True for the technology today. At the Dawn of the 21st Century the internet precludes the ability of “gatekeepers” to filter and control information.
Until possibly the advent of some advance such as the quantam computer. In which case it might be possible for the State to limit access to approved sites?
Personally I revel in the ability to take a slanted Headline with an edited version of an interview or statement, do Key word searches, find the original transcript and then know what the person really said.
I don’t want anyone with the best intentions deciding what is appropriate for me to see.
They can disagree, they can critique, they can refute, but I reject elite group filters in Principle, the subject of the validity of the book here in question is to me completely beside the point.
I still remember the mornging when somehow someone in mainland China got through to my IM.
“Hello? Can you hear me?” “Yes” “Where are you from?” “Iowa, and you?”
CHINA???!!!! Cool!!!!!! Never was able to contact them after that morning the server they were accessing the internet with did not seem to exist after that. ;-(
MAN I Love technology almost as much as I hate State run Firewalls.
PS Mainland China does limit website access but I did hear they forgot about Google caches. 😉
Wonder how long that will last? ;-(
Hmmm… I gotta say that the only problem I have is a lack of debate. I do not have a problem with Malkin’s access to the media per se. Incidentally, I’ve been reading Muller’s pages, and he makes an impression of a politically-correct zealot, farcically disingenuous at times (see his “deconstruction” of the book’s cover art, for an example.) Not particularly coherent either. I can see legitimate reasons for not inviting him to the studio… of course, they could still invite someone else.
Interesting take on Muller, Checkin’ Out. I, too, rolled my eyes on his hypersensitive analysis of Malkin’s cover, but I thought most of his points were important, well-reasoned, … and not credibly answered by Malkin.
Amateur, uncredentialled Clayton Cramer’s experience with the Gatekeepers of the Historians’ Guild over the Bellesiles fraud may be a more exact example of the phenomenon A.L. is objecting to. Added bonus (or maybe not?), hindsight allows us to see who was right and who was wrong.
*Answer the question*
bq. _”why is Michelle Malkin on the air now?”_
This is the question that everyone keeps side stepping. In a nut shell it’s money and ratings. _Malkin’s_ contrary point of view certainly adds legitimacy to the money and ratings yard stick. The morality of media outlets basing their content solely on money and ratings could be argued till the end of time. Suffice it to say that a capitalistic agenda will always enter the picture. It is the public’s responsibility to ascertain fact from fiction. Whether or not the media chooses to present all the options is irrelevant.
The follow on question is how does the media determine what is news worthy? Again the answer is money and ratings. One can argue that some items are more newsworthy than others but ultimately the media determines what will or will not be reported based on *MONEY* and *RATINGS*. Everything from eye candy, legitimate / controversial content and public reaction is carefully choreographed to appeal to the end viewer. One can certainly argue “60 Minutes” which was well ahead of its’ time lead the way in determining what we see, hear, and read from media outlets.
The underlying argument of whether or not _Malkin_ should be afforded / not afforded the medium to espouse her point of view with or without scholarly / elitism consent has no bearing on the matter. Her case is no more different than that of _Michael Moore_ and his supposedly documentary works.
The questions of whether our news media outlets should work based on moral judgments and fairness (in this case historians claiming the media is unjust due to their lack of exposure and rebuttal) can certainly be debated. Whether or not some restraints / burdens should or shouldn’t be placed on the outlets to enforce fairness and morality has been on the front page since the inception of this nation.
*Historians*
Get over it.
As with a majority of professions there are guidelines and concrete paths to take that allow for notoriety and effectiveness. Owning tools such as a hammer and saw does not make one a carpenter. The same can be said of having paper and pencil. Owning these materials does not make a journalist or a historian.
Differences that occur are mostly attributed to subjective matters. In this sense history is a perspective it is not a science. One need not belong to any scholarly enclave or enjoy any elitism attributes to tell history (His Story). Certainly scholarly attributes are desirable in the sense they provide the foundations for research with some verification of official records, diaries, interviews, and fact checking of the evidence. This is not to say the average layman must be scholarly to obtain these traits. All perceptions of history are told from the writers point of view. To advance the argument; it is evident that the holocaust did occur. How and why it occurred are totally subjective depending on which side you were on at the time. This is where you get his story or my story of current events unfolding and living the times. Certainly the layman’s view in the US may have been sympathetic to events but it certainly was not the same as those experiencing it on either side of the equation. So how, where, when and why does it become history? Each passing moment becomes history. Whether it is of any importance is subjective.
To me the bigger issue is the line of elitism or scholarly achievements laying claim to the only authoritative or definitive sources concerning matters of history.
I wonder what Checkin Out will have to say when the neo-Nazis finally send out an Aryan blond hottie (hmmm, maybe a Filipina hottie will do…) with their “The Holocaust was Small and Justified” narrative. Wow—wait until you see the angry political correctness of the liberals and, well, you know, big-nosed people, who pounce on that.
There really is a way in which I understand USMC’s position: it will be all about the ratings. But what do we do when racist liars like Malkin(note *) and Irving are getting the better of the ratings? What happens when slick production values plus hatred of Democrats and Liberals at all costs puts Josef Goebbels at the top of the chart?
(Note *): I’ve only just realized that the Phillippines suffered under the Japanese Occupation terribly. I wonder if that, besides her anti-liberal, contrarian, and publicity hound instincts is also in play?!
“But what do we do when racist liars like Malkin(note *) and Irving are getting the better of the ratings?”
Let’s put aside for a moment the possibly defamatory claim about Malkin (again, unsubstantiated as per your standard practice), are you suggesting that we create a tribunal (called, say “The Committee for Fairness”) to decide in advance what we can and cannot hear? Why are you so terrified that people will simply listen to “unacceptable” views?
As I’ve said before, we’ve gone through decades of marxist academics pushing a psychopathic, genocidal theory, and our society has survived so far; imo, this is much worse than anything Malkin is saying. Are you suggesting we silence marxist profs?
Perhaps the solution to your problem is more and better, rather than less and poorer, speech.
Andrew
bq. _”There really is a way in which I understand USMC’s position: it will be all about the ratings. But what do we do when racist liars like Malkin(note *) and Irving are getting the better of the ratings? What happens when slick production values plus hatred of Democrats and Liberals at all costs puts Josef Goebbels at the top of the chart?”_
To me the answer is quiet simple. All things change when the freedom of the media becomes a threatened industry. Once the media realizes that the content they deliver although good for ratings begins to threaten their existence they will change and police themselves. As limits are put on the media in what they can and can’t do and the capitalistic benefits they enjoy begin to diminish they begin to see the error of their ways. Once this occurs they will police themselves to maintain the status quo they enjoy. One can only hope they see the folly of their ways before the trend becomes a dictatorial end.
I am not suggesting anyone be silenced. I am looking for effective antidotes against Malkin’s venom, not illegal and counterproductive ones.
I am asserting that Mark’s suggestion that if Malkin’s views on internment are so mistaken they can be disregarded goes in the face of history that unrefuted “vapid and wrong” views gain currency when skilfully and repeatedly presented. I am also asserting that there’s something quaint in the idea that open media in general (much less the actual media with their various biases and agenda) are guaranteed to separate wheat from chaff. That’s as much (or more?) a function of the quality of presentation, and from the sounds of it, Prof. Muller doesn’t have as good TV/radio presentation skills as Malkin.
There’s something droll about your concern for my possibly defamatory sstatement against Malkin. You may remember what happened when her comrade-in-revisionism Mr Irving tried his hand at a libel suit.
Andrew:
>I wonder what Checkin Out will have to say when the
>neo-Nazis finally send out an Aryan blond hottie…with
>their “The Holocaust was Small and Justified” narrative.
Well, a blond hottie’s a blond hottie, you know? always nice to look at :-). So long as you can turn the sound off, at least.
As to “nazis” etc., let me see… are you saying nazis shouldn’t be able to speak at all? My view is, provided others can speak too, they should; there’s no problem. You mention Holocaust denial, OK: surely it is bad not because it comes from Nazies, but because it’s not true, right? The character of a speaker is not determinative of the truth of what he says.
While here, I’d also add that attempts to attach Malkin to nazi this-or-that are rather transparently manipulative and disingenuous. Muller tries that too, btw — and boy, does he make a fool of himself in process. Long-term effects of PC addiction are clearly deleterious.
>Wow?wait until you see the angry political correctness
>of the liberals and, well, you know, big-nosed people,
>who pounce on that.
Eh? You’ve lost me here.
>But what do we do when racist liars like Malkin
There you go. Well. Is she really a racist liar? And then, unrelatedly: being a racist, strictly speaking, doesn’t make one a liar — are you sure she’s both at once? Also, what do you understand by “racism” and why is it bad? OK: I don’t insist you actually explain (though it’d be curious, of course); what I’m getting to is, those are big words that mean precious little when tossed off easily and out of context; a recourse to these rhetorical weapons of mass destruction signifies the end of debate (usually premature — or even preemptive.)
Why not let everyone interested in this issue read the book, follow and partake in an ensuing debate, and eventually make their own conclusions.
are you suggesting that we create a tribunal (called, say “The Committee for Fairness”) to decide in advance what we can and cannot hear?
************************************************
Usually they are called something like
Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice
In Saudi Arabia their nickname is Muttawa
Check out the website of the Religous Policeman
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_muttawa_archive.html#107927049952439619
I am not suggesting anyone be silenced. I am looking for effective antidotes against Malkin’s venom, not illegal and counterproductive ones.
************************************************
So you don’t wish to silence Malkin? Exactly what do you wish to accomplish?
“not illegal and counterproductive ones”
That is the point. I am not crazy about the types of laws you would support to protect me from Malkin’s venom.
I figure I can survive the latter quite well on my own thank you very much.
It is the thought of Poslenee Idioti creating a
Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice
To protect my tender and vulnerable mind from officially prohibited trash that I am wary of.
You going to confiscate camera cell phones so that if you prohibit Malkin from being on the media and the internet, you can prevent sureptitious transmission of her works?
Uh we going to have book burnings too?
I’ll bring the hotdogs and marshmellows.
Folks,
Checkin Out — don’t know what to say to you. I’ll happily admit that my first post, about the book’s cover, was my weakest. I would have been well advised not to share my astonishment at the audacity of the project until I’d had a chance to do something deeper than look at the cover. That’s the trouble with blogging … the urge to get it out there *right now* sometimes overtakes the urge to reflect.
I’d note, though, that if Michelle had had the decency to send me an advance copy of the book (as she did to many on the blogosphere’s *right* wing), I might not have been caught flat-footed when the book was published. (And no, this isn’t arrogance: Malkin herself says–in the book and on her blog–that it was my blog exchanges with somebody at Sgt. Stryker back in Feb. 2003 that got here interested in writing the book.)
Never in my life has anybody called me a politically correct zealot; indeed, most often I’m criticized for my middle-of-the-roadness. My book “Free to Die for their Country” was uniformly praised (and not just by academics) for its balance and moderation. So maybe–just maybe–you’re *looking* for a politically correct zealot, and then finding one.
–cont’d–
And to everyone else discussing this, let me make clear that I am *not* arguing that Malkin should be “silenced.” (As if some joe of a law professor could silence a Fox News commentator even if he wanted to…) My point–and my constant (and constantly refused) request to media outlets–has been that if they are going to present Malkin, they should also present somebody to contest her.
Eric –
First, thanks for dropping by and joining the discussion.
Yes, there ‘should’ be a dialog, and – over time – there almost always is, no matter how strong the CW may be.
But when you say ‘should’ what exactly are you suggesting? Who bells the cat?
A.L.
Mr Kauffman,
You appear to have misunderstood me completely. I do not support laws and tribunals to silence either Michelle Malkin or David Irving and his neo-Nazi ilk. What I would like to know is: WHat is the process by which Malkin’s outrageous, incorrect, politically motivated “Protocols of the Elders of Manzanar” is consigned to the fringe. We’ve accomplished that for neo-Nazis, but in the actual event, that doesn’t seem to be happening with Malkin.
Eric:
I don’t have a problem with what you’re doing at all. If I criticized something, it was only details, not the fact of your speaking up itself — you have a right to your opinions (including, if you wish, political correctness and even zealotry; I dumped on your book-cover disquisition not as much because I disagree — though I do — but because I felt it was not genuine; it looked like you were desperatly grasping for a pretext, any pretext, for criticism. I mean, what I thought about the cover when I saw it was not what you said it must make people think but simply that I don’t know who the guy on the left was; contrary to your anticipation, I perceived him as an individual rather than “the Jap”.) That aside, again, your opinions don’t have to match my, or anyone else’s, beliefs to deserve airing (and to some degree they do, actually, match my beliefs.) To err is human: no one can be fully right a priori — our only hope is to grope onto the truths we seek via dialectical investigation, meaning going back and forth and bumping heads and making fools of ourselves occasionally — all this is fine, no one needs to be apprehensive about not being always right. It’s better to speak even if you make an error of judgement in process, than to keep quiet, make no errors — and achieve nothing at all. And of course, rhetorical imperfection in blogging is entirely understandable and forgivable. (But as a tradeoff, you gotta be prepared for an occasional flaming 🙂 , don’t be deterred.)
My only wish is that you, or someone like you, were given an opportunity to present your side of the story in a media setup similar to what was afforded to Malkin — which is one thing that the Committee asks for (though somewhat unclearly.) At the same time, I do not think Malkin should have been prevented from appearing on the radio and so on herself (the Committee’s letter, while not quite calling for banishing her, does allow for this kind of interpretation when superficially read, especially the first couple of paragraphs there.)
Andrew:
You say, ” I do not support laws and tribunals to silence (…) Michelle Malkin (…) What I would like to know is: WHat is the process by which Malkin’s outrageous, incorrect, politically motivated “Protocols of the Elders of Manzanar” is consigned to the fringe.”
I think you start with a wrong premise. What you seek will happen by itself, w/o our participation, once you actually show that Malkin’s work indeed is what you say it is — “outrageous, incorrect, politically motivated “Protocols of the Elders of Manzanar”“. You see, just saying so doesn’t make it so — nay, worse than that: saying so w/o proving so makes you, rather than the book, look bad. But if (a big if at the moment) this can be demonstrated, the Malkin phenomenon will efforlessly dissipate all by itself. If you want that to happen, you should quit sloganizing and casting groundless aspersions and simply show that the book is no good — specifically, how, why, where, because of what. Otoh, if you can’t, why should this book be “consigned to the fringe”?
“My point–and my constant (and constantly refused) request to media outlets–has been that if they are going to present Malkin, they should also present somebody to contest her.”
Perhaps the problem is that you haven’t credibly argued that the media should be under an obligation to present an opposing view. The media shouldn’t be compelled to present a view any more than it should be compelled to suppress a view, because both of these actions require the intervention of a party who determines, for us, the significance of views in advance. I haven’t seen you or the Committee offer a credible alternative to the normal process of selection and criticism in the free marketplace of ideas, so I’m more than a little dubious.
If you want to make the argument that the media should be compelled to present an opposing view, then do so. But you’d better be fairly certain that you have a efficacious process to select for “proper” opposing views. Suggesting that your Committee has the relevant credentials because they are comprised of “reputable academics” is not sufficient. Why should we all agree to trust you, your Committee, or really, really smart leftist academics to think for us? What intellectual ability do we lack that you possess such that you are able to find and present proper opposing views but we are not?
You own a popular, well-trafficked weblog on which you’ve been criticizing Malkin’s work for some time. Anyone who wants to get the “correct” answer to the internment question is surely capable of finding it there. What grievance can you possibly have?
Mark, do you think there is some value in having people who care about the issue believe the Holocaust took place?
Is it sufficient for this purpose to have a website where a refutation of Holocaust denial may be found? Would you sit with a stright face if someone got on FOX News who said we don’t have to put the Holocaust in textbooks any more because it didn’t happen?
Some sort of social (not legal) process took place in which Holocaust denial places one outside polite society, intellectual or otherwise. If we could isolate what this process is, would it be appropriate to try it on Malkin? Or (it isn’t always clear), do you actually believe her?
Checkin Out—let’s assume for the purpose of discussing my post that Malkin’s book is wrong and that the question is how to keep people from accepting it as true. I couldn’t disprove David Irving in five minutes, either. Took a whole trial to finish that off.
Some sort of social (not legal) process took place in which Holocaust denial places one outside polite society, intellectual or otherwise.
It used to be conventional wisdom that the wartime internment of the Japanese was justified. Subsequently that got turned around.
I think what you’re asking Andrew is how do you push Malkin’s views back outside polite society, where you seem to feel they belong.
So, how was the conventional wisdom turned around the first time?
Eric Muller, thanks for joining the conversation, your point of view is especially valuable. Maybe Ms. Malkin will put in a cameo…
Andrew J. Lazarus (and Prof. Muller, re “your recent Volokh post”:http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_00.shtml#1094234176), “arguing by analogy” always has limitations, since obviously no analogy is perfect. You have pointed out useful similarities between Malkin’s revisionism and that of well-known Holocaust deniers. What about instructive differences?
The controversy between the Mainstream (however defined) and the Deniers has been going on for over 40 years. David Irving published “Hitler’s War” in 1977. As A.J.L. pointed out, “the libel trial that Irving initiated and spectacularly lost”:http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?sup=7 was as much a turning point for the deniers as anything else. That took place in 2000. (Dan Yurman’s interesting first-person account of publicizing Irving’s lies, the trial, and the meaning of its outcome is “here.”:http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=23)
Malkin published her book in late 2004.
If we want to hold to a strict analogy between Irving and Malkin, perhaps we better set the Wayback Machine for 2027 (2000-1977=23) and see how things turn out.
The strength of the impulse to protect those sheeple who care enough to contemplate work like Malkin’s, yet lack Our Side’s trustworthy BS-detecting machinery is … curious.
I think a more telling question for those on the “Malkin is wrong” side would be:
What are the procedures that would promote a fuller airing of this controversy on interpreting Nisei Internment, that would not have inhibited “uncredentialed Clayton Cramer’s revisionist challenge”:http://hnn.us/articles/1185.html to Bancroft-Award-winning Emory U. History Prof. Michael Bellesiles’ magnum opus “Arming America”?
Mark:
Media does have certain freedoms, but it also has an implied duty to present, in Fox’s own terms, a “fair and balanced” picture of events and issues. (That’s why they tout this slogan so much — they want to look legitimate.) How they do it is of course their business, but to do it they must, there’s no need to keep proving this. There are certain accepted ways of doing this; journalists study them as part of their university curriculum. Objectivity is not optional, it is part of their job description and it is expected from them by the public. Presenting conflicting views, sponsoring a debate is one such method: it’s simple, it works, and it’s rather established — it’s nothing esoteric or new and unfamiliar: it seem natural and logical to use it when necessary.
At the same time, pushing only one side of a controversial story, especially when presented by an author w/o established credentials — that is, someone whose competence and credibility cannot be assumed by the public in the absence of critical review, certainly does not qualify as “fair and balanced” reporting.
So, on one hand, they are free to pick the method that suits them best, but otoh, they do have a responsibility to ensure balance and objectivity. Thus, Eric is absolutely justified in his quest for access to the same or similar media. Now, they’re not obligated to invite him specifically; they may elect to invite someone else so long as he’s competent — but they do need to invite someone.
The media is given a lot of freedom, yet it’s not a total free-for-all, not a license to brainwash the public. In fact, ideally, if a media outlet does this, it’ll lose credibility and then the subscriber base — with all commercial ramifications of such a development — so they themselves should be interested in ensuring objectivity. Of course this is ideally, in reality things are not quite as smooth, which still doesn’t mean that objectivity can be ignored altogether.
Andrew:
You say: “let’s assume for the purpose of discussing my post that Malkin’s book is wrong and that the question is how to keep people from accepting it as true.”
LOL. You start by “let’s assume.” That reminds me this joke about two economics professors who fell into a hole in the ground and started to think of how they were gonna get out. One professor goes: “Oh, that’s easy. To begin, let’s assume a ladder.” 🙂
That’s what you do here. You assume the final result. That won’t work — you need to achieve it first, that’s the whole deal here. If you achieve it, there’ll be nothing else to do. Yet with great alacrity you roll up your sleeves and prepare to work hard — beginning from what actually is the end.
Further along you say, ” I couldn’t disprove David Irving in five minutes, either.”
Well, it’s up to you, take the time that you need, no one guarantees that you’ll always be able to make yourself smart in five minutes. But otoh, you don’t necessarily need to disprove anything yourself — this depends on your capabilites and interest in the issue. If you can’t or don’t want to dig in yourself, you could use someone else’s (someone you consider credible) findings with a reasonable degree of success.
Let me try to describe how I’d dealt with Irving, just as an example:
I’ve never read Irving. Well, I did download one of his books once, but it was so boring, I quit on the tenth page. So that didn’t give me any idea as to whether he’s right or wrong, only that as a writer he’s not after my taste.
But I followed the media. Credible people, historians — not one or two, but a lot of them — seemed to disagree with his findings and even accuse him of fraud. For me that’s good information. It is not 100% certain of course, but it is like 90% certain — which in this case is good enough for me as a layman. (One reservation: suppose those historians, many if not all of whom were Jewish, were all members of the so-called “Holocaust Industry” — let’s assume there is such a thing. But it is unlikely that they were though: ’cause a lot of also competent people, some of them Jews themselves, Finkelstein, for example, bash this “industry” all the time, yet I don’t remember any of them saying anything in defense of Irving. So I can reasonably reject this reservation.)
Then there was this trial: he was proved to be a fraud in court — by professional, competent historians — and in the end found guilty by a British judge (not a Jew) — even though it was Irving himself who’d initiated the lawsuit, so he probably had reasons to believe he would win, yet he hadn’t. Which made the result of the suit even more credible. Finally, I did read a few reports and testimonies, and they seemed understandable and straightforward: I was convinced.
I do not have an overriding interest in Holocaust and don’t plan to study it in depth on my own, and so at this point for me, for all practical purposes, the sum of this evidence was convincing enough to write Irving off.
Also (less important/certain, but contributing):
———————————————-
I’d read of his personal quirks and behaviour: he says strange things — this doesn’t add to his credibility, he may be a nut (this may have been a character assassination campaign though, so I assigned to this a probability of, say, 40%. Still…)
He seems to be fleetingly engaged with the nazi-leaning crowd, which means he may be motivated by antisemitism in general — credibilty tanks.
Futhermore, let’s consider the Holocaust Denial premise itself (playing Devil’s Advocate sorta thing): as far as I can see (and I didn’t research HD-rs works first-hand either — well, I did a bit: I visited a few sites, read their articles as well as what has been written about them, so I got some feel for what it is) the gist of their argument is that the numbers of dead are overstated. OK, says I, suppose that’s true: what of it? Let us provisionally assume that not six million Jews were killed but, say, “only” one million (they don’t say no Jews were killed, they only say it’s fewer, and then not one million, but simply less than six, say four, so I’m safe with my more extreme allowance here.) So OK, one million — what does it change?
For me, nothing.
One million people murdered because of their ethnicity/religion, to me, is every bit as bad as six million. So, think I, what the hell are they trying to prove? Do I care if they’re right or wrong? No. Even if they’re right, I see no change. (A corollary: they must be nuts to belabor so much something that doesn’t matter — being nuts detracts from credibility; if they’re not nuts, then they must be pursuing a hidden agenda — which detracts from their credibility even further.)
Final overall conclusion:
————————
With all this in mind, I’m willing to believe that their theory is fraudulent — because on one hand there’s sufficient acceptable (though mostly indirect) evidence that it is, and otoh, I’m willing to take that tiny-little risk that it’s not (that does remain since I haven’t done a lot of research myself) because it really doesn’t matter for me all that much one way or the other: I don’t see how HD-ers’ premise is hugely relevant historically, and so, with such a low probability of their being right, this is an acceptable risk.
QED.
So far as I am concerned, the question of Holocaust Denial is closed.
*****
It’s just one example — other situations may require a different strategy.
In our current case, the essense of it is of no interest to me: I’ve only partaken in this discussion because of procedural reasons — imo, regardless of the merits of the book, it’s not normal to present one controversial reading of the issue, while denying the original presenter’s opponents (more credible than him) an opportunity to present their version.
Knowing what kind of media did this, made me even more suspicious — I used to live in the Philadelphia area and know first-hand all these little right-wing bs outlets carrying all these little goebbelses — Smerkonishes, Medveds, Limbaughs and a cohort of lesser (but frequently more vile and vulgar) “media personalities” there who used to spout 24×7 on WWDB and the like.
I did not consider Malkin one of them though, so to find her in that crowd was interesting too. I do not make much of it though — not yet, at least; I’m not terribly interested in her book — because, like I’ve already said, I don’t view the internment by the US of Japanese in WWII as a big deal (comparatively), and I happen to be very much in favor of racial profiling (unrelatedly to the internment issue.)
It would be marginally curious to see where this Malkin-vs-Muller debate leads though (due not so much to the book itself, as to what the media will do and how far Mr Muller & friends will make it.)
Checkin Out
bq. _”Now, they’re not obligated to invite him specifically; they may elect to invite someone else so long as he’s competent — but they do need to invite someone.”_
Here’s where I disagree. They absolutely do not have to do what you suggest.
Your reasoning
bq. _”The media is given a lot of freedom, yet it’s not a total free-for-all, not a license to brainwash the public. In fact, ideally, if a media outlet does this, it’ll lose credibility and then the subscriber base — with all commercial ramifications of such a development — so they themselves should be interested in ensuring objectivity. Of course this is ideally, in reality things are not quite as smooth, which still doesn’t mean that objectivity can be ignored altogether.”_
and my reasoning
bq. _”To me the answer is quite simple. All things change when the freedom of the media becomes a threatened industry. Once the media realizes that the content they deliver although good for ratings begins to threaten their existence they will change and police themselves. As limits are put on the media in what they can and can’t do and the capitalistic benefits they enjoy begin to diminish they begin to see the error of their ways. Once this occurs they will police themselves to maintain the status quo they enjoy. One can only hope they see the folly of their ways before the trend becomes a dictatorial end.”_
both of us agree on this line thought.
Capitalism and competition is the reason monolith networks “ABC” “NBC” and “CBS” can no longer spout their biased views. The public media is under no obligation to carry either _Malkin‘s_ or _Muller‘s_ views. Nor are they under any obligation to carry one and not the other. Nor should they be forced to do so. So that there is no misconception here I want to emphasize the limits I speak of are not mandates by the government or law. The limits are capitalism and competition. With issues of such a magnitude that they affect everyone the people will ultimately decide with their pocket books.(“PBS” would not survive if people are given the power of choice in how their tax dollars are spent. I‘d hedge my bets on the majority saying no to public funding given other choices of how to spend their money.) The problem with _Malkin_ vs _Muller_ is the issue at hand is of little consequence to the people at large. You are certainly entitled to think I am out of bounds on this matter but I’ll wager that anyone who takes a poll on _Malkin_ vs _Muller_ is going to draw an insignificant amount of public knowledge concerning the two.
Eric Muller and the Historians’ Committee have demonstrated (to my satisfaction) that Fox News has given Malkin an easy time of it. As this controversy gathers steam, will the rest of the MSM do the same?
Google brought up only an Aug. 6 story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer; “it seems pretty skeptical.”:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/books/185162_vcenter06.html
Anyone want to bet that Diane Rheem and Terry Gross won’t be covering this on their public radio shows within the next two weeks? And that the coverage won’t be favorable to Malkin?
Which is the more important item–that several MSM organs are unfair and unbalanced, or that the MSM as a whole is uncritically presenting a particular version of a story?
An unrelated point on the Historians’ Committee press release that A.L. originally linked. It ends with a call for an apology by Fox et al. for offending Japanese-Americans.
This is a departure from the traditionally-conceived role of academicians–the Search For Truth. In the Committee’s vision, the proffesoriate should also be determining which potentially-offended people are to be offered apologies, and by whom.
Puh-leeze.
AMac, let me say that the “credentialed” and “uncredentialed” part is where the Establishment is weakest. I think you’re right: we want society to make neither the Type I (Bellesisles) nor the Type II (Malkin) error when it comes to revisionist amateur historians.
One possible starting point is that Cramer started with research. Malkin started with Fox News. (As Muller has pointed out, her book was published so soon after she first got interested in the subject that even a full-time student, much less someone with a day job, couldn’t have read the relevant source material.)
It’s ironic that “Historians” are so concerned about a book about a subject sixty years ago as rewriting history, yet they are not concerned about the history that is being rewritten from the last few years.
Where were these “Historians” when Richard Clark was rewriting history right in from of our eyes. They show concern over a few appearances by a unknown writer on Fox news, yet there is no outrage about Richard Clark peddeling his book in front of the nation during the 911 commission. Did these “Historians” have access to the secret intelligence documents that Clark used for his book to verify that it was historically accurate? Does the fact that he gave this testimony at the 911 Commission, thus entering it into an official record of The United States mean that in 60 years it should be sited as true? Was this an attempt to whitewash the “Historical Record” of the Clinton administration’s culpability for doing nothing for 8 years against the Al’Quida threat? How about the fact that the Intelligence budget was slashed during this time and was spear headed by John Kerry who wants to be our President and served on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee when Al’Queda began its attack on America.
This argument about what happened 60 years ago is pointless because Michelle Malkin’s book is not going to change history. Do you honestly think that this insignificant book is going to prompt the publisher of a history book to update the context to show Malkin’s version? Do you honestly think that even if a history book was somehow changed that any professor would actually teach it?
If “Historians” really want to protect history, then they should focus their energy on it’s preservation. I have yet to hear or see a letter from a “Historian” expressing the outrage that Sandy Berger stole and disposed of “Official Historical Documents” from this Nations’ National Archives.
*”In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently* [outrage] *took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said.*
*”When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing,*[as if he didn’t know he stuffed them in his socks and pants] *I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded.”*
This should be the outrage, not some book that a previously unknown writer wrote that will be meaningless in the long term.
SBD
SBD
Good point. Chances are those facts as well as many more will be removed or ignored in future history books. The only reason they can’t be now is because everyone has a story to tell and the story each tells is based on the perception of the teller. The only ones who know the true story are those that experience it. I have nothing against “Tommy Franks” writing a book of his historical views concerning the war in Iraq. “Tommy Franks” however; can not tell the story of foot soldier who fights it. As in most cases these stories will be at odds at some given point. Whose history do you trust and side with GI Joe / Jane or General Franks. Sure you can verify some things but what each ate for dinner on a night of consequence is subjective. The results on the night of consequence can certainly be muddled. The aftermath will certainly be subjective.
Folks,
I see there has been further discussion since I posted. I’m running out for some time with the family, but I’ll chime back in later in the day, possibly this evening.
Checkin Out, you say:
“Media does have certain freedoms, but it also has an implied duty to present, in Fox’s own terms, a “fair and balanced” picture of events and issues. (That’s why they tout this slogan so much — they want to look legitimate.) How they do it is of course their business, but to do it they must, there’s no need to keep proving this. There are certain accepted ways of doing this; journalists study them as part of their university curriculum. Objectivity is not optional, it is part of their job description and it is expected from them by the public. Presenting conflicting views, sponsoring a debate is one such method: it’s simple, it works, and it’s rather established — it’s nothing esoteric or new and unfamiliar: it seem natural and logical to use it when necessary.”
This doesn’t prove that the media is under an obligation that compels them to present “opposing” views. At best, this proves that certain people who go to journalism school are told a story about “objectivity”; specifically, they are told that something called objectivity is possible, necessary and can be obtained by doing certain things. Perhaps it was an important story to tell when only a few old media outlets existed, because old media had greater control of what people heard. (Note that this didn’t make the story true.)
However, as old media’s monopoly weakens, this story is even less plausible than it was in the past. It’s not at all clear that “objectivity” is possible (witness the disagreement on basic selection and “facts” of a story between different news sources) or necessary (given the growth of alternate sources). New media has made it possible to expose left bias of old news media by giving people the ability to test the quality of its reporting.
What Muller needs to prove is that there is or should be a legal or moral compulsion or coercive mechanism applicable to the entire news media generally. He hasn’t done this. Importantly, he hasn’t dealt with the issue of interference and censorship of the free market of ideas that such a view would necessitate. The existence of new media – and his website where he publishes opposing views – makes it difficult to argue that he has a grievance.
It is said that I need “to prove that there should be a legal or moral compulsion or coercive mechanism applicable to the entire news media generally.”
A “legal” compulsion? Why would I need to prove that, based on what I’ve said? Why would I even dream of it? I would not wish to live in a world where law compels “balance” in the media’s presentation of a story. Fortunately, we have a First Amendment and a federal judiciary to enforce it, so I’m quite sure I don’t have to worry about such a legal mechanism anytime soon.
Now, what about a “moral” compulsion? The word “moral” is a bit tricky here: did Mark mean “ethical?” For yes, I absolutely do believe that the business of telling the news, like other professions, ought to have ethical standards. Not “laws,” not enforceable obligations, but standards–standards the flagrant violation of which would signal something to viewers about the quality and trustworthiness of their product.
Would Mark really maintain otherwise? It sounds like Mark would prefer a world without ethical standards for the profession of journalism–a free-for-all of a free market where outlets can do whatever the hell they want without consequence. I’d imagine he’d say that in an utterly standardless free market, the truth will emerge from the robust clash of ideas. I suspect that’s why he points out that I have a blog: Michelle Malkin can just tell her “truth” in the venues where she can gain access; I can tell mine in the venues where I can gain access; and the truth will emerge.
I hope everyone can immediately see that however attractive a world that would be to live in, it’s not the one we occupy. My lame little blog gets about 750 readers a day, except on the rare day when I’m linked by Insty or Atrios, when my numbers go up to around 5 or 6 thousand. Since her book was published, Michelle has had the opportunity to present her views about the internment repeatedly–and without challenge–to television and radio audiences numbering in the millions. (To take an extreme example, yesterday WABC radio in NYC completely turned the microphone over to Michelle for three hours, inviting her to guest-host the Monica Crowley show. So here it wasn’t even a situation of Michelle being questioned about her views by a supposedly neutral journalist–it was just the Michelle Malkin Show.)
If you think my little blog poses a challenge to the sort of access to the viewing and listening public that Malkin’s been given, then you are a much bigger believer in the influence of “new media” than I am.
Checkin Out advised me–correctly–that “as a tradeoff [for my blogging my views], you gotta be prepared for an occasional flaming :-).
I am. That’s why I’m here. And that’s why I allow comments on my blog, where people in recent days have said all sorts of crap about me.
On that subject, by the way, why don’t you head over to http://www.michellemalkin.com and look at the comments on her site. Nah, don’t bother. She turned off the comment function on her blog a few days before her book was published.
Eric,
Michelle has been allowed to run off the leash for about a month now.
The conventional wisdom about the Japanese internment, that it was an unjustified travesty, has held for at least twenty five years or so, having been supported by the bully pulpit of the Presidency itself (Reagan).
Setting aside for a minute your plea for ethical standards of journalism that operate at a fine grain (per show), and in real time: is Malkin really in danger of overturning the accepted view at a stroke? Or does the current system not work OK, at a somewhat longer timescale.
If Malkin ends up thoroughly debunked, the egg is on Fox’s face – right?
Eric –
I’ll reinforce lewy’s comments, since he reflects my view as well. People, individually and in groups, say and believe stupid things for periods of time (see “Extraordinary Delusions, etc.“). Over time, those that are not sustainable collapse – weighed down by their failure to deal with facts.
Part of the process that brings them down is people like you – who research, argue, and otherwise jump up and down to get people’s attention – which, slowly will come.
What you wrote sounded a lot like a plea for some kind of institutionalized, artificial version of this natural process, and that made me and some others pretty uncomfortable.
If, instead, you concentrated on making the (valid , I believe) points about Malkin’s book, while your ideas might not get instant acceptance, the verdict of history would doubtless be kind.
This blogging experience has damaged my impression of a ‘fair’ media, and I think what you’re seeing is a part of the unfairness of it. But that doesn’t change my belief that it’s a long, murky process and that your understandable frustration ought not lead us into bigger problems.
A.L.
“I absolutely do believe that the business of telling the news, like other professions, ought to have ethical standards. Not “laws,” not enforceable obligations, but standards–standards the flagrant violation of which would signal something to viewers about the quality and trustworthiness of their product.”
This is a deceptively seductive bit. Muller starts off talking about ethical standards – things like filing stories that report actual events, not lying to the public, etc – but what he really means is a coercive mechanism that can be used to limit views to those he considers “reputable”. The letter from Muller’s Committee takes issue with the “uncritical” approach of the media; it is a plea for old media to give “reputable” historians and authority figures proper deference and attention. (Note that Muller is offended by the fact that Malkin has more speech than he does, not that just that she is “wrong”.)
Muller’s complaint is not that the media is reporting false current news stories, but that they are giving voice to someone with whom Muller disagrees on a matter of historical interpretation and that he and his friends are allegedly not given a chance to respond (even though he has enjoys a privileged position from which to spread his view).
At base, Muller is seeking to control the content of what others think & hear by arrogating to himself and his clique the right to decide on the proper response to Malkin’s work. We are too dumb to make inquiries ourselves, so Muller has decided to enforce his regime of “proper criticism” on us. The problem with this is that Muller has not credibly argued that (a) terrible things will happen if Malkin is given her speech rights (especially in view of speech rights of her critics) (b) ethical standards should encompass control by (academic) elites of what we read & think and (c) we are so stupid that we need Muller’s help to save us from “wrong” historical work.
If Muller is truly worried about the deletrious effects of the unchecked spread of harmful views, then why isn’t he advocating for more speech from non-marxist academics? Surely marxism – as a psychopathic, genocidal doctrine – is more dangerous than Malkin’s work will ever be. If he is really worried about protecting us from uncriticized views, why doesn’t he start there?
#28498 Posted by Eric Muller on September 5, 2004 10:25 PM
Checkin Out advised me–correctly–that “as a tradeoff [for my blogging my views], you gotta be prepared for an occasional flaming :-).
I am. That’s why I’m here. And that’s why I allow comments on my blog, where people in recent days have said all sorts of crap about me.
On that subject, by the way, why don’t you head over to http://www.michellemalkin.com and look at the comments on her site. Nah, don’t bother. She turned off the comment function on her blog a few days before her book was published,
**************************************************
And YOU are the self appointed Ayatollah of Historical Purity??
She turned off comments a LONG time before her book came out.
But then anyone who knows that is someone who has been to the site before and thus by definition a racist liar?
Anyone who has not been to the site before and does not know comments were turned off quite some time ago will go there see comments are not
on and believe YOUR lie.
If it is not a lie and is an “honest”(?) mistake then it just means you are are pathetic excuse for a historian for making the claim without checking to see if it was accurate. 😉
USMC: (September 5, 01:36 PM)
> both of us agree on this line thought.
Not quite :-). Notice that I’ve qualified my statement (which, if unqualified, does agree with your view) with the word “ideally”. I’m afraid I’m not quite as confident an individual as you are; there are few things that I believe fully. I think you may be at a risk of oversimplifying reality: you seem to think in very black-and-white terms when you describe “Capitalism and Competition”. Capitalism you’re talking about is an abstraction. Yes I know, this abstract “capitalism” is supposed to be relentlessly fostering competition. The reality is different though, to which fact I’m not blind (I’m careful to qualify what I believe and say with this treasonous word, “ideally”) — but you seem to be. This, believe it or not, is pure bolshevism, all your ostensibly capitalist rhetoric notwithstanding.
You happen to favor a certain point of view (this is primary), but you need to justify it somehow, so you also got a simple (and therefore easy to understand) and plausible (and therefore gratifying — ’cause you want it to be true) abstraction planted in your mind, and refuse to go beyond it, even when it involves denial of reality. This dogmatic and unrealistic attitude is the essense of bolshevism — as well as the primary cause of its downfall.
We don’t live in an abstract utopia (“Capitalism”, “Socialism”, “Communism”; pick the “ism” you like) — we live in a real world and I’m not sure how closely it follows the currently established abstract “ism” .
Also, let me guess: as a true believer in “Capitalism” (an abstraction), you are probably not in favor of media regulation — did I get this right? Surely the FCC should be abolished: this sounds so libertarian. Surely we don’t need any Evil Totalitarian Socialistic Regulation by the Big Bad Government — “Competition” will take care of everything.
Yet! Looking at the media concentration these days (check out CJR for specific numbers) I see no evidence of this drive to competition (supposedly inherent in “Capitalism”) — in fact, the opposite trend is clearly discernible. And were it not for FCC regulation…
OK, so now let’s consider your view (the media does not have a duty to present things objectively) in this new, enlarged context. Suppose they don’t. Now add to it that they’re all owned by one player.
What will prevent this new monopolized media machine from engaging in massive brainwash openly? They can push anything they want, you say. But there’s also now no one to push anything else — they’re the only players on the market. Of course, we’re not quite there — yet, but I’m talkinh hypothetically; about trends.
*******
You say, “PBS would not survive if people are given the power of choice in how their tax dollars are spent.”
First, I’m not a partisan of the vox-populi-vox-dei line of thinking. We’ve already talked of this: my view is that people are largely stupid (at least uninformed): I do not believe in strength in numbers here. Moreover, I don’t think that the removal of The Evil Government influence is necessarily tantamount to people’s empowerment — there are other players around, every bit as powerful and anti-democratic as the said EG, and in fact much more so, at least potentially. And it just so happens that the talk of governmental evils always comes from them. Themselves they don’t mention for some reason. That’s one.
IN addition, and just as important: yes, PBS can be annoying, but it’s better than most anything else on the market. I got it always on on my car radio (even though the politically-correct, touchy-feely “progressive” section there do make me cringe at times.) All their flaws notwithstanding, they: (1) also have good stuff (2) when bad, they’re not quite as bad as goebbelsoid Smerkonish, Medved & Co. — and they’re never even nearly as vulgar (3) even if they were as bad, they represent different politics, and thus are valuable simply as a counteracting force: at the very least they provide a “balance of power”, just like in geopolitics; similar to the “separation of powers” principle in the US government.
So, no, don’t be so sure: I’m a taxpayer, but under the circumstances, I’d rather support PBS than see the airwaves totally monopolized by the Smerkonish-Medved-Limbaugh-DrLaura agitprop machine. I’m not a blind believer in “Capitalism” — I know what it is (or rather, supposed to be), and yet I do not neglect paying attention to the world as it is (rather than supposed to be.)
*****
Mark:
>This doesn’t prove that the media is under an obligation
>that compels them to present “opposing” views
It proves it for me. Also see above. Beyond that, I guess, we’ll agree to disagree.
>Perhaps it was an important story to tell when only a
>few old media outlets existed, because old media had
>greater control of what people heard.
You make it sound as if media monopoly were a threat of the past, from which, thankfully, we’re safe today. Not so. (When you have time, peruse http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/index.asp , and also revisit the recent Powell Jr saga about the FCC media deregulation.)
>What Muller needs to prove is that there is or should be
>a legal or moral compulsion or coercive mechanism
>applicable to the entire news media generally.
I don’t think there’s anything legal. “Moral” is a wrong word, but “ethical” is about right, I think. He doesn’t need to prove it, it’s a given. Now, this, as I’ve already had a chance to say, is not a specific imperative: they are not obligated to let him in. But they have to strive for balance somehow — whether by way of inviting him, or someone else, or setting up a round-table discussion between a number of the involved individuals, or what not.
>Importantly, he hasn’t dealt with the issue of
>interference and censorship of the free market of ideas
>that such a view would necessitate
How does his desire to speak in addition to someone else become “interference and censorship of the free market of ideas”? I’m totally perplexed. Seems like it is exactly the opposite that he strives to promote. Actually, isn’t not letting him in a better example of interference and censorship of the free market of ideas? He doesn’t seek to silence anyone, he only asks for access to the same market! He only wants to be allowed to speak too — that’s censorship ?!
Actually, isn’t not letting him in a better example of interference and censorship of the free market of ideas? He doesn’t seek to silence anyone, he only asks for access to the same market! He only wants to be allowed to speak too — that’s censorship ?!
**************************************************
Censorship is a form of State Control of the Media.
When the State forces the media to promulgate a certain veiw you are correct, that is not censorship, but State approved propaganda.
Still both are State Control of the Media and have no place in a Free Society
Checkin Out,
Allowing Muller & the Committe to enforce their view of proper criticism on an allegedly benighted public requires the exercise of pre-judgment by guardians about what we need to hear. Dan Kauffman mentions this in respect of State controlled media. Muller’s proposal is still interference with a free and open marketplace; it is like censorship in that it seeks to enforce “proper thought”.
I said: “What Muller needs to prove is that there is or should be a legal or moral compulsion or coercive mechanism applicable to the entire news media generally.”
You reply that: “I don’t think there’s anything legal. “Moral” is a wrong word, but “ethical” is about right, I think. He doesn’t need to prove it, it’s a given. Now, this, as I’ve already had a chance to say, is not a specific imperative: they are not obligated to let him in. But they have to strive for balance somehow — whether by way of inviting him, or someone else, or setting up a round-table discussion between a number of the involved individuals, or what not.”
This is rather odd. Why is it a given that there is or should be an ethical or moral coercive mechanism applicable to the news media generally? I thought the argument was whether or not Muller & et al. could be seen to enforce their view of “proper criticism” on the news media. If you wish to assume it as a given, then I suppose we can’t really argue further. I don’t see it as a given at all, nor am I likely to concede it as a given.
“[I]sn’t not letting him in a better example of interference and censorship of the free market of ideas?…He only wants to be allowed to speak too.”
You keep suggesting that Muller and the Committee are being silenced. We’ve been through this: they are not being silenced. Muller has implicitly conceded this by claiming that he doesn’t have *enough* speech (see his post above about his web traffic vs. TV audiences). If he wants to argue that he doesn’t have enough speech, then he should do this explicitly. I suspect he won’t do so, though, because (a) it is a more difficult case to make and (b) he’d (correctly, imo) be perceived as petulant and jealous of FOX News ratings. I’d wager that many people (and other bloggers in particular) would probably be less than sympathetic to this alleged grievance.
Dan Kauffman,
You wrote that Malkin “turned off comments a LONG time before her book came out.” My contrary assertion, you say, therefore proves that I am “a pathetic excuse for a historian for making the claim without checking to see if it was accurate.”
The official launch date of Malkin’s book was August 9, 2004.
She announced its publication on her blog on August 3, when right-wing bloggers began receiving their courtesy copies from her publisher.
At that time (August 3), her blog still permitted comments.
Later that same day (August 3), she pulled the plug on her comments. She said at that time that she was going to have a weekly post for which she’d allow comments, and that she’d aim for “a few other comment-enabled posts each week.”
She enabled comments for one post on August 4, and one post on August 9, the launch date of her book, when she called for Norman Mineta’s head.
That was the last time she allowed comments.
So Dan Kauffman, please stop calling me “a pathetic excuse for a historian for making a claim without checking to see that it’s accurate.” That’s what you did. Not I.
Mark,
>You keep suggesting that Muller and the Committee are
>being silenced. We’ve been through this:
Yes, we sure have. And I have nothing to add to what I’ve said previously: why go in circles?
***
Dan Kauffman (September 6, 12:50 AM):
> Censorship is a form of State Control of the Media.
Where did you get this elegant definition of censorship, on the Michael Smerkonish show? 🙂
To listen to you, guys, evil always comes from the State, is all that comes from the State, can only come from State.
(Hint: do yourself a favor and double-check, look up “censorship” in a dictionary.)
“To listen to you, guys, evil always comes from the State, is all that comes from the State, can only come from State.”
Checkin Out,
Foolish proposals can, indeed, come from the State. They can also come from self-important leftist academics. I’ve yet to see anyone, let alone Muller or his Committee for Truth & Virtue, offer a credible defense for this one.
Very good, Mark, very good — I agree. They can and they can, yes indeed. I don’t know what the rest of your paragraph means, but OK. What I’m really interested to know is, have you guys looked up the definition of the word ‘censorship’ yet?
I’ll check back later, and once Dan makes his report we’ll continue our discussion.
I’m quite comfortable with the meaning and use of the term “censorship”. If you have a point to make, you should probably make it.
You might also take another crack at explaining how it is that we and the media are not allowing Muller from speaking. Your last explanation was inadequate.
Mark, it’s good to know that you are quite comfortable with the meaning and use of the term “censorship” (and I had no reasons to believe otherwise 🙂 ), but our friend Dan Kauffman obviously isn’t! — why don’t you help him out.
The act, process, or practice of censoring.
The office or authority of a Roman censor.
Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
*************************************************
Gee the root word seems to come from a State function during the Roman Era.
What’s your definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censorship
Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Function: noun
: the institution, system, or practice of censoring —compare FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT
Main Entry: freedom of speech
: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution —see also FREE SPEECH —compare CENSORSHIP, PRIOR RESTRAINT
Do “Toxic Idea” constitute a “Clear and Present Danger”??
So Dan Kauffman, please stop calling me “a pathetic excuse for a historian for making a claim without checking to see that it’s accurate.” That’s what you did. Not I.
**************************************************
Nope I am a pathetic excuse for a historian, your facts as you present them are correct
You did leave out
“A small detachment of trolls has frequented the comment threads, and I have been extremely liberal–yes, me, a liberal–in my use of MT-Blacklist. I wanted to encourage debate. Instead, my tolerance has turned once-enlightening channels for discussion into filthy sewers. Today was the last straw; I was forced to shut off the comments on this post after it was overrun. Shame on the jerks who screwed it up, especially the miscreant who used my name to post his/her vile thoughts”
You implied the comments pull was all becaus of the book, not identity theft.
I take back and humbly apolagise for my previous rant all you did was SLANT the report of comments being pulled.
Dan, perfect, that’s a very good definition. How does it match your initial definition? Please notice the difference.
Checkin Out
bq. _”We don’t live in an abstract utopia (“Capitalism”, “Socialism”, “Communism”; pick the “ism” you like) — we live in a real world and I’m not sure how closely it follows the currently established abstract “ism” .”_
No we don’t live in a utopia regardless of any “ism”. Whether it is better to argue for one or the other is a debate that has been raging for some time. Whether it is the intellectual, the average layman, or the insanely stupid advocating any “ism” each has some thought (right or wrong) as to the outcome of their beliefs. Regardless of intellect whether or not one takes into full account the resulting actions of the those beliefs is another matter.
bq. _”Also, let me guess: as a true believer in “Capitalism” (an abstraction), you are probably not in favor of media regulation — did I get this right? “_
No. All laws and regulations should be written from the perspective of the benefit of the people by the people and not from the perspective of special interest groups. Should capitalism and competition be allowed to flourish from a thousand points of light? In my opinion yes. It is when you remove or segregate one from the other or tilt the balance in favor of one over the other that ideas no matter how stupid or insightful one might think they are become stifled.
bq. _”First, I’m not a partisan of the vox-populi-vox-dei line of thinking. We’ve already talked of this: my view is that people are largely stupid (at least uninformed):”_
Whether the majority of people at large are stupid or uninformed is of course debatable. Education of the populace is another debate in and of itself. Everyone can be just as brainy or just as stupid; however, conflicts of ideas will still arise within each group as well as between each group regardless of intellect. It will be all of these people that decide if any and what laws are acceptable to them.
As a conservative, I have to go through this same exact thing every morning when I pick up the news paper. I know that common sense tells me that I can not demand equal space on the front page of their paper to express my point of view. So all I am left with is writing a Letter to the Editor which does not have the same impact as the front page now does it. I also am not wasting my time trying to obtain that front page because my goal is to get the information out however I can and by whatever means are at my disposal.
If this issue is really about maintaining the “Historical” integrity, then you would not be wasting your time with Fox because when you believe in something with enough conviction, you find other ways to reach your goal.
I would suggest you start with your best media prospects first which is probably a newspaper. This should not be that difficult because now you share a common enemy that goes by the name of “Fox”. You probably won’t get regulated to the editorial page, but even if that is all you get, it is better than what you have now.
Actions always speak louder than words and at this point all I have heard throughout this entire dialog is whining words.
SBD
#28596 Posted by Checkin Out on September 6, 2004 09:32 AM
Dan, perfect, that’s a very good definition. How does it match your initial definition? Please notice the difference.
**************************************************
**************************************************
Censorship is a form of State Control of the Media.
Actually that is a statement. If the question is my atatement a complete definition of the word censorship or not, I must bow and saw no.
HOWEVER a sentence is a complete thought.
SO is my sentence valid/true or invalid/false?
For it to be invalid/false one would have to make the case that Censorship is NOT a form of State Control of the Media.
This getting to be fun 😉
Every editors desk surely uses some form of censorship they do not print or show to the public every possible thing they could, my concern is Centralised Society wide ie State Control of this function.
Alternate views will have a way of surfacing unless we have some appointed group of elite journalists deciding what “Toxic Ideas” may or may not be allowed to be accessed by the public.
The main media approaches that now, but with advent of media outlets that are not biased to the Left and the intenet their former gateway monoply has crumbled.
We don’t have to storm the Citidal of the NYT we can outflank them with blogs and the ability to google and read the entire transcript of a speech or interview which has been “creatively editied” 😉
Now Saudi Arabia DOES have Gatekeepers to protect society from “toxic ideas” even on the internet.
See the what is or is not a toxi idea is highly subjective.
I would rather not undergo this folks experiment with the First Amendment.
Maybe they did not mean it that way, but what is the difference? What they said and wanted would result in an American Mutawa.
Wow, this is certainly a long and nuanced debate. But it seems to me that a better question to debate would be about what is currently being taught in schools. We are just over one decade past the Cold War, and I feel that most of the lessons that were taken for granted about communism and socialism have completely evaporated.
In the same way, people have this vague sense of Hitler being a ‘bad guy’, but don’t really understand the unimaginable atrocities committed by the Nazis. So it seems to suit people just fine to equate our current president with Hitler. Now that should be disturbing to anyone who has a firm grasp of what happened in Dachau and elsewhere. It is as if people loose the concept of proportion with passing years.
In the same way, it is hard to understand the magnitude of what was done to Japanese Americans who were ripped from their homes and lives due to the actions of a few. So yes, this should be a very touchy subject to anyone who contemplates the damage that this action does to a country that professes liberty and equality for all. But it is also foolish to quibble on fine points of history when diametrically opposed groups are at each other’s throats. Part of this country believes that we are in a battle for our very survival while the other part believes that we are merely using the wrong tone in an ongoing negotiation between belligerent sides.
Michelle Malkin at least deserves credit for exposing a topic of debate that might surface later(i.e. after another successful terrorist attack on US soil of a size that possibly dwarfs 9/11). If we don’t debate it now when rational minds still possibly exist on both sides, then we might find ourselves acting later and damning the consequences.
Now I am not advocating doing the same thing to Americans who practice Islam, but there are some important differences. One of the first is that America and Japan were fighting a conventional war. Japanese spies could provide aid and comfort to the enemy, but it would be focused on achieving victory on the battlefield. Military security has dealt with this issue for centuries. So a small number of Japanese Americans engaged in this activity would most likely not jeopardize the entire war.
The war that America faces today is a completely different animal. The battlefield is our streets, homes, and now schools. And the enemy force is miniscule in comparison to our own. It really is a needle in a haystack problem. If there is a total US Muslim population of about 5 million citizens, then if even 1% of that population were engaged in terrorist activities, we would have 5,000 terrorists to deal with. Think of how many terrorists it normally takes to run an operation? Then think of what a 100 or 1,000 groups could do simultaneously. How many schools like the one in Russia could be taken hostage?
Now take a step back and look at how powerless our government is in penetrating tight-knit immigrant groups that may or may not speak English. In my city, the police purposely do not pursue illegal aliens, because it would ruin their ability to track down violent criminals within that community. What I am saying is that we ultimately cannot be successful in tracking down terrorists within our borders if the Muslim community does not take an active role in helping the government. They can hide within a much larger group that may be completely ignorant of their existence. But it won’t matter if the terrorists succeed in pulling off their penultimate goal of detonating a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. It won’t matter because nobody will be listening at that point. Reason will be out the window.
So debate the message and stop quibbling so much over the messenger.
Dan Kauffman (#28682)
>Censorship is a form of State Control of the Media.
>Actually that is a statement. If the question is my
>statement a complete definition of the word censorship
>or not, I must bow and saw no.
Perfect :-). Now consider this fact in the context of our discussion.
>HOWEVER a sentence is a complete thought.
>SO is my sentence valid/true or invalid/false?
Censorship in general may of course be used by a state to control the media. As far as this abstract statement goes, it is a complete thought. But it just so happens that this complete thought is irrelevant to our discussion. We weren’t talking about the state: Mr Muller is not a state representative, neither is Malkin, nor Fox, nor the Michael Smerconish show.
It was you who brought “censorship” up: now that we’ve established its correct, full definition, you can tell me why :-). Where does it fit?
There are some points of view that are so fundamentally toxic to our democracy that journalists ought to be give them special scrutiny before airing them on national television.
************************************************
Journalists maintaining standards of accuracy and fairness is worse than locking up innocent American citizens?
***********************************************
Perhaps I should have moderated my language a bit, because I am not advocating censorship. I’m advocating basic decency. I’m advocating that factually wrong and offensive ideas should be relegated to the fringe where they belong rather than promoted in mainstream venues. I advocate best practices in journalism — community standards if you will. I don’t see a government role at all
*************************************************
His whole complaint is that “basic decency” is not being upheld by the media and “toxic thougts” are allowed to be aired.
How does he expect this to be remedied WITHOUT one side being silenced and the other side having some kind of sanctioned standing?
In the end what we are talking about is censorship, black listing and elite gatekeepers.
WHO will decide? What guage will they use?
Sixty years ago the idea thatt the Internmenat was NOT necessary would have been deemed
“toxic thought”
Any time I hear words to the effect that some ideas ought not to be allowed to be accessed by the public, and that SOMETHING or SOMEBODY should DO something about it, I get VERY wary.,
Because today in parts of the world that is the case. There are gatekeepers who limit access to information based on the governments the cultures and the religions definition of what is decent and what is toxic thought.
In the end that is exactly what this man advocates he just knows that since his view is true (and it may very well be) that it is RIGHT to find someway to supress his opponents.
After all it is for our own good? We must be protected from being confused by “wrong thinking”
What is your reaction? Checkin Out
One man’s censorship is another man’s basic decency.
Dan Kauffman (#28741)
>What is your reaction? Checkin Out
Agree 100%. I’ve said it very early in the discussion that I do not have a problem with Malkin’s media appearances; the only thing that bothers me is that her opponents seem to be er… “discouraged” 🙂 from doing the same. Censorship? Works both ways, you know. But as far as it goes, I fully agree with your message though, thanks.
PS. (Although, to be completely fair, you do overstretch his views a bit: he said “factually wrong”, which gives his statement a somewhat different tenor; fact-checking should certainly be a prerequisite. But not “decency”, “toxic” etc, here I’m with you.)
Yesterday, I sent my list [Greg Robinson and Eric Muller’s] critiques of Michelle Malkin’s work, which I found convincing. I owe the list an apology; Malkin has in fact responded strongly to her critics, and answered the charges meticulously. I think it should be mandatory for History News Network to post her response, having given three spaces to historians who have challenged her arguments. She has responded cogently and persuasively to many of the charges made against her in the two articles I passed on, and has proved that she has, contrary to their assertions, done a lot of primary research. It is also clear that her critics have savagely distorted her arguments. Those interested should read her book, the arguments of her critics, and decide for themselves. Ron Radosh
**************************************************
Been looking at a few things written by this guy facsicnating, I am grateful to this thread for the discovery.
Seems we have in place particularly in the History Depts already unofficial gatekeepers.
They are having a harder time these days maintaining their control. ;-))
PS for those who like I may not recognise the name he is
professor emeritus of history at Queensborough Community College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and coauthor of The Rosenberg File and The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism
He has some interesting things to say about what he terms “left-wing McCarthyism”