Friedman's "Illicit" Media
11/11/05 07:47
The
journalistic impulse is too often indulged by those
whose arrogance far outstrips their intelligence.
My collegiate exposure to budding newshounds
convinced me of this. There was too often a
positively luminous taint of self-righteousness
running through these nascent reporters' veins.
They glowed with it.
It is understandable. These folks seek the truth. Popular mythology, which helps drive most of us to our ultimate careers, portrays the noble muckracker as the public's hero against the forces of power, greed and the tyranny those two can breed. However, as the Judith Miller episode displays, this self-righteousness can congeal into the belief that whatever the newsman believes is inherently truth. They morph from seekers of truth, to those who own it, and dispense it.
In his NY Times column today, Thomas Friedman rails against the disappearance of "the center" in politics. After mentioning gerrymandering as a cause the writes:
"Add to this the fragmentation of the media, with the rising power of bloggers and podcasters, and the decline in authority of traditional centrist institutions - including this newspaper - and you have what the Foreign Policy Magazine editor Moises Naim rightly calls 'the age of diffusion.'"
In the very next paragraph he complains of "how small illicit players, using the tools of globalization, are now able to act very big on the world stage, weakening nations and the power of executives across the globe." Note that this sentence assumes the rightful supremacy of "nations and the power of executives." Fine. But last time I checked, at least in America, the "nation's" authority comes from the people, and those supposedly "illicit" vehicles are voices of those people, right, left or wrong.
To add weight to his point, he invokes Moises Naim's book, entitled "Illicit." I was struck by the word "illicit" in a seeming reference to bloggers and podcasters. "Illicit" means "unlawful." There is nothing unlawful about podcasting or blogging. At least not yet.
Friedman writes as if this is a notion was gleaned from Naim's book. He never directly says it, but it's implicit in the way the two paragraphs are structured and the conclusions drawn. I haven't read Naim's book, so I ran to the Doubleday link for the book to read an excerpt that might explain how Mr. Naim justifies labeling alternate media as "illicit." The description and excerpt describe a book about markets in illegal goods--from pirated books, CDs and DVDs, to dugs and munitions. Naim, at least from the excerpt, seems to be discussing illegal trade in the book Friedman uses to justify labeling alternate media as "illicit." A look at linked reviews of the book did nothing to suggest that the book labels alternate media sources "illicit."
Is this Friedman's leap? Or does it appear in the book, and if so, in what context? I'm going to get the book, but I fear the former.
Friedman was one of the chief cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. He waxed rhapsodic about a Middle East transformed in the image of enlightened Islam--via American hands. He ignored the fact that the President who proposed this was a lip-diddling idiot. He ignored the hyperbole used by the administration to suggest a link between Iraq and Al Queda in order to sell the war to the American people. He ignored the fact that if you have to lie to sell a war (and everyone knew that the Iraq/Al Queda link was a lie) then you need to question the entire enterprise. He had visions of Middle East sugar plums dancing in his head.
It's understandable that Friedman would consider bloggers like Juan Cole--whose knowledge of the Middle East outstrips his and who used new media to debunk Friedman's contentions--"illicit." Friedman owns the truth. He boldly--even regally--declares his newspaper a beacon of the centrist ideal of the legitimate media. This, the same New York Times at which Judy Miller worked as (in Maureen Dowd's term) stenographer to the Bush Neocons to spread their dubious case for war. It was the paper in which he, Friedman, ignored caution, and good sense, in order to further the Neocon's utopian Middle East vision-- that a bunch of people who didn't know diddly about the Iraq or the Middle East, could swoop in and reverse centuries of history and culture with a sweep of their lordly hands. He refuses to acknowledge that the NY Times has lost its authority not because bloggers stole it, but because the paper forfeited it through sloppiness and arrogance--some of it his.
It is understandable. These folks seek the truth. Popular mythology, which helps drive most of us to our ultimate careers, portrays the noble muckracker as the public's hero against the forces of power, greed and the tyranny those two can breed. However, as the Judith Miller episode displays, this self-righteousness can congeal into the belief that whatever the newsman believes is inherently truth. They morph from seekers of truth, to those who own it, and dispense it.
In his NY Times column today, Thomas Friedman rails against the disappearance of "the center" in politics. After mentioning gerrymandering as a cause the writes:
"Add to this the fragmentation of the media, with the rising power of bloggers and podcasters, and the decline in authority of traditional centrist institutions - including this newspaper - and you have what the Foreign Policy Magazine editor Moises Naim rightly calls 'the age of diffusion.'"
In the very next paragraph he complains of "how small illicit players, using the tools of globalization, are now able to act very big on the world stage, weakening nations and the power of executives across the globe." Note that this sentence assumes the rightful supremacy of "nations and the power of executives." Fine. But last time I checked, at least in America, the "nation's" authority comes from the people, and those supposedly "illicit" vehicles are voices of those people, right, left or wrong.
To add weight to his point, he invokes Moises Naim's book, entitled "Illicit." I was struck by the word "illicit" in a seeming reference to bloggers and podcasters. "Illicit" means "unlawful." There is nothing unlawful about podcasting or blogging. At least not yet.
Friedman writes as if this is a notion was gleaned from Naim's book. He never directly says it, but it's implicit in the way the two paragraphs are structured and the conclusions drawn. I haven't read Naim's book, so I ran to the Doubleday link for the book to read an excerpt that might explain how Mr. Naim justifies labeling alternate media as "illicit." The description and excerpt describe a book about markets in illegal goods--from pirated books, CDs and DVDs, to dugs and munitions. Naim, at least from the excerpt, seems to be discussing illegal trade in the book Friedman uses to justify labeling alternate media as "illicit." A look at linked reviews of the book did nothing to suggest that the book labels alternate media sources "illicit."
Is this Friedman's leap? Or does it appear in the book, and if so, in what context? I'm going to get the book, but I fear the former.
Friedman was one of the chief cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. He waxed rhapsodic about a Middle East transformed in the image of enlightened Islam--via American hands. He ignored the fact that the President who proposed this was a lip-diddling idiot. He ignored the hyperbole used by the administration to suggest a link between Iraq and Al Queda in order to sell the war to the American people. He ignored the fact that if you have to lie to sell a war (and everyone knew that the Iraq/Al Queda link was a lie) then you need to question the entire enterprise. He had visions of Middle East sugar plums dancing in his head.
It's understandable that Friedman would consider bloggers like Juan Cole--whose knowledge of the Middle East outstrips his and who used new media to debunk Friedman's contentions--"illicit." Friedman owns the truth. He boldly--even regally--declares his newspaper a beacon of the centrist ideal of the legitimate media. This, the same New York Times at which Judy Miller worked as (in Maureen Dowd's term) stenographer to the Bush Neocons to spread their dubious case for war. It was the paper in which he, Friedman, ignored caution, and good sense, in order to further the Neocon's utopian Middle East vision-- that a bunch of people who didn't know diddly about the Iraq or the Middle East, could swoop in and reverse centuries of history and culture with a sweep of their lordly hands. He refuses to acknowledge that the NY Times has lost its authority not because bloggers stole it, but because the paper forfeited it through sloppiness and arrogance--some of it his.