Category Archives: Media

Part II: American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.

Affirmative Action, English, Internet, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

Why is the newspaper industry moribund and, we hope, beyond resuscitation? Veteran journalist William Murchison tells the story “of a profession invaded and subjugated by a type of journalist far less like the average reader than like, well, the members of a political science seminar at an upscale Eastern or West Coast university. That’s irrespective of whether such journalists ever caught sight of a college seminar room.”

“They tended to see journalism as a platform for identifying, investigating, exposing, and addressing social and political grievances: such grievances as often enough the customers didn’t see for themselves, but here was a new breed of newsmen to show them what they had missed.”

“The old-style newspaperman whom I came to know face to face in the ’60s was a differently colored nag. He — he usually was that — had far likelier attended a state school than Yale or Harvard or Berkeley, assuming he went to college at all. He was jocular and irreverent in a newspaperly sort of way. Never slugged down a drink of whiskey he didn’t like. Dressed with minimal attention to fashion.”

[SNIP]

I know exactly of what Murchison speaks. Back when I attended journalism school, my lecturers were tough, middle-aged, ex-army men (no women, mercifully). They smoked, drank, and dressed in rugged jeans. They taught you how to write a mean lead (or “lede”). If it didn’t spell out the Who, Where, What, When, and How of the story—well, you heard about it. If the superlatives flowed and your prose was flowery instead of succinct—you were mocked. You were taught a craft, not an ideology—although it was well understood that the richness of your frame of reference would enhance your writing.

“After Watergate,” continues Murchison, “the paradigmatic reporter was a man — or, now, a woman — with a high-minded mission; namely to instruct society concerning its tastes and habits; to improve things. No problem there — a little improvement never hurt anyone. Problems arose only when the bearer of news arrived at the home of the recipient of news with the look of a doctor preparing a rabies injection.”

The complete, American-Spectator story is “Authors of Their Own Doom.”

Part I of the post: “American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.”

Updated: Octuplets One Can Get Behind: Apu & Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon’s

libertarianism, Media, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

I’ve been able to avoid commenting on the curious case of Rod Blagojevich, the creepy politician who’s been singled out for special attention by an equally creepy media and Blagojevich’s crooked peers.

I see I’ll not be spared the scourge of single mother, Nadya Suleman—the interest in the woman who gave birth to octuplets in California last week is simply too great. Suleman, 33, “already had six children before giving birth on Monday,” and now has 14 kids below the age of eight.

The public might not be too enamored of Suleman, or support her plans to hawk these poor mites on Oprah, reports the Times of London, since,

“Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget.”

And:

“Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos.”

Does the Times mean to imply that if the insane sow Suleman had been implanted with, say, four embryos only the dilemma would be no longer?

Talk about asking the wrong questions.

The question a moral society would ask is this:

How does an unmarried, unemployed ho, with iffy finances, and no partner, get fertilized again and again with potential children?

Under libertarian law, such transactions, of course, would not be banned. Since a welfare society would cease to exist, the incentives to manufacture these mites would diminish. One can trust accredited, professional, medical societies to police themselves.

And, of course, neither the government nor the market can eliminate a freak head case like Suleman and the odd quack who’d gratify her craven, selfish needs.

The first problem we have is an extant and growing welfare society that encourages and subsidized degrees of depravity (although Suleman is pretty far gone).

The second problem is immorality: A culture in which the consensus keepers refuse to condemn—or allow a condemnation of—laziness, self-indulgence, and lax morality. Look, Angelina Jolie has an unhealthy fetish she indulges: having or acquiring kids. She clearly gets a kick out of popping them out or adopting them. Once they grow into spoilt, insufferable, stupid brats, she’ll be less enamored of them, although still more than able to provide for her brood.

The thing is, Jolie can afford her fetishes; Suleman can’t.

The risky medical procedure, notwithstanding, my favorite octuplets were Anoop, Uma, Nabendu, Poonam, Pria, Sandeep, Sashi, and Gheet. They were born to a celebrity, married couple: Apu and Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon of The Simpsons. Those were octuplets one could get behind.

Update (Feb 2):Octuplets mom gets TV, book offers” (via Roger).

Updated: Octuplets One Can Get Behind: Apu & Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon's

libertarianism, Media, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

I’ve been able to avoid commenting on the curious case of Rod Blagojevich, the creepy politician who’s been singled out for special attention by an equally creepy media and Blagojevich’s crooked peers.

I see I’ll not be spared the scourge of single mother, Nadya Suleman—the interest in the woman who gave birth to octuplets in California last week is simply too great. Suleman, 33, “already had six children before giving birth on Monday,” and now has 14 kids below the age of eight.

The public might not be too enamored of Suleman, or support her plans to hawk these poor mites on Oprah, reports the Times of London, since,

“Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget.”

And:

“Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos.”

Does the Times mean to imply that if the insane sow Suleman had been implanted with, say, four embryos only the dilemma would be no longer?

Talk about asking the wrong questions.

The question a moral society would ask is this:

How does an unmarried, unemployed ho, with iffy finances, and no partner, get fertilized again and again with potential children?

Under libertarian law, such transactions, of course, would not be banned. Since a welfare society would cease to exist, the incentives to manufacture these mites would diminish. One can trust accredited, professional, medical societies to police themselves.

And, of course, neither the government nor the market can eliminate a freak head case like Suleman and the odd quack who’d gratify her craven, selfish needs.

The first problem we have is an extant and growing welfare society that encourages and subsidized degrees of depravity (although Suleman is pretty far gone).

The second problem is immorality: A culture in which the consensus keepers refuse to condemn—or allow a condemnation of—laziness, self-indulgence, and lax morality. Look, Angelina Jolie has an unhealthy fetish she indulges: having or acquiring kids. She clearly gets a kick out of popping them out or adopting them. Once they grow into spoilt, insufferable, stupid brats, she’ll be less enamored of them, although still more than able to provide for her brood.

The thing is, Jolie can afford her fetishes; Suleman can’t.

The risky medical procedure, notwithstanding, my favorite octuplets were Anoop, Uma, Nabendu, Poonam, Pria, Sandeep, Sashi, and Gheet. They were born to a celebrity, married couple: Apu and Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon of The Simpsons. Those were octuplets one could get behind.

Update (Feb 2):Octuplets mom gets TV, book offers” (via Roger).

Updated: Why Support IlanaMercer.com Through This Winter Of Our Discontent

America, Barely A Blog, English, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Israel, Justice, Media

On the front page of ilanamercer.com, under the heading “Contribute,” linked to the words, “here’s why,” is an essay detailing the reasons to support the site and its proprietor. The essay, “WHY SUPPORT ILANAMERCER.COM,” has been updated with the following compelling inducements:

THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT (January 31, 2009): The economy is not the only object of cooling; the weather appears to be freezing over too. This is why the gabbling, hot-and-bothered Al Gore has substituted “global warming” with the more versatile “climate change.”

Here at the Weather Underground (and @ilanamercer.com), I’ve encapsulated the Gorian illogic thus:

“Evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate Chicken Littles enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.”

As Karl Popper reminded us, “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,” of course, “non-scientific.” What eco-idiots have done is to immunize the theory of global warming against the dangers of scientific refutation.

LET THE SUNSHINE IN. Readers of Barely A Blog were, moreover, introduced, before most in the mainstream, to the concept of “sunspot activity.” In March of 2007, I published an article written exclusively for BAB by N. Baldwin, Jr. It was based on our friend’s book, “Global Warming: CO2, SunSpots, or Politics?

The decrease in sunspot activity—the sun having entered what appears to be a period of solar inactivity, resulting in all likelihood in global cooling—was reported a year and a half later by “Space Daily.” Fully two years after our report, sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions have entered the overheated debate about the climate.

Having failed their readers time-and-again, the establishment media is struggling to survive. Good. Why support a source of propaganda that blows hot air about global warming and is cool to the market economy, the source of our splendid standard of living? Why contribute to the success of major media that have failed miserably and consistently to predict the outcomes of unjust wars, or warn ahead-of-time of the economic havoc wreaked by profligate administrations and their printing press?

The role of the contrarian who cleaves to the natural laws of economics and justice is even more crucial in times of crisis. To get by, such commentators rely on discerning patrons.

You, the reader, are my mainstay. I know you value the ability to come to a place in cyberspace where you’re heard, challenged, entertained—even regaled—and (gently) guided. But understand: This is hard work. It cannot be done without your assistance.

I appreciate your generosity.

ILANA