-Anti -Neoliberal
- Anti-War (unless domestic security is really threatened)
- Anti- Bush Tax Cuts or ANY Tax cuts (and Pro-Higher Taxes for Most Americans to pay for the needs and benefits most of us take for granted. Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society")
- Pro-environment (No, not a 'tree hugger' but if you don't accept global warming, you're an idiot.)
Anti- American Exceptionalism (I don't buy exceptionalism for any nation!)
Anti-NSA mass surveillance (In favor of getting rid of all the NSA prying programs, PRISM, MUSCULAR, XKeyscore, etc.)
Pro-Transparent Government and Pro-Whistleblower ("When the government knows more about you than vice versa you have tyranny. When the reverse is true, you have freedom")
Pro-Socialism - to more evenly distribute the wealth of this nation from the hands of the few - like the Kochs.
If people don't like this POV they generally will not stop by this blog but go to one more in line with their own political, economic predilections.
Lastly, my ideology as summarized above isn't based merely on "opinion" but was honed from decades of individual research over broad areas. Thus, my POV represents in many ways the distillation of that accumulated knowledge with critical thinking applied. I sincerely believe every citizen has the right to offer opinions, but those invested with scientific, historical and economic insight are to be valued more especially if critical thinking is also applied. Thus, not all ideology is created equally and having an ideology just for the sake of such is a fool's errand.
As
I noted in a previous post, to do with why Obama failed to become
transformative:
“a bid
for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer.”
In
other words, no central point of view,
no singular perspective in evidence. All POVs are equally correct in the world
of nebulous, Neoliberal political mumbo –jumbo.
Rosen does grant that this
inclination to be “objective” is not always bad. Indeed, journalism is
impossible if its practitioners don’t acknowledge the existence of at least some
kind of baseline objective reality. However, as the author of the salon.com
piece observes:
“But
the view from nowhere is more often a self-flattering and ass-covering gimmick,
one that is intended to protect the journalist from receiving criticism for
partiality but often leaves the reader less informed as a result.”
But
because the political pool has become so contaminated by Right wing nonsense
and spin, too many mainstreamers (and bloggers – like Nate Silver) are chicken
shit to accept the objective findings- say for global warming – which discloses
the Left is more totally accurate in tune with the findings than the flat Earth Right. Thus, they fear
PARTIALITY or informed ideology when it is in fact aligned with reality!
Of
course, FOX News also has an ideology, but it is largely uninformed and distorted. Recall that I also noted (in my
earlier link above) that:
Of course,
one always checks his ideology against reality, this is important!
Alas,
the FOX-ites seldom if ever do this! This is why they are so wrong on climate
change and why they actually had to get Neil deGrasse Tyson to try to explain
it to them ("Fox and Friends") – with meager success.
The problem with bloggers like Nate Silver, as I pointed out, is that when they hire climate nebulizers like Roger Pielke Jr. on the new version of FiveThirtyEight they are essentially disclosing how little objective knowledge or insight they themselves have into the existing science. They need to hire a right wing propaganda meister to help them out. As the salon.com report observes: “ the Pielke Jr. experience brings to mind Mark Twain’s famous quote that there are “lies, damned lies and statistics.” The view from nowhere is no less problematic when it’s festooned with numbers”..
Indeed, which is why it is so sad that a guy
supposedly well versed in numbers and excellent in political statistics, could
fail so badly in terms of processing climate science data.
Again, I attribute most of this to not having been exposed adequately to
the science but also being too ready to adopt the useless “view from nowhere”
- which is of little use to his blog
readers.
Then
there is Ezra Klein, one of the many journalists who built a successful career
by coming out of the blogosphere and tweaking old media for its faux-objective
habits. But, incredibly, who then began telling people that his much-anticipated new website’s
goal would be to “explain the news” to readers. Are
you kidding me? Explain the news? What? You have that little regard for your
readers? I don’t presume to “explain the
news” to readers here on Brane Space. I see my blog more as the final, ultimate
“bull shit filter” – after readers have already been inundated with tons of faux
news and Neoliberal PR, whether about the economy, the Ukraine, health news,
science or some facet of our bought out political system. Thus, given the POV and ideology noted at the top of this post, I can more easily discern the bullshit being endlessly fed to the public by the Neoliberal media and share it with others.
In
other words, Klein, like his "viewless" compatriot
Silver, had descended to the level of a useless Neoliberal parrot and
nabob. Jeezus Peace! Don’t we have
enough of these characters? We don’t need more parrots but we do need many more
serious Blogger BS filters since there’s so much bullshit manufactured in this country
per second (as comic George Carlin once noted) that I’d have to write 45 blogs
a day to cover it all. And I don’t have that much time. (Carlin also observed,
in one of his skits, that bullshit is this country’s largest product and most
consumed around the world.)
But
why be surprised at Klein, who dropped
his liberal ideology as soon as his mainstream star began to rise and the Neoliberal
Beltway Bozos began taking him seriously as the “Voice”. The twerp actually disavowed
liberalism, telling the New
Republic’s Alec MacGillis:
“I don’t really think of myself as a liberal.
That’s not the project I’m part of, which is to let the facts take me where
they do.”
So,
okay, if any ensemble of facts points to a conclusion that a liberal would accept
than you’d dismiss them? In fact, Klein
here reveals himself as just another Neoliberal gasbag like so many others, at
politico, or wherever the Neolib hacks reside on the blogosphere.
But
I gathered as much about Klein when the guy appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show
some time ago, in a segment to do with Obama's
proposed Chained CPI. After Maddow’s
usual long –winded intro, Klein appeared with his toothless smile, explaining the Repukes were merely
"hyping" it and Obama "wouldn't
really do it". This despite that anyone who could read and had
a newspaper subscription knew better. And this is the cat that wants to “make
sure” we understand what’s going on? He’s joking for sure!
Incredibly,
Klein’s lead-off big piece for Vox was a story about “how politics makes
us stupid” that focused on yet more research showing that smart,
highly informed people were in fact often more rather than less
likely to let their fundamental values and beliefs change the way they
interpreted new information. By choosing to get things started with a piece
about the inescapable nature of subjectivity, Klein seemed to be making a subtle
recognition that no one can “explain the news” without having their own
biases color their explanation. In other
words, the twerp ended up reinforcing my point that ideology operates as one’s
fundamental compass to make sense of the world
(again, so long as it jibes with reality!). The problem is that little
Ezra wants you to believe that HIS bias trumps yours in explaining the news.
On
the other hand, here on Brane Space, I merely present a kernel of discrete
(political, or economic or scientific) material
per day, with most of the BS removed, and you can decide for yourself if
that is acceptable, or you want to filter out even more. I don’t presume to tell the reader that this
and only this is what I expect you to leave with.
Lastly,
Jonathan Chait’s “view from nowhere” shtick has been exposed in the salon.com
piece by Elias Isquith which noted:
“Chait’s
argument is a bit complicated and, going by defenses he’s mounted both on his blog
and on Twitter,
not intended to be read as an analysis of race in modern America but rather the
way political partisans talk about race in modern America. This strikes me as
an extremely played-out and uninteresting topic to write a long essay in one of
America’s most-respected magazines about — which may explain why the headline
and the subhead of the piece imply it’s about America and race, not Fox News
and MSNBC — but maybe people who are less immersed in the daily political
squabbling of the Obama presidency than I will find it to be of interest.
(Slate’s Jamelle Bouie has written a definitive
takedown of the piece here, and the response from
Salon’s Joan Walsh is well worth reading, too.) “
Again, as Isquith points out,
“nearly everything wrong with the article can be explained by Chait’s curious
and unfortunate habit of presenting himself as the only reasonable man in the
room. Or, to put it differently, his implication that he’s best able to judge
competing claims of racial demagoguery because he holds the view from nowhere.”
In
this his shtick is curiously like Klein’s and Silver’s. If a person then is terrified of partiality
or ideology, and if it makes his or her
skin crawl, then he is obviously best served by frequenting Silver’s 538blog, Klein’s Vox and Chait’s.
They can sleep easy and doubtless the toneless language (almost imaged from a
cyborg) will help assuage all cares.
If,
on the other hand, people can handle a definite ideology and viewpoint (again, predicated on research, information that is often hidden by the mainstream media) in viewing national or
world events, as well as some harsh lingo from time to time (no mincing of
words in the never-ending goal to expose Neoliberal bullshit) you’ve come to
the right place here – on Brane Space.
One thing you may be certain of: Brane Space will not mutate into another 'VOX'!
See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/norman-solomon/55346/why-we-need-media-critics-who-are-fiercely-independent
No comments:
Post a Comment