Yes, it is true that Klein starts with an ideological premise and then procedes to sift through and filter out any pertinent facts that do not further her political agenda.

But how is that really any different from mass media publications that sift through and filter out arguments that might overly offend their adverisers?

At least in Klein's book there isn't an advertisement jumping out at you on every other page. She can feel reasonably free to express her opinions with little or no concern that she might offend one of the corporate sponsers.

In recent editions of TNR, there were ads for Monsanto, Crowell and Moring legal firm [with clients that include Dupont, Alcosa and AT&T], Citgo, World Affairs magazine, and T Bone Pickens, CTIA, GM, PAX investments, FLAME, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Exxon Mobil etc.

None of this is to suggest any symbiotic, conspiratoral alliances or agendas unfolding. I am only pointing out that whether it is ideology or advertising dollars you have to dig down between the lines of almost anything you read these days.

george walton

George Walton, you're being weasely.  

The point of Chait's article was that Klein's argument doesn't fit the facts -- including some of the facts that she cites in her own books.  You concede this, but then imply (with the word "but") that she's less culpable than she might be otherwise because other people do the same thing for ad revenue.  

This does not follow.  Either Klein is right or she isn't.  The behavior of journalists from ad-driven "mass media publications" is interesting, but isn't even slightly relevant to Klein's culpability.  

Androscoggin writes:

George Walton, you're being weasely.

The point of Chait's article was that Klein's argument doesn't fit the facts -- including some of the facts that she cites in her own books. You concede this, but then imply (with the word "but") that she's less culpable than she might be otherwise because other people do the same thing for ad revenue.

This does not follow. Either Klein is right or she isn't. The behavior of journalists from ad-driven "mass media publications" is interesting, but isn't even slightly relevant to Klein's culpability.

George responds:

I've been accused of being a ferret, a polecat, a skunk and a badger. But a weasel? Never. I had to look it up in order to to find out that "weasel words" reflect an "informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts."

Yet why in the world have so many men and women been arguing now for over two millenia regarding what "the facts" tell us about our moral and political value judgments?

In my view, your own assumption is flawed in that it presumes anyone who diligently collects and collates every single fact there is to be known about capitalism can then render a judgment that, in turn, reflects the optimal point of view. Since that is, of course, practically impossible [and fails to acknowledge the role of emotional and psychological reactions] all we are really left with is more rather than less introspective pondering.

But, yes, I agree with you that culpability regarding distortion [or exaggeration] in a journalist's or a pundit's point of view can be [but does not necessarily make it ] a facet of both pecuniary and ideological weltanschauungs.

Still there is just something more tangible [even commonsensical] about noting a relationship between corporate [or NGO] sponsers and the political bent in any publication.

george walton

(1)  "A facet of both pecuniary and ideological weltanschauungs"?

Judith Butler called; she wants her prose back.

(2)  You write: "In my view, your own assumption is flawed in that it presumes anyone who diligently collects and collates every single fact there is to be known about capitalism can then render a judgment that, in turn, reflects the optimal point of view."

This does not relate to anything I said. I'm not assuming the possibility of objective reporting. My point is actually very simple:  Klein's integrity (or lack thereof) is one issue; and the integrity of journalists other than Klein is a separate issue. That's why I didn't like the following sentence: "But how is that really any different from mass media publications that sift through and filter out arguments that might overly offend their advertisers?"

Klein is a bad economic historian -- and if every single outlet in the world published nothing but puff pieces on advertisers, this would not make Klein a good economic historian.  It's a separate issue.

Androscoggin writes:

(1) "A facet of both pecuniary and ideological weltanschauungs"?

Judith Butler called; she wants her prose back.

George responds:

Has it not yet occured to you that I might BE Judith Miller? Indeed, I have to email her from time to time to confirm that I'm not

Aandros writes

(2) You write: "In my view, your own assumption is flawed in that it presumes anyone who diligently collects and collates every single fact there is to be known about capitalism can then render a judgment that, in turn, reflects the optimal point of view."

This does not relate to anything I said. I'm not assuming the possibility of objective reporting. My point is actually very simple: Klein's integrity (or lack thereof) is one issue; and the integrity of journalists other than Klein is a separate issue. That's why I didn't like the following sentence: "But how is that really any different from mass media publications that sift through and filter out arguments that might overly offend their advertisers?"

Klein is a bad economic historian -- and if every single outlet in the world published nothing but puff pieces on advertisers, this would not make Klein a good economic historian. It's a separate issue.

George responds:

Not to worry. Lots of people are fully convinced that those who disagree with their point of view clearly do not know what that point of view is. In fact, sometimes you can only know for sure what you mean when others tell you they know for sure what you cannot possibly mean.

As for Klein's integrity, the basic rule of thumb here [for pundits] is that the further away another's point of view is from your own, the less likely they are to even HAVE integrity. Although I will confess here and now that I don't read Klein [often] because so much of her own integrity is anchored up in the clouds of rhetoric. But then she bascially admitted this up front in a recent New Yorker profile.

Let's just say she is not up to organizing much of anything.

As for the connotation you choose to apply to the relationship between journalists covering the news and media corporations selling advertising space between the stories the reporters write, I have 2 reactions:

The first is that most mainstream media journalists/reporters/op-ed columnists etc. get their information about the capitalist political economy [here and abroad] from reading each other. They are often so embedded in the institutional parameters of what can and cannot broached in the media, it never even occurs to most of them there are other more radical narratives.

In fact, I would be very, very suprised if more than a handful of them can even outline the historical

evolution OF political economy.

And many I suspect probably think that politics and economics, while crossing paths all the time in the media, are still essentially different things. Sure, there are the revolving door relationships between Washington and Wall Street and K Street. That is written about all the time. But these are surely just aberrations that the liberal news media takes pride in exposing.

And that's where it stops. Beyond that very few newsmen and newswomen will venture.

My second reaction is admittedly more nebulous. I think that increasingly [especially in these toxic economic times] more and more folks who gather and report the news see more and more clearly how economic transactions are thoroughly infected and infested with political corruption. But they end up censoring themselves because they figure if they go too far in exposing the belly of the beast they may well end up not having a job at all.

On the other hand [paradoxically], I am not one inclined to tear the system down. Instead I always come back around to paraphrasing Winston Churchill's take on democracy: "Capitalism is the worst kind of economy...except for all the others we have tried."

So it is certainly not my intention to sanction anything that smacks of revolution. I am a pragmatist and I hope that Barack Obama is as well. I just wish that more folks in the media would at least be more honest [or curious] about the relationship between process, policy and power.

george walton

That was a great review

What pdxl said. It's about time that getting your facts completely wrong counts, even if your heart is in the right place.

Next up, Naomi Klein's explication of the upsides in the Soviet collectivization of agriculture and Mao's Great Leap Forward.

Chait methodically decapitates Klein, many fell swoops and thousands of tiny cuts.

Itzik Basman