JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 21, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Andrew Sullivan digs in on his claim that Journolist was "collusion," corruption," and "playing strategic games to cover or not cover events." Let me quickly run through his points:
1. He accuses me of hypocrisy because I described the old left-liberal group "Townhouse" as an attempt to coordinate message, but I deny the same description of Journolist. This is because Townhouse was described by its creators as an attempt to "have a unified message in the face of a unified conservative noise machine." Journolist was not described this way by its creators, nor did it function that way.
2. He writes, "the point of it was to foster common ground and when that atmosphere encourages proposals for calling Republicans racists purely as a strategy, and when there are emails calling to ignore the Wright issue to a group of liberal bloggers and writers as a political strategy, it's obviously an unhealthy, cliquish and corrupting aspect of today's polarized media climate."
Okay, so he asserts that "the point of [Journolist] was to foster common ground." The evidence for this assertion is that the "atmosphere" led to Spencer Ackerman writing a crazy post. Now, the actual purpose of Journolist was to function as a virtual water cooler. People said off-the-cuff things there because you say dumber and less well-thought out things when you're bullshitting around the water cooler than when you're writing for public consumption. However: quoting a crazy Spencer Ackerman email is actually a terrible example of this phenomenon, because Ackerman writes crazy things on his blog. The suggestion that "the atmosphere" of Journolist fostered such craziness is, in this instance, totally wrong. The atmosphere that fosters crazy Ackerman posts is Planet Earth. (I think he's dialed back the craziness of late.)
3. Referring to the one instance where some writers formed a group letter, he concludes," several members clearly saw it as a Townhouse replica, organized petitions, suggested common media strategy, and so on." Note how far this is from his original accusation that the list was created in order to decide whether or how to cover certain events. The accusation of using an email list to coordinate coverage is a serious one. It would mean that people were making decisions about what to write, or not write, behind closed doors, and readers would never know that they were acting out of coordinated political motive. But the open letter is the precise opposite of that. It was an instance where people were completely transparent with readers about their beliefs.
Moreover, even that was quickly deemed too activist, and thus contrary to the purpose of the list, to be allowed. So even if you think that writing an open letter is the same thing as secret message coordination -- and it isn't -- then the example still proves the opposite of what Andrew claims. The one time something he calls message coordination happened, it was expressly banned because it was contrary to the purpose of the list. How can this show that coordination or even political activity was the purpose of the list? If a McDonalds cashier had sex in the bathroom, and the manager discovered it and fired him, would this be evidence that McDonalds is a sex club?
4. This note at the end of Andrew's item is interesting:
I have long belonged to a small list-serv for right-of-center gays that informs me all the time of facts and events and legal issues. And it is an attempt to create a space where the intimidation of the gay left can be resisted. But it is not a massive network of journalists talking about how to manipulate their work to promote a party line.
How is that any different than Journolist? Journolist was a space for liberals to shoot the shit in a casual way, or sometimes to promote their work or post queries. Why doesn't Andrew release all the emails from his gay center-right group so we can judge whether it was a cabal? I;m sure you could find an email somewhere where a member wrote something impolitic, or somebody suggested a topic deserved more or less attention than it was getting in the press. Come on, Andrew, let the sunlight in.
11 comments
I just read Andrew's ludicrous post over at The Daily Palin before I arrived at the far saner TNR. His belonging to that list-serv is not one whit different from belonging to the now-defunct Journolist. This is much ado about nothing. Is your extreme animus toward Israel coloring your reactions to the writings of one J. Chait, Andrew? By the way, A., Hitch is as wrong on Israel as you are. No matter how much land was stolen initially, you can't redress that injustice unless you have an actual partner for peace. The isn't much of a constituency for peace among the Palestinians, but you just haven't noticed. You talk up Michael Oakeshott, yet you skew hard political realities and fantasize away.
- liberal reformer
July 21, 2010 at 1:12pm
I sometimes wonder what is gained by responding to Sullivan's concern trolling. I guess I can see the appeal of knocking down his fallacies, but it seems like a waste of space, and not really much exercise.
- subterran
July 21, 2010 at 1:35pm
I love the man, but he's buried himself here - your point 4 is especially hilarious JC. You see, HIS list has only the purest of motives. YOUR list was naughty and made people, oops excuse me "fostered an environment" where people said bad things exposing their bad motives. I can't imagine that he'd even let one of his students pass off such a poorly supported argument.
- WandreyCer
July 21, 2010 at 2:19pm
Thank God for the Old Media, which takes seriously the notion that one must suspend prejudices, however well-intentioned, that might obscure or hinder the honest collection and presentation of facts. Most bloggers are egotists, and as the facts are pulled into their gravitational orbit, they are distorted into fodder for their arguments, which as often as not are founded on personal animosity. It has nothing to do with journalism.
- roqabs
July 21, 2010 at 2:47pm
Incidentally, doesn't Sullivan's preferential treatment by the government after being cited for marijuana possession--and preferential was the judge's term--in order not to imperil his immigration status disqualify Sullivan from being deemed an impartial commentator in regard to political affairs in this country? The judge said anyone else would have been prosecuted, but the government intervened mysteriously on his behalf and dropped the charges. What was the payoff? Why was Andrew Sullivan above the law? What if an immigrant from Mexico had been caught with marijuana by the police?
- roqabs
July 21, 2010 at 3:33pm
From U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings: IV. The Issue Raised in the Instant Case In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances. If there were a legitimate reason for the disparate treatment, the Court would view the matter differently. But the United States Attorney refused to allow the Court to inquire into why, in the circumstances of this case where Mr. Sullivan had already been charged with the crime, either a forfeiture of collateral or an adjudication would make a difference in the immigration application. But there is more. If, in fact, a determination that Mr. Sullivan had possessed marijuana is a factor which, under immigration law, the immigration 9 Again, the Court takes no position on what the law should be regarding the effect of a prior possession of marijuana on an application for immigration status. That is a matter which is in the province of the Congress. Similarly, the Court takes no position on how the immigration authorities should exercise their discretion when presented with applications by persons who have either been convicted or forfeited collateral for possession of marijuana. If the law gives the immigration authorities the discretion to determine the weight, if any, to be given this circumstance in making their decision on the applications, presumably authorities could determine that the application is not to be adversely affected. 8 authorities are legally charged with taking into account when deciding Mr. Sullivan’s application, why should the United States Attorney make a judgment that, despite the immigration law, the charge should be dismissed because it would “adversely affect” his application?9 If other applicants for a certain immigration status have had their applications “adversely affected” by a conviction or a forfeiture of collateral for possession of marijuana, then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences? In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.
- roqabs
July 21, 2010 at 3:41pm
Always interesting what can be accomplished while bullshitting around the water cooler.
- lsernoff
July 21, 2010 at 4:14pm
And here I'd been thinking that the TNR blogs were bullshitting around the water cooler. I'm gonna get a water cooler. Sounds like fun.
- roidubouloi
July 21, 2010 at 4:31pm
Jonathan Chait writes: -- However: quoting a crazy Spencer Ackerman email is actually a terrible example of this phenomenon, because Ackerman writes crazy things on his blog. The suggestion that "the atmosphere" of Journolist fostered such craziness is, in this instance, totally wrong. The atmosphere that fosters crazy Ackerman posts is Planet Earth. (I think he's dialed back the craziness of late.) This is gutless cowardice. Chait has ample opportunity on his blog to criticize any post by Spencer Ackerman as and when it is written. Instead, he chooses this vacuous attack mentioning no specific post simply asserting that Ackerman writes crazy posts. This is an utterly ludicrous assertion. But then Ackerman writes for a real online magazine, wired.com, while Chait is stuck here with a few readers watching his reputation being flushed down the toilet when he defends Martin Peretz and his so-called liberal magazine.
- ndmackenzie
July 21, 2010 at 10:53pm
You can always spot pathetic writing by the pleonastic adjectives. What would gutful cowardice be?
- liberal reformer
July 21, 2010 at 11:23pm
I'm with WandreyCer. The technical term for point 4 is, I believe, a "whoopsie." It upends Andrew's argument, sending his earlier points crashing to the floor.upon which, one says "whoops." In the spirit of Breitbart (and Michaels) I'd like to offer the sum of $300 for the full archive of Andrew's center-right gay listserve.
- jmaharry
July 22, 2010 at 9:34am