1412 Picking up the Press Thread

Jay Rosen has reopened the thread on Austin Bay's post at his site. I know, I know. It's very confusing. But as near as I can tell from Neo-Neocon and Neuro-Conservative, Rosen invited Bay to provide some advice on how the Bush administration could be more open to the press. He wanted to start a dialog (in left-speak that means he wanted to change minds). Rosen got mad at the commentors, even though most of the 35,000 words were really pretty reasonable and well thought out. In academe (which is where I come from) we believe strongly that information or discussion will CHANGE minds. My entire career was built on that! Now when have you EVER changed someone's mind by anything you wrote or said? It's possible you added a missing piece, but you didn't change it. It's usually cummulative based on many life experiences AND bits of outside information. And it isn't just on politics, it could be anything--health, relationships, parenting, religion, etc. My story, for instance.

So here's some comments on the new thread. Not much heat or light here. I have no idea who Mr. Anderson is, his age or profession. Mark Anderson writes at http://poorrichardsalmanac.blogspot.com/ and disregards copyright the way he posts the whole shooting match on his site. These are a few of his "ho-hum why have you bothered and wasted my time" comments. If I were Mr. Rosen, I'd be more distressed by this attitude:

“But at the end of the day, he [Austin Bay] is a man who makes his living as a professional right-wing media operative. “

“every word Bay has to say on your blog is toward the end of advancing the same agenda Hughes and Hewitt “

“What makes Bay more than a super neo-con troll on steroids presenting his design for full-spectrum neo-con media dominance aside from his having better manners? “

“Why do you see Bay's PR strategy as a serious discussion about the future of the press and your commenters [sic] affirmation of the bias Bay self-consciously advances in his post--in precisely the manner he intended to elicit by what he wrote--as dumb bias discourse? “

“Wasting my time reading a respectful and articulate neo-con plan for full-spectrum neo-con media dominance that is not as immediately self-destructive and reality-challenged as Karl Rove's totalitarian approach bores me. . .”

“Austin Bay's bias rant makes me feel dumber. Why do you post it? Why aren't you bored by it? Being annoyed with the commenters' [sic] bias-oriented responses to your posting Austin Bay's bias rant is like being annoyed that Yankees fans show up for Yankees games.” [I think I need to diagram this sentence.]

Jay Rosen conceived a nice religion page called The Revealer, a daily review. . . which I used to read. Now written by Jeff Sharlett. But the little asides from the writers were just too much. Too much editorializing to be "news." Sort of Maureen Dowd with hat and gloves and sensible shoes, but you got the message. Like this pithy entry to Shalett's comments on the Pat Robertson flap:

"Olsen [Christianity Today] adds to the drumbeat of evangelical leaders denouncing Robertson's assassination fascination, with links to denunciations (read: distancing) from evangelical bigs such as Os Guiness, Al Mohler, and Marvin Olasky, coiner of "compassionate conservatism," who, in so many words, suggests that Robertson is a doddering old fool. . ." Jeff Sharlett [Warning: this is a tricky site to navigate; watch your clicks--I'm not even positive Sharlett is the author] Almost drips with scorn doesn't it, as "drumbeat of denounciations" gets downgraded in an aside, like a hurricane, to "distancing" and a compassionate conservative almost says "doddering old fool [he didn't]."