The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Ignorance Is Bliss

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Invisman52 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:49:33 -0000

Well I am not a journalist.

Also, the writing is quite clear.

Also, the language is plain enough.

What did you not get? I will translate...

Also, clearly you have not worked with an editor at The New Yorker or The Atlantic. The language there is often discursive and not "plain."

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Invisman52 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:04:06 -0000

Yes and no. You said that the "job of journalists" is to challenge the government. That is YOUR mission--being on the left. There are conservative, pro-government journalists whose mission is to buttress the state apparatus. Thus, there are at least TWO DIFFERENT stated aims. There is no way to say that journalism or any activity only has one stated aim. As Derrida put it, the only universality is utter singularity. Please tell us who "created" journalism and stated its ontological and sacrosanct aim or mission or "job."

Now, I like your political representation argument. But in my view the term "represent the people" is too capacious to signify anything. Of course a "history of political representation" would not "throw the actuality of that claim into question" because political representation has always in some sense captured the wish of "some" people. Further, "represent" might only refer to demographics and voting in legislature. The Federalists surely did not care what "the people" or "folk" wanted; they fashioned themselves as benevolent patricians who knew what was best for their constituents. Hence in their view they WERE representing the people.

Finally, the notion of a stated ideal is NOT something could ever gain consensus. That is, no one would agree on the stated ideal of journalism, the stated ideal of representation, or even, for instance, the stated ideal of Catholicism (they have traveled a long way from Augustine to Benedict XVI). There is no need to "descend into nihilism" (although Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are always good to read). Instead, it is important to recognize that Noonan et. all ARE journalists (as you do today) and challenge their politico-ideology, rather than whether they are "truly" practicing journalism.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Brian — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:28:11 -0000

What Peggy Noonan said about torture was both scary and sad. I think about the Nuremberg Trials. The British and Russians just wanted to hang all the Nazi's. America said no. If I have my facts right it was Harry Stinson, the Secretary of War under Truman, a Republican who successfully argued for the trials. Justice can only be served when it is based on a foundation of law.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Phoebe — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:08:38 -0000

Out of this whole horrible nightmare, Noonan's viewpoint is actually the thing that makes me angriest. The idea that we shouldn't look.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

lebecka — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:21:10 -0000

This is a reminder of what happens when the stronger don't look out for the weaker, for "the least of these". Thanks for the analogy-- it's stomach-churning to hear about, but good for you that you were able to move past it to a better life. I will keep you in my mind as i help my daughters make decisions in life.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

kepper — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:52:14 -0000

Weren't the concentration camps "mysterious"? Poles and other Europeans didn't ask questions, did they? NonNazi Germans didn't ask questions. Noonan astonishes with this horrible remark. Don't look, don't tell. God help us.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

blacksmythe — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:47:22 -0000

I'm not suggesting you throw up your hands.

But there are a whole host of ethical standards that journalists should live up to, and that some of these standards are "more standard" than others. Protecting sources for example is something that most journalists strive to do, even when the political context doesn't really allow for that. Striving for "objectivity" is something that most journalists--not columnists or pundits, JOURNALISTS--strive for. This, even though the concept of "objectivity" has all types of problems with it. Plagiarism is a definite no-no, and people who are caught are usually punished severely.

The "speak truth to power" part though? Not so much. Which suggests that there are standards that everyone lives up to, standards that are required to be a card-carrying member of the profession, standards that if violated will lead to unemployment.

And standards that are not.

You are taking a stand and saying that this one standard is the one upon which journalists should rest their hat. You are not alone. But as judged by PRACTICE you are in the minority.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

zic — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:44:55 -0000

The role of the journalist includes using language that makes an argument clear, not obscure.

Any editor I've worked with would send this back saying use plain language.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

FOARP — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:53:06 -0000

I mean 'is not to be critical in the sense that they do not have to etc.'

TNC - allow reader editing of comments, if only to save me from my inability to proofread!

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Jonathan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:50:30 -0000

I'm reminded of that SNL sketch, "George F. Will's Sports Machine"...

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/george-f-wills-sports-machine/2734/

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

FOARP — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:50:01 -0000

The role of journalists required to be critical in the sense that they have to give critical opinions based on the facts rather than complimentary opinions. However, journalists most certainly ought to report facts in a rigorous and independent fashion, and should do their best to discover facts which it is in the public interest to know. It is for this reason that reportage in the public interest enjoys special protection under the law from the suits of defamation, breach of confidence etc.

When a journalist says that a line of investigation which resulted in the exposure of facts which are most definitely in the public interest was not worth following as it might make people think less of a previous government, she is not acting in your interest, but in those of that government. This is the essential definition of a corrupt journalist - one who does not have the interests of their audience at heart.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

FOARP — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:37:20 -0000

She's a former speech-writer, and has always been a columnist raher than a journalist. I would file her under 'pundit', and in this instance a deeply wrong and morally compromised one.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

FOARP — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:32:29 -0000

These people are morally bankrupt, how can one compromise on something so basic as torture? There is no debate to be had on whether torture is wrong or not - not unless one wishes to ignore the last 400 years of history. There are not 'intelligent people' who back torture, but people who start from the position that torture is correct and then reverse engineer a legal opinion from that, whilst totally ignoring the glaringly obvious draw-backs of their position.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:12:41 -0000

I think you and Lester are confusing the result with the mission. I make no defense of journalism, historically. But the stated aim, is exactly as I laid it out. I don't think even George Will would quibble with it. That many journalists fail at it doesn't alter what they claim to be doing. Political representatives are elected to, ostensibly, "represent the people." I think a history of political representatives would throw the actuality of that claim into question. It doesn't mean it isn't the stated ideal, and one that you can hold people accountable too.

Anything else, is to descend into nihilism and just throw up you hands when you see something like what Noonan did. I don't really have the option of doing that. I'm a journalist.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

professor — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:20:16 -0000

While I understand the sentiment in claiming that they are not journalists (they clearly fail to live up to many of the basic standards of their profession) they are, though miserable and miserably compromised, in fact journalists. Lets not let them off the hook by suggesting they are not.

peace.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Invisman52 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:12:46 -0000

One last thing:

Part of that "freedom of speech" thing, that "freedom of the press" thing is that is it FREE TO SHILL FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Invisman52 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:10:41 -0000

While I agree with the general critical thrust of Coates' argument (that is, the political critique that he is offering in relation to torture, legality, and human rights), the notion that there is an inherent ontology of journalism is simply untrue. He offers the following:

"The job of journalists is to challenge the government and to challenge their readers and viewers. What sort of journalist tells his readers that some things must be mysterious? What sort of writer tells her readers, and viewers, essentially, to not ask too many questions? We have a fine era, when otherwise respected, intelligent, and well-read people step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance. What a mess."

This is simply unfounded. It is, respectfully, a canard. Journalism is NOT by definition "critical" or an activity fashioning apparatuses intened to "challenge" (power). Journalism has always been and will continue to serve as a normativizing structure. While the critique-to-power edge has been the way in which journalism has earned its stripes among certain folk (generally those on the left who subscribe to bourgeois liberalism), journalism is not composed of some sort of essence whereby its practitioners always push back or "challenge." Furthermore, to offer a negative critique of our era, as a kind of sui generis of journalism's historical trajectory, because there are people who "step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance," to call it a "mess," is to ignore history--and especially American history. From the very beginning of the nation, journalists have been "endorsing ignorance" AND challenging the government--think here of the controversy that led to and followed the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of the late 1790s). Think of the "respected" and "well-read" journalists and writers who turned a blind eye to slavery in the 1850s in order to "protect" the Union. Journalism has always been about politics and particularly about IDEOLOGY. If there is an ontology of journalism it is simply that, A SPACE FOR IDEOLOGY. You all know this: there is no objectivity; there is no attempt to get all the facts. Ideology always clouds how we construct our archives. Noonan here is simply giving voice to what journalists do all the time-LEAVE THE OTHER SIDE "MYSTERIOUS." The point here is that there is no "job of journalists" except to report their particularly ideologies. We can critique their politics, their ideologies, their world-views; we cannot say they are not doing the "job" of the journalist. (My caveat of course is that if they are fudging numbers or purposely mis-representing someone or something, then we have another issue. But if they are doing none of these things then they are supporting their politico-ideologies by "moving-on." Journalists do that all the time. And so do citizens.)

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

blacksmythe — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:19:59 -0000

Coates is right but wrong. There have been journalists over time who have attempted to critique government officials. The Detroit Free press won a Pulitzer for busting open the Kilpatrick text scandal.

But to say that it's a journalist's JOB to do this?

Hell no. Since when?

Take an era you'd imagine to be "the golden age of journalism".

Then take the most important political story of the day.

Did the journalists cover that story? If they did, how? How long did it take them?

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

adin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:04:25 -0000

I have never thought that she was a journalist at all. When I heard and saw her during that interview a name came to mind:

Kitty Genovese.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Texior Enabler — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:58:04 -0000

Very chilling moment there! Having 2 old "elites" close their eyes and smile at laws and morals being destroyed and lives crushed for an erronious policy.

Pegy Noonan has no credibility left, she is the cause of the death of the MSM; highly paid water carrier for the political elites who want to use and abuse the people that elect them. That's why people don't buy newspaper and magazines anymore.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

adin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:57:46 -0000

jeez. give it a fargin' break. do me a favor. please.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

ST — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:36:48 -0000

It's Straussianism, which a not insubstantial portion of the right subscribes to. Our elites, who know better than we, sometimes have to do difficult things that we plebians don't understand. A nation needs its myths to survive, but belief in the myths is an indulgence the leaders can't afford.

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Bruce — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:24:50 -0000

Go ahead...wait...just don't hold your breath!

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

PC — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:19:50 -0000

So essentially (according to Ms. Cheney), if our soldiers who had these tactics done to them in the SERE program to train them for the TORTURE they would receive in the instance of their capture, then it's OK because other countries are doing it, and it IS torture. However, when we do it, it is NOT torture. Am I missing something? Or this typical neo-con double talk? I'll wait...

Re: Ignorance Is Bliss

Sid — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:11:57 -0000

I think journalists like Noonan and Will spend so much time staring at America, they develop a sort of romantic vision of what they want America to be, and then stick everything they see into that context. David Brooks tends to do the same with politics. It makes for pretty writing in some ways, because who doesn't like a story that makes sense. The problem is that reality doesn't always make sense, it doesn't always fit with the storyline.