http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0wi6QV88i0 Thanks Brendan for this Alterman link:
I thought I would repost it as a reminder.
Liberal is not a dirty word.

Given the early history of the "progressives", in American politics liberal is much better description.

Thanks, graz. I was about to post that link myself, so let me just second your recommendation instead.

Quoting piscivorous: Given the early history of the "progressives", in American politics liberal is much better description.

Sounds like you agree with Eric on this, Pisc. What do you say in response to his assertion that most of today's "conservatives" are not, in fact, conservative?

Note also that an excerpt of Eric's new book is available via the Amazon link on the video page.

Isn't Altermann the loony who thought there was too much free speech on the net? Yes, he is. Here's the quote: I think it would be valuable if we had... uh... I mean, there's some sense where blogs correct themselves if you read enough of them, but I still I think it would be good if we had some sort of, you know, blogging -- you know -- council, where we could condemn people. Sort of... responsible body. You could still blog if you want. Nobody's going to stop you. But we're going to... everybody's gonna know that you're not to be trusted... unless you can sort of apologize or answer for yourself." Well, at least he doesn't use Sock puppets to tell us how great he is.

Quoting rcocean: Isn't Altermann the loony who thought there was too much free speech on the net? Yes, he is. Here's the quote:

I think it would be valuable if we had... uh... I mean, there's some sense where blogs correct themselves if you read enough of them, but I still I think it would be good if we had some sort of, you know, blogging -- you know -- council, where we could condemn people. Sort of... responsible body. You could still blog if you want. Nobody's going to stop you. But we're going to... everybody's gonna know that you're not to be trusted... unless you can sort of apologize or answer for yourself."

Well, at least he doesn't use Sock puppets to tell us how great he is.

It sounds to me like a rating system. This seems to already occur instinctively. No one is going to mistake LGF from Daily Kos. But that doesn't attest to the veracity of either. Reader beware. Did you find anything he said in this diavlog loony?

Yeah Rcocean, a blogging council would generate MORE speech not less. It would just help people decide who's worth listening to and who's not.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/118...9&out=00:16:34 Welcome back Doc! I'd love to hear EA do a divalogue with Will Wilkinson at some point.

I think that Eric's dis of facebook participation (for himself) is a point for his contention that he has conservative aspects. I could see him exchanging dap, but not so, responding to a request for friending (no such verb).

rcocean: Maybe if we had such a thing as a blogging council, there would be standards that people could learn to adhere to, and people would feel encouraged to back up quotes they attribute to other people with, you know, links or something.

I have not yet watched this diavlog, but I have seen previous diavlogs with Alterman and have seen him in various videos on the web. I disagree with Alterman on numerous issues but no more so than with any of my lefty friends. However, for some unknown reason, I find Alterman totally unlikable and completely unbearable. Is this just a result of some unconscious process buried deep in my psyche? Does anyone else have the same feeling? Any chance we can popularize the phrase "Alterman effect" to describe a person with no major character flaws but who is nonetheless insufferable?

Quoting jfarmer: Any chance we can popularize the phrase "Alterman effect" ...?

I'm down. Proposed definition: Alterman effect (n): The state of mind provoked in conservatives when they hear liberal principles explained by someone obviously smarter than themselves (See also: resentment, fear, inferiority complex)

citizenjoe may need a new domain name. i totally thought from the name that it was a (repub) VP recruiting site for sen. lieberman.

I found it interesting that Eric said he didn't care who a politician slept with while trashing McCain for the treatment of his first wife, his philandering and his opportunistic marriage to Cindy. Perhaps Eric's socio-cultural libertarianism isn't as well articulated or understood as he might think. I'm surprised as he seems more introspective than the average liberal. My guess is that in a common sense way unconsciously he understands that cultural libertarianism defined as hedonism/narcissism is as dangerous to the body politic as economic libertarianism. I've learned from Catholic social philosophy that a society devoted to pleasure-seeking is unlikely to be seriously committed to the pursuit of justice or social comity.

Let me make a slight amendment to my earlier post. I do not believe my visceral distaste for Alterman has anything to do with his political opinions. I do not share them, but I rub along quite with all shades of blue, from liberal-in-name-only neoliberals to people who like that guitarist from Range Against the Machine. But however sensibly and articulately Alterman may express himself, I find the guy to be personally like nails on a chalkboard. And I have no idea why. To avoid descending into partisanship, though, I would be more than happy to replace the "Alterman effect" with the "Ponnuru effect," another sensible guy I find completely untakeable (though for reasons not quite as indiscernible as Alterman, since I think it might have something to do with his preternaturally high voice).

The Altermann quote that rocean cites needs a little context. Altermann has long been waging a crusade to neuter those pundits who got it wrong on Iraq and have refused to come clean. His argument: if they were wrong on Iraq, why then should we believe anything they have to say now. So, it’s not really about ‘free speech’; it is more about bloggers / pundits being held accountable for the moral consequences resulting from commentaries they authored that influenced public opinion on important issues.

He is simply insufferably arrogant because he is well aware that he is inarguably competent. I suspect that, for this reason, he alienates as many liberals as he does conservatives. Listening to, and enjoying, Eric Alterman, is not unlike becoming fond of eating raw sea urchin. It is an acquired taste.

By classical definition I'd pretty much have to agree with that one also.

jfarmer Range Against the Machine Weren't they that metal/rap/agit-prop country & western cross-over group from the 90's? Wasn't one of their hits called "Captive Bolt in the Head"?

It's just because he is pretty much much is what would classically be called a jackass.

I enjoyed the link, thanks to both graz and Brendan!

Jackass means “stupid”. If you are going to resort to name-calling, you could at least attempt to get it right.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm down. Proposed definition:

Alterman effect (n): The state of mind provoked in conservatives when they hear liberal principles explained by someone obviously smarter than themselves (See also: resentment, fear, inferiority complex)

LOL! Good one. Alterman is arrogant, no doubt about it. I would say he's kind of like Hitchens, personality-wise. But, as much as I've followed him over the years, I have never seen him as gracious and polite as he was in this diavlog.

So it sounds like we have a book that should be subtitled... "nah nah nahnah nah...I know you are but what am I?" Honestly, I have not listened to the whole thing yet but from the beginning where he conflates an imagined 60% who believe virtually EVERYTHING liberal into a range of 55 to 70%, I found myself just being happy that he teaches English and not Statistics at the college he works at...well at least I was happy until he included the non-word "delegitimated" in the same sentence. So I will withhold judgment. However, I have seen nothing so far that would dissuade me from agreeing that "jackass" seems to be quite apt. (albeit I would apply the connotation I think it was originally prescribed with here (AKA "a dink") and not the one JIM3CH attempts to decry)

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm down. Proposed definition:

Alterman effect (n): The state of mind provoked in conservatives when they hear liberal principles explained by someone obviously smarter than themselves (See also: resentment, fear, inferiority complex)

I suspect you see him as smart because you agree with him. He strikes me as petty and someone who gets uptight when called on what he says.
This is one reason, aside from a lack of time, I stopped doing bloggingheads.tv. It's ridiculous to say something in conversation and to have people treat it as if, well, as if you wrote it in a fact-checked monthly magazine.)
So remember according to his own words, that anything he says in this diablog should not be taken seriously.

I never thought I would be defending Eric Alterman. He is a liberal that I love to hate. But the guy is sharp as a tack. Trying to paint him with a single juvenile adjective just isn’t going to cut it. For those who are interested, below is a debate between Eric Alterman and Tucker Carlson about bias in the media. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...eral+is%3Afree

Quoting Whatfur: he conflates an imagined 60% who believe virtually EVERYTHING liberal into a range of 55 to 70%

Look up conflate in the dictionary; you're not using the word correctly. It appears that you think it means inflate. Grammar tip: Just because two words sound similar doesn't mean they have the same definition.

Quoting Whatfur: he included the non-word "delegitimated"

But deligitimated is a word; it's the past participle form of deligitimate.

Quoting Whatfur: an imagined 60% who believe virtually EVERYTHING liberal into a range of 55 to 70%

But this is true: On practically every issue, Americans are liberal. You could never tell it from the nature of our public (conservative-dominated) debate, but facts are facts. My favorite fact that "can't be true" according to conservatives like yourself is that Slick Willie was more than twice as popular at the height of the Republicans' coup de tat, er, impeachment (72%), as President Bush has been at any time in the last ~3 years. I predict there will be a day in your future, Whatfur, when you come to terms with reality. It's going to be a remarkable experience for you. Right now, you exert enormous energy trying to hold reality at bay; the effort must be exhausting. You will find

Before I finish watching I wanted to comment on the section where Mr. Alterman talks about "Brownie" and the Katrina response. In case you don't know this IS the current stated policy of the government. I listened to Michael Chertoff speak about disaster response at a conference. His message was the government is NOT going to help you. You had better help yourself by being prepared now to deal with wahtever natural disaster or terrorist attack may come your way.
The lady sitting next to me was from Boston and asked the question "What about the thousands of people in her community who absolutely did not have the suggested resources to prepare?" (These resources include a 2 week supply of food, medicine, water, clothes, etc. for every member of the household as well as reliable transportation in the event public transportation was disrupted.) His answer was basically that is not the government's problem.
I would point out here that one third of the residents living along the Texas coastline have no reliable means of transportation. Many are disabled. Katrina is only the beginning of a new era in watching Americans die in disaster while

Quoting bjkeefe: Sounds like you agree with Eric on this, Pisc. What do you say in response to his assertion that most of today's "conservatives" are not, in fact, conservative?

I think the "conservatives" of today would best be described as reactionary radicals. I like to use the term classical liberal to describe myself. Libertarian is too broad a spectrum. Today it is too identified with the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul wing - the paleolibertarians. Eric is right about them wanting to be in your bedroom. Businessmen are not liberal - they do not want free markets. They are profit maximizers. They would love to have a monopoly. They only compete if they have no other choice. I am conservative in the sense that I believe in slow gradual change. The fact that something exists is not in itself an argument for its continuing existence. But take a long, hard look before making changes. I don't like big, radical change. I am a big believer in creeping incrementalism. I think this is an inherently optimistic approach. We may take some steps backwards, some sideways. But we keep lurching in the direction of greater liberty and human progress. I disagree with Obama on many issues but support him because I think he

I have no problem with a website like factcheck.org arising and rating blogs, but if this were a government-sponsored "council", I think this would be a very bad idea, and probably counterproductive to boot.

That's not fair, PaulL; just because you don't think your words in a diavlog shouldn't be treated as though they're in a fact-check magazine doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. I think probably what he means is something like: if I say X in a fact-checked magazine, you can bet that X is a belief I have come to hold after a significant amount of deliberation. Consequently, if X turns out to be erroneous or indefensible then you can hold this against me. However, if I say X in a diavlog, the chance that X is something I hold as a result of a lengthy deliberative process is significantly lower. Consequently, take my words in diavlogs to be first passes at things more than my final words on things.

Well, he’s smart enough to come back to BHtv to plug his new book. It will be interesting to see if he comes back again prior to his next publication.

Wow I'm really glad Blogging heads put Alterman on!
He reminds me of all the reasons I am not a liberal! He is so absolutely wrong about why people like me vote for conservatives and not for the left. It is always a hoot to listen to guys like Alterman define what make the right tick. They only prove how totally out of touch his part of the left really is.

Look up conflate in the dictionary; you're not using the word correctly. It appears that you think it means inflate.

Er...no. If he thought it meant "inflate" he wouldn't have said "conflated 60% with 55% to 70%"; he would have said he conflated 60% with 70%, because, you know, you can't inflate something smaller. He used conflate--"To bring together; meld or fuse"--properly; Alterman melded or fused one number with a range of numbers, some smaller, some larger.

Grammar tip: Just because two words sound similar doesn't mean they have the same definition.

Here's a tip for you: don't give the definition of a word if it undercuts the point you're making when you try to give the definition of the word.

But deligitimated is a word; it's the past participle form of deligitimate.

Agreed, except the spelling should be "delegitimate", right?

But this is true: On practically every issue, Americans are liberal. You could never tell it from the nature of our public (conservative-dominated) debate, but facts are facts.

I've always wondered about this. How much of this is due to framing effects? For instance, you can find polls that show Americans to have extremely draconian views on illegal immigration and also fairly touchy-feely views on

I agree that Chertoff's response is heartless, though I wonder whether the government should subsidize people to move from disaster-prone areas rather than constantly having to come in to those areas and repair things after a disaster happens. (Obviously, if someone was born and raised in a disaster-prone area, it's not their fault they're there, at least insofar as they don't have any money to leave.)

Quoting TwinSwords: But this is true: On practically every issue, Americans are liberal. You could never tell it from the nature of our public (conservative-dominated) debate, but facts are facts.

That depends what facts you rely on. For instance, if you take a poll of Americans regarding support for the Kyoto Protocol, a clear majority will favor it. But would Americans support Kyoto nearly as strongly if it meant that gas would be $7.00 a gallon? Based on observable behavior rather than espoused opinion, I think the answer is clearly no. The same is true with respect to any number of issues, including taxes and social welfare programs.

Quoting Bobby G: Er...no. If he thought it meant "inflate" he wouldn't have said "conflated 60% with 55% to 70%"; he would have said he conflated 60% with 70%, because, you know, you can't inflate something smaller. He used conflate--"To bring together; meld or fuse"--properly; Alterman melded or fused one number with a range of numbers, some smaller, some larger.

I disagree, and I don't think he knows how to use conflate. Alterman did not "conflate" 60% with 55%-70%.

Quoting Bobby G: Agreed, except the spelling should be "delegitimate", right?

Whoops, ya got me. Hoisted on my own petard!

Quoting Bobby G: I've always wondered about this. How much of this is due to framing effects? For instance, you can find polls that show Americans to have extremely draconian views on illegal immigration and also fairly touchy-feely views on illegal immigration. It's not at all clear to me what their real views are, and I have no idea how to find out those real views.

Let's put it this way: A conservative contention that Americans are not liberal depends on rejecting polling data. To put it another way, to the extent we can rely on polling data to accurately measure public attitudes, we can conclude that the majority of Americans are liberal. They may not describe themselves as such, but on

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: That depends what facts you rely on. For instance, if you take a poll of Americans regarding support for the Kyoto Protocol, a clear majority will favor it. But would Americans support Kyoto nearly as strongly if it meant that gas would be $7.00 a gallon? Based on observable behavior rather than espoused opinion, I think the answer is clearly no. The same is true with respect to any number of issues, including taxes and social welfare programs.

Yeah, OK. If you attach something bad to each question, you will lower the number of people who sign on. As I said above, it comes down to whether you believe polling can be used to measure political orientation. If I were a conservative, I would have an interest in arguing that it cannot.

At about 26 minutes in, Alterman claims the idea of liberals' elitism and conservatives' non-elitism is ridiculous, pointing out along the way that conservatives' children go to the same schools as liberals' children, they go to the same parties, they live on the coasts, etc. I agree with Alterman's point insofar as he's talking about the conservative punditocracy and comparing it to the liberal punditocracy, but I think there is a sense of elitism prevalent among liberals that there isn't among conservatives (I'm speaking in fairly gross generalizations, of course). For instance, a lot of people in the professional classes--lawyers, professors, businesspeople--tend to be socially liberal and to place a lot of stock in their social liberalism as being a banner of their moral righteousness. Certainly a lot of religious conservatives take their social views to be a badge of moral righteousness too, but I think a lot of conservatives find themselves defensive around liberals (especially when it comes to things like politically sensitive speech), and liberals find themselves in something of a crusading mode. Insofar as conservatives find themselves being defensive, they're going to resent liberals telling them how to think, and they're going to

I disagree, and I don't think he knows how to use conflate. Alterman did not "conflate" 60% with 55%-70%.

I don't think you can just say you disagree with me and leave it at that. I actually gave a reason for why conflate must be the proper word here and inflate is not. I don't think you can brush this off.

Whoops, ya got me. Hoisted on my own petard!

This is just McKean's law: "Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling, or typographical error."

Let's put it this way: A conservative contention that Americans are not liberal depends on rejecting polling data. To put it another way, to the extent we can rely on polling data to accurately measure public attitudes, we can conclude that the majority of Americans are liberal. They may not describe themselves as such, but on the issues, they side with the liberal position.

I guess I'm in the camp that rejects some polling data for the framing effects reason that I brought up.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, OK. If you attach something bad to each question, you will lower the number of people who sign on. As I said above, it comes down to whether you believe polling can be used to measure political orientation. If I were a conservative, I would have an interest in arguing that it cannot.

Perhaps, but the argument that people's espoused opinions do not match their observable behavior has solid empirical evidence to support. The question is what you believe matters more -- people's actions or their words. To me, the former are much more important in assessing what people believe in. When considering someone's policy preferences, I care much more for how and whom they vote for than what they tell pollsters.

Quoting Bobby G: I have no problem with a website like factcheck.org arising and rating blogs, but if this were a government-sponsored "council", I think this would be a very bad idea, and probably counterproductive to boot.

I agree completely. I'm not sure what Eric was speaking of (although Jim3CH's context rings a vague bell), but were anything like a "blog council" to arise, I would only want it to be an independent effort that surfers could refer to as they chose. I wouldn't even like to see such an organization develop a "stamp of approval" or anything like that. Seems to me that there already is somewhat of a self-regulating mechanism in place, just by the nature of the blogosphere. Many posts, after all, are based in large part on reacting or responding to something that someone else has written. There is an echo chamber problem, of course -- people sufficiently committed to believing in something are not likely to seek out other sites that question their favorites -- but I doubt any specific blogging council would change such peoples attitudes. It'd just be another thing that some people saw as biased if it criticized too often their

Quoting TwinSwords: Look up conflate in the dictionary; you're not using the word correctly. It appears that you think it means inflate.

Grammar tip: Just because two words sound similar doesn't mean they have the same definition.

No, TwinSwords, I meant "conflate" not "inflate". But, both can be assigned here depending on whether the point you wish make starts with the 60% or finishes with it.

Quoting TwinSwords: But deligitimated is a word; it's the past participle form of deligitimate.

That would probably be true if "deligitmate" was word also, unfortunately its not either. Did Eric happen to be YOUR English teacher? Not quite as common, but his is like people saying/using the non-word "irregardless". In this case, I think you really need to actually check a dictionary before you continue down this road of ignorance. If you are really astute after you discover YOUR word does not exist you will go on to discover the words delegitimize, and/or illegitimate. Nice try though. It must be important to you to try to show me up, eh? Here's a "tip" for you, when you try to show me up, choose something where you actually are correct... otherwise you come off as BOTH petty and foolish. And speaking of foolish... EA here stated that

... who read this article on America's unique tolerance for hate speech? As much as I loathe the coarseness, scurrilous attacks, rumor-mongering, and everything else bad that comes along with our anything-goes attitude in this country, I am happy to accept these in return for not having to deal with what Maclean's is dealing with in Canada. (I doubt that I'd have any sympathy for the article in question, based on other things I've read by Mark Steyn, but I do have sympathy for his right to call it as he sees it.) Better to leave it to social norms as a judge and ostracizing as a punishment, however imperfectly that sometimes works out, rather than trying to impose some set of official standards. Anyone not agree?

Quoting jfarmer: Let me make a slight amendment to my earlier post. [...]

Yeah, I was just kind of teasing. I could see how Eric's occasional abrasiveness and dismissiveness could rub some people the wrong way. And if you're predisposed to find a New York City accent harsh, that probably doesn't help

Why are progressives/Liberals not talking about Gun Control? It seems these are Alterman's definition.
Conservative = Anything I disagree with.
Liberal = Anything I disagree with. John Mccain is running again an entirely. He will have to run a completely personal campaign because he is out of touch with Americans on every single issue. Every single significant issue.
How about these issues Eric? Which I am guessing Eric agrees with and therefore every American agrees with.
No drilling in ANWR
Cap-and-Trade System
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
I suspect the weaseling will be.
A) Those are not significant issues.
B) Why are you treating the statement as if, well, as if Eric wrote it in a fact-checked monthly magazine.

Quoting PaulL: I suspect you see him as smart because you agree with him.

I don't think that's right. I would grant the possibility that I don't find his personality off-putting for this reason, but smartness always weighs heavily when I form impressions of people. Someone else mentioned Hitchens, and this is a good example of this -- there are many things that Hitchens says that I completely disagree with, but I do think of him as a smart guy, and will take him seriously when he opines on anything. Another example is Paul Krugman -- I didn't agree with much of what he had to say about the Democratic primaries, but I still think he's smart. A third: I disagree more often than not with what I see on The American Scene, but I read that blog regularly just because of the vibe of intelligence. And here on BH.tv, I can think of several people with whom I often disagree, but whose intelligence I nonetheless respect. Eli Lake, Brink Lindsey, Daniel Drezner, Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, Eugene Volokh, and Conn Carroll all come to mind, and I'm sure there are others.

Quoting artoad: I found it interesting that Eric said he didn't care who a politician slept with while trashing McCain for the treatment of his first wife, his philandering and his opportunistic marriage to Cindy. [...]

I'm not positive, but my memory is that Eric was using this as an another example of the approach he says he took in his book -- to point out the inconsistencies between what conservatives preach and practice, as a way to point out the emptiness of the charges that conservatives love to make about liberals. [added] Magic Flea's dingalink corrects me, somewhat.

Quoting JIM3CH: IFor those who are interested, below is a debate between Eric Alterman and Tucker Carlson about bias in the media.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...eral+is%3Afree

Check that link, would you, please, Jim? I'm getting an error when clicking on it, and it sounds like something I'd like to see.

Quoting Whatfur: ... but from the beginning where he conflates an imagined 60% who believe virtually EVERYTHING liberal into a range of 55 to 70%, I found myself just being happy that he teaches English and not Statistics at the college he works at...

First, it's easy to see how this might be a true statement and not an example of innumeracy. Here's one likely scenario: The data that Eric had in mind concern people's views on a set of issues, and people prefer the liberal position on different issues by different amounts. Just to make up an example, it could be that 55% of people favor a more progressive tax scheme, 70% think Social Security should be not be privatized, and different amounts, between 55 and 70%, pick the liberal position for ten other issues . Averaging over the set of studies might yield an aggregated 60% preference for the issues considered as a whole. Second, I don't think it's fair to say this the 60% is "imagined." I'm sure that in his book, Eric offers all the references you could ask to back up these claims. I know I've seen lots of similar polling results. You can probably nitpick at some

Quoting Bobby G: I agree with Alterman's point [about elitism] insofar as he's talking about the conservative punditocracy and comparing it to the liberal punditocracy, but I think there is a sense of elitism prevalent among liberals that there isn't among conservatives (I'm speaking in fairly gross generalizations, of course).

I think you should also bear in mind conservative politicians, especially at the national level. There are very few people in office who aren't rich or who don't come from a privileged background, conservative or liberal. Add to that the near-universal disdain for playing by the rules, especially as regards ethics. I think you should also consider the leading voices of the fundamentalist Christians who are active in politics -- almost all are quite well off and all of whom feel completely entitled to assert that their views on how society ought to behave are superior.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: He is so absolutely wrong about why people like me vote for conservatives and not for the left.

I notice you didn't care to expand on this. Are you able to, or is it really more the case that you just don't like his personality?

Re: the conservative politicians: I don't think there are in fact too many conservative politicians who particularly like the coasts, the kind of music a lot of coastal liberals like, the food, etc. I think there really is a cultural divide between a lot of the conservative political leadership and the liberal political leadership, though I think conservative pundits and liberal pundits are more or less the same in everything except political views. As for the fundamentalists, I think this is more complicated than you're presenting it. For one thing, while they do indeed say that their views are morally superior, I think they feel those views to be under siege in a way that liberals do not feel their own views to be under siege. Every liberal I've ever met is nothing but optimistic about the future of gay rights and stem cell research, though they are admittedly less certain about abortion rights (I don't think they feel they are losing the culture war about abortion, though, only the supreme court war). Conservatives, meanwhile, feel like the future is bleak for their social views, and many want, as a result, simply to be uninterfered with by the

Bobby G:

Re: the conservative politicians: I don't think there are in fact too many conservative politicians who particularly like the coasts, the kind of music a lot of coastal liberals like, the food, etc.

I don't agree with this, but even if I stipulate to it, I'd still say that this is hardly the full measure of what constitutes elitism. I'm aware that the caricature of elitism is expressed in these terms, but the real measure goes far beyond personal tastes for leisure and dining choices. Elitism is also made up of things like wealth, access to those in power and to inside information, ability to network within higher socioeconomic strata, preferential access to things ranging from school admissions for their kids to sweetheart business deals and job offers, and so on.

As for the fundamentalists, [...]

I take your points here about the fundies and their mindset of persecution, but I don't think they have much to do with the issue at hand -- elitism. I'll also note that most of their "under attack" yammering strikes me more as a way to rouse the rabble than anything they have any realistic right to worry about. Despite their

Quoting bjkeefe: ...

Second, I don't think it's fair to say this the 60% is "imagined."
...

To qualify this with "taking the liberal position on virtually every single issue" makes it certainly imagined...and even he hedged on the number adding "or so" before making it a range with a rather large margin for error. ...and sorry your example is a bit convoluted...again "virtually every single issue". By this token, examples are unnecessary, are they not?

Try this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KDlay6DA&hl=en Or this: http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view1962889.html or just google Alterman Carlson debate and you'll find a way. It's good.

And you perceived just what I was intending because you know me so well right. I tend to use just the word I am looking for and your interpretation that I meant something else is off base.

Quoting Whatfur: To qualify this with "taking the liberal position on virtually every single issue" makes it certainly imagined...and even he hedged on the number adding "or so" before making it a range with a rather large margin for error.

...and sorry your example is a bit convoluted...again "virtually every single issue". By this token, examples are unnecessary, are they not?

I'll grant that "virtually every issue" is overly sweeping. Probably better to stick "major" in there. If you're still interpreting "55-70%" as a margin of error after the proposed explanation I already gave, I can't help you. Either you can't be bothered to read, you're unwilling to entertain anything contrary to something you've already decided, or you don't understand statistics as much as you might think.

Jim3CH: Both links look fine. Thanks.

First, I have no evidence that rich fundamentalists give more to charity than other rich people; I was instead drawing attention to (what I suspect is) the fact that you don't know either. I'll grant that elitism is not exhausted by having the right tastes, but you make it seem as though money and connections are the only thing that count. Having the right tastes is something very real; it helps to determine what kind of self-conception you're capable of having. If you don't like what are considered the music, food, movies, TV shows, and don't know what are considered the important facts, there's going to be a real sense in which you are cut off from being a full-blooded elite. That said, money and connections are clearly important. They help to determine what sort of opportunities are available to you, what kind of health care you can get, what kind of car you can get, etc. These are clearly very important things, and should it come to having to make a choice between full-blooded social acceptance and these things, almost no one would choose social acceptance over material well-being. But if you have material well-being, then not

Like all polls it is a matter of how you
1 Frame the issue
2 word the question. Earlier some said that (paraphrased) "of course if you attach something bad to it
they will not support it. What one sees is "bad" another might see as the logical consequence of an action they are polling about. There are no neutral polls and few neutral pollers.

I randomly asked a bunch of people if they were racist and they all said no. Clearly, this proves that nobody is racist. Polls don't lie!

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll grant that "virtually every issue" is overly sweeping. Probably better to stick "major" in there.

If you're still interpreting "55-70%" as a margin of error after the proposed explanation I already gave, I can't help you. Either you can't be bothered to read, you're unwilling to entertain anything contrary to something you've already decided, or you don't understand statistics as much as you might think.

Let me be sure I have this straight Brendan. Your "proposed explanation" began with the words "Just to make up an example". So, I am suppose to somehow be swayed by the statistical genius of someone making up a scenerio with made up numbers. ?? That's pretty funny. Now, if you were "backpeddling" for EA, well I am sure he would appreciate it...but to castigate me for not swallowing your fictional portrayal...well...

Quoting JIM3CH: Try this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KDlay6DA&hl=en

Or this:

http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view1962889.html

or just google Alterman Carlson debate and you'll find a way. It's good.

Thanks Jim.
The top link played through completely (not the second). But the video quality is compromised. What does a Libertarian like Tucker suggest doing to balance out the newsrooms? How do you get the hicks from the sticks, the homo-haters from the hinterlands and the Pious from the biased in the positions that he believes matter?

Quoting Bobby G: First, I have no evidence that rich fundamentalists give more to charity than other rich people; I was instead drawing attention to (what I suspect is) the fact that you don't know either.

Yeah, but again, I fail to see what this has to do with the issue under consideration (elitism) and I fail to see how even the possibility that rich fundamentalists give more in charity changes the fact that they are elites. I mean, Bill Gates is by far the most philanthropic person ever. Are you going to say that he's not an elite person?

I'll grant that elitism is not exhausted by having the right tastes, but you make it seem as though money and connections are the only thing that count. Having the right tastes is something very real; it helps to determine what kind of self-conception you're capable of having. If you don't like what are considered the music, food, movies, TV shows, and don't know what are considered the important facts, there's going to be a real sense in which you are cut off from being a full-blooded elite.

I didn't mean to make it sound like money and connections were the only

Whatfur: I am not asking you to accept my hypothetical as the last word. I tried to point out that there is an easy way to understand what Eric was saying as something other than a number followed by a margin of error. It seemed obvious to me that he was not, in fact, using those numbers in this way. At any rate, I can see you're quickly drifting back into your usual pattern of trollish obtuseness and sarcasm, so I'll leave it at that.

I think we've gone on too long, but by the right tastes, I certainly don't mean Bach and arugula; I mean Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, The Decembrists, etc.; I mean Italian crudo, corn tortillas over flour tortillas, etc. Stuff White People Like has a fairly good run-down of what I mean by elite tastes. I have other things to say, but I'll stop there.

Quoting Whatfur: I'll stick with my own "reality", thank you...if the other choice is your's... I am not sure I could handle the constant embarrassment.

Or maybe you could choose one where you don't have to be right all the time.

Quoting Bobby G: I think we've gone on too long, but by the right tastes, I certainly don't mean Bach and arugula; I mean Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, The Decembrists, etc.; I mean Italian crudo, corn tortillas over flour tortillas, etc. Stuff White People Like has a fairly good run-down of what I mean by elite tastes.

I have other things to say, but I'll stop there.

Sounds like a joke. If not, I would dispute that what "Stuff White People Like" defines elite tastes. If they are to you, well, that is again just a matter of taste, isn't it? And again, I think these things are trivialities in the context of what makes someone part of the elite or not. I don't care if someone finds my eating and listening preferences low brow. What I do care about is that person being able to get the ear of someone in Congress when I can't. But since you want to drop this, I will, too.

Maybe I spoke too soon. The Google link worked when I first visited. When I tried to return, to watch the video, I got an error page -- video not available. The second link seems to work, still.

Insufferably presumptuous comments at the end from this Julia about "How much were you edited?" and what Julia would do with Eric's chapter titles and "lots of good stuff" were she his editor. I went to citezenJoe. It's also pretentious. "We just couldn't believe how all the policy information on the web was so slanted, so we came to gether to form a website where you can get the STRAIGHT DOPE on policy content." Okay, I'll be sure to check all my fact-gathering agianst citizenJoe to make sure I'm not getting any hooey!

Quoting bjkeefe: Whatfur:

I am not asking you to accept my hypothetical as the last word.
...

Oh I'm sorry Brendan, I thought that by the way you followed up your hypothetical ...that unless I DID accept it that I was either beyond "help", could not "be bothered to read", was "unwilling to entertain anything contrary", and that I "don't understand statistics". So, my bad...here I tried to show that I did actually read it, that I found it entertaining (I think I said "pretty funny"), and that I tried to show that I actually do understand statistics by demonstrating that you provided nothing resembling anything statistically relevant... All the while, trying not to be as harsh as your follow-up deserved. But as I am back to being called the obtuse, sarcastic, troll; I guess I was not successful in the latter. Oh well...tomorrow is another day.

Quoting handle: Or maybe you could choose one where you don't have to be right all the time.

I have to apologize, fur. I forgot to adjust my response to your way of thinking, which is from what I've seen, an unbending adherence to the black and white. I think I can help with the embarrassment, first you might want to attack the use of psuedo-statistics, but then interpret the vloggers intent as to say "most people" blah blah but "significantly fewer people" ect.. Then you don't appear nit-picky or small minded in arguing the greater issue, which is, say, you don't think so 'cause rush Limbaugh quoted a wingnut blog that says the opposite, or what ever it is that you seem to feel is a reasonable rebuttal. Of course you have no way of avoiding my embarrassment at belonging to your species.
Maybe we should avoid the projection of embarrassment on anyone since it is, after all, a personal visceral response, not triggered by any universal set of standards...

Quoting handle: I have to apologize, fur.
...

As Brendan said...we can leave it at that.

Update: Second link worked and played all the way through without problems for me. It's a pretty good debate. Tucker Carlson comes off as glib and uses a few arguments that struck me as either outdated or unsupported by evidence, but he also made some good points. It's interesting to see Eric Alterman in this context, knowing that he was just starting to work on the book that he talked about in this diavlog.

Quoting Whatfur: As Brendan said...we can leave it at that.

Whoh! Let's see, you took the sarcasm literally (sarcastically), and pretended to have ignored the rest! That's deep! Score one for Bill O', wait... fur, wait... halibur...
You remind me of a kid in the neighborhood who watches superheros on TV and then wears a cape everywhere he goes.
The BO thing only works in a controlled environment i.e. Fox studios. When he goes out in public he looks like the mean-spirited, angry blowhard he really is.
WAAAIIT DON'T TURN OFF MY MIC!!! I STILL HA

Whatfur: I'm going to have to go back on my word that the above was my last word because I don't want to let your previous comment stand. Again, you're twisting what I said. I did not say you had to accept my hypothetical as the truth. I asked only that you admit the possibility. The reason I said that it appeared you couldn't read or understand statistics is that you persisted in treating your interpretation -- the margin of error thing -- as the only possible way to have heard that. This is why I called you obtuse. And again, you're unable to keep the offensive tone out of every comment you post. Except, of course, when you're feeling sorry for yourself when I or someone else objects to your inability to show some basic courtesy. To you, it is all about scoring cheap points under some misguided belief that you have to "win" every time you're in a discussion. That is, when you're not just flat out provoking people for the sake of provocation. This is why I called you a troll. Your recent absence after I called you out on your personal communications -- which, I note for the record, you

It's hard to put Dr. Alterman's views on character more clearly than he did. Watch the clip and then try to answer what he thinks is important and what he thinks isn't.

Yeah, I liked the debate too, and I think they both came off well (though Alterman had the statistics to hand and Tucker didn't), but I think Alterman, who was careful enough to point out that "the media" refers to a vast, motley crew of characters, was a bit quick in assuming that the five or six corporations that own the media are anything like monolithic or single-minded organizations. He and Tucker both seemed to agree that corporations' employees will be loathe to criticize their corporate masters (I don't in fact know whether this true, though), but why wouldn't the employees of one of the big five or six criticize the remaining four or five members?

Quoting Whatfur: So it sounds like we have a book that should be subtitled...

"nah nah nahnah nah...I know you are but what am I?"

So I will withhold judgment.

Nice conflicting post. I will use your reverse psychology:
Don't watch this

Quoting Bobby G: ... but I think Alterman, who was careful enough to point out that "the media" refers to a vast, motley crew of characters, was a bit quick in assuming that the five or six corporations that own the media are anything like monolithic or single-minded organizations.

I didn't pick that up. It seemed to me more that he was saying that giant corporations have inherent conflicts of interest and put pressure on their employees when it comes to reporting on anything that's a part of the corporation. I suppose if you mean by "single-minded" their focus on profits, I could agree, though I wouldn't say it would be possible to be too quick to make this accusation.

He and Tucker both seemed to agree that corporations' employees will be loathe to criticize their corporate masters (I don't in fact know whether this true, though), ...

I can speak from some first- and lots of second-hand information that this happens all the time. As either Eric or Tucker noted, it is often not direct, but more of a culture of understanding. Or, the punishment isn't as draconian as firing, but a career can get sidelined. And have you heard about the restrictions

Quoting bjkeefe:
Your recent absence after I called you out on your personal communications -- which, I note for the record, you have yet to apologize for -- gave me some hope that perhaps you had taken a few days to reflect and had returned with some adjustment in your attitude. I can see I was wrong to have held that hope.

My personal take was that he was out making compelling arguments to largemouth bass as to why they should jump in his boat....

Quoting bjkeefe: I notice you didn't care to expand on this. Are you able to, or is it really more the case that you just don't like his personality?

Brendan: Some of us work for a living and I had a contractor waiting for approval of some work so I needed to be brief and there were some Peregrine falcon chicks that needed to be checked on on the side. It is so drool to hear Eric attribute the the mantle of speaking for All conservatives to Bill O'Riley and Ann Coulter that I couldn't help laughing out loud. I suspect that Bill and Ann would understand the joke. It is apparent that Eric hasn't a clue of what makes small "r" republicans tick. I could not care less what the Fox News set think. I seek my council in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution. This is not a democracy it is a Republic, so the legitimate citizens of the American Republic are the only people who count in this equation. If you are not a citizen you don't get a vote and your opinion doesn't count with me in the

Quoting bjkeefe:
I'm going to have to go back on my word...

I'm shocked!

Quoting bjkeefe: ...I called you obtuse.
...I called you a troll.

And I'm sorry... what did I call you here?? Maybe you can point
to it for everyone. Ya know, Brendan, if you don't want people to point out when you are all wet, don't show up dripping...or better yet just don't show up.

Your recent absence after I called you out on your personal communications -- which, I note for the record, you have yet to apologize for -- gave me some hope that perhaps you had taken a few days to reflect and had returned with some adjustment in your attitude. I can see I was wrong to have held that hope.

Don't flatter yourself...any reduction in posting here is due to the fact that I actually have a job and a life. I can only guess, based on your 16 hours a day of posting here, they are just two more things you know very little about.

Richard: Sounds to me like you've tried to define yourself as quite different from most conservatives. Which is good for you, but I don't see how it undermines Eric's general observations. I do not for a second believe that more than 1 in 10 self-identified conservatives have ever read William F. Buckley, let alone any of the founders. I'd be surprised if it even broke 1 in 100. Also, I am hard-pressed to know exactly what conservatism to you means just by your rattling off names like Ronald Reagan and especially, John McCain. Does this mean you favor lower taxes for the rich and huge budget deficits? A preference for military spending over everything else? A willingness to suck up to the religious right to achieve power?

Whatfur Says:
I may be a troll but at least I am employed by my trollmaster.
As for my life... I insist that I have one.
Don't let my small minded and failing attempts to compete with real argument to fool ya.'

Quoting graz: I may be...a..
fool ....'

and a master of alliteration.

Quoting Bobby G: ... but why wouldn't the employees of one of the big five or six criticize the remaining four or five members?

Did you see today's diavlog? Interesting bit to add to my earlier reply on this question. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but fairly compelling nonetheless.

I didn't pick that up. It seemed to me more that he was saying that giant corporations have inherent conflicts of interest and put pressure on their employees when it comes to reporting on anything that's a part of the corporation.

Yeah, it was this I found him implying, and somewhat hard to believe. As for the single-minded focus on profits, I didn't hear him imply that, but from what I remember of reading his book, the profit-motive plays a role in his argument. Though, more on that presently.

I can speak from some first- and lots of second-hand information that this happens all the time. As either Eric or Tucker noted, it is often not direct, but more of a culture of understanding. Or, the punishment isn't as draconian as firing, but a career can get sidelined.

Food for thought. I'll take your word for it; it doesn't sound very hard to believe. Still, I wonder how much people don't stick their necks out because of partially unjustified fears?

And have you heard about the restrictions that many news organizations place upon their employees regarding blogging on their own time and web site? It is, for some organizations (CNN is one, if memory

Bobby G: Nothing really to add. Where you and I differ, I'm mostly of the mind to think that there are probably elements of validity in both of our points of view. For example: I was going to agree with your point that journalism, or more broadly, a career in the media does seem to be an area where there are more chances to jump ahead by standing apart from the pack. On the other hand, it occurred to me, being distinctive is a big plus in all but the most soul-crushing lines of work. Distinctively good, I mean. So, maybe it's true that being distinctive just for the sake of distinction, as opposed to winning on talent, does make a media career one where it's unusually fruitful to risk leaving the herd. Of course, this also means that we've seen a profusion of paparazzi and gossip columnists, and shock jocks and shouting heads. In the end, though, I tend to worry less about bias than I do about the apparent looming death of news that people are willing to pay for. As Eric pointed out in that debate, good journalism is expensive. Watching the layoffs and buyouts going on

I agree with you that that's the biggest worry. I'm a bit more sanguine about it, though, given the Michael Totten model. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see a patronage system for journalists like we used to see for great artists.

Quoting Bobby G: I agree with you that that's the biggest worry. I'm a bit more sanguine about it, though, given the Michael Totten model. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see a patronage system for journalists like we used to see for great artists.

I missed something here I guess. Is the Michael Totten model you refer to one of an independant journalist?

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: I randomly asked a bunch of people if they were racist and they all said no. Clearly, this proves that nobody is racist. Polls don't lie!

This reminds me of an old Tom Tomorrow cartoon that showed a couple looking at the newspaper. The man said to the woman, "It says here that 76% of people say you can't trust polls." The woman replied, "Well if that many people believe it, it must be true!"

Quoting Bobby G: I agree with you that that's the biggest worry. I'm a bit more sanguine about it, though, given the Michael Totten model. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see a patronage system for journalists like we used to see for great artists.

In one sense, I guess I agree with you -- I keep waiting for a few billionaires to decide that what this country really needs is another good newspaper, and to gamble that more reporting, not less, will make money in the long run. But really, a patronage system strikes me as a terrible solution. Think of Richard Mellon Scaife -- hiring people to do nothing but hatchet jobs on Bill Clinton. This is what I am afraid what a patronage system would mostly be -- a bunch of people who can afford it hiring people to "watchdog" their enemies. (NB: I am not saying this applies to Totten.) I'd much rather see people figure out how to make money from online journalism. Although ad revenues aren't growing as fast as one might like, it could be that they will continue, and quite healthily, as print newspapers continue to dwindle in circulation and TV viewership continues to fragment. Maybe

I think I typed too quickly...by patronage system I don't mean just big rich dudes buying journalists and telling them to do stuff, though there would be that (as there is already); rather, I mean a combination of the following: (1) Rich people or organizations pay journalists to do whatever they want;
(2) Rich people or organizations pay journalists to do something in particular (Scaiffe, Soros, etc.);
(3) Journalists produce good work and so get online donations, a la Totten;
(4) The US government sets up a fund where journalists, aspiring and established, submit proposals and receive grant awards depending on the proposal. And let me emphasize that what I had in mind would be for only those kinds of stories that require in-depth reporting for weeks at a time; I think reporting on the day's events and finding journalists who do both day-to-day reporting and in-depth analysis will remain, just because there's so much demand for them.

Yeah, I took it that Totten is a (financially) independent journalist. I don't know much about him, though, so I could be totally off.

Bobby G: Your suggestions could work. Indeed, we can probably find examples of all of them in place already. And if no one can figure out how to keep a team of good reporters on staff in a sustainable business model, those may be part of what comes next. Thanks for the elaboration.

Quoting MikeDrew: Insufferably presumptuous comments at the end from this Julia about "How much were you edited?" and what Julia would do with Eric's chapter titles and "

Oh, I don't know. Although I like him, Eric could use a little starch taken out of his sails. I did wonder at her suppressed smiles. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11821?in=00:53:11

Excellent Diavlog. Good to see and hear Eric Alterman discussing his book. In her review, Julia alludes to Eric creating a strawman when discussing conservatives. I wish Eric had addressed that.

"Liberals have a real wimp problem", "They have Stockholm syndrome". "The media elevates wimpy Liberals". Great quotes by Alterman.

Eric Alterman with Mickey Kaus would be a treat. Wonder what he makes of Kaus' famous contrarian streak and habit of dissing Democrats. Eric Alterman with Ramesh Ponnoru or Jonah Goldberg would be nice too.

Quoting TwinSwords: I've got to be in a meeting at 11:00, but I'll come back tonight and post some data.

Last week I said I would post some data to support Alterman's contention that Americans are liberal. I have now done so, here: — Are Americans Liberal?

Great diavlog. Liberalism is indeed a great tradition. It is the intellectual tradition of the Enlightenment. It includes people like David Hume, Adam Smith and John Locke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism I don't like the word "progressive." The intellectual history of progessivism is too tied up with Marxism.

Julia Kamin is one of the weaker people I have seen on this site. She may write better than she speaks or the forum may been set up to put her into an purely interviewing role. I like Alterman-- his brashness and not suffering fools gladly. He was polite here because he was being thrown to do by a softball pitcher. She simply facilitated-in a kind of irritatingly mousey way--his, mostly, interesting unilogues.