Orson Scott Card's open letter
Stevie Nichts
(Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper
columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while
lamenting the current state of journalism.)
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local
daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it
before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a
vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be
more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
authorized to approve risky loans. [...]
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was
a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money
and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the
deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican
Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be
treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or
"Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney
Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems,
who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory
agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were
still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting
sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
[...]
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely
preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was
... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was
... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and
Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press
did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized
Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for
the bailout! [...]
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would
have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in
your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have
buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call
Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign
had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away
with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed
as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never
tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any
principles, you would be pounding this story, because the
prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-
sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of
leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor,
you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe
that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. [...]
g crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the
Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are
responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be
insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election
chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the
truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's
what honesty means . That's how trust is earned. [...]
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even
know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you
will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand
for?
Ernst Blofeld
very convincing one. I don't think shaming them will work.
David Johnston
<nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>(Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper
>columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while
>lamenting the current state of journalism.)
Orson Scott Card is one of those "Democrats" who never seems to have a
good word to say for his ostensible party.
4787 Dead
No, Ernie, your ability to shame anyone vanished over the last eight
years.
As did every right winger's.
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
boo-radley
writing Sci Fiction or alternative American History (Alvin Maker
series)
The author and sponsor of the biggest banking/securities deregulation
bill was Phil Gramm (R) Texas
McSame's economic advisor.
Ernst Blofeld
---
The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits
on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered
by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.
The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the
third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from
13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a
year ago. ...
Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was
lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status
---
There's secular bad news for newspapers, since their distribution
model and business model is dying. But a lousy product isn't all that
great for the brand, either.
4802 Dead
You know what's funny? Newspapers in the rest of the world are doing
fine.
Just the North American ones, bought up by corporations and run to
business, rather than journalistic standards, are dying.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Ernst Blofeld
><blof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, there is this:
>>---
>>The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits
>>on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered
>>by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.
>>
>>The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the
>>third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from
>>13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a
>>year ago. ...
>>
>>Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was
>>lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status
>>---
>>
>>There's secular bad news for newspapers, since their distribution
>>model and business model is dying. But a lousy product isn't all that
>>great for the brand, either.
>
>You know what's funny? Newspapers in the rest of the world are doing
>fine.
>
>Just the North American ones, bought up by corporations and run to
>business, rather than journalistic standards, are dying.
Newspapers are victims of TV and internet news... just like magazines
of th 50s and 60s were victims of TV entertainment.. Why would I
bother with a newspaper when I can get my up to the minute news on my
cellphone?
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own
highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be
earned.
_Ayn Rand "ATLAS SHRUGGED"
Ernst Blofeld
> Just the North American ones, bought up by corporations and run to
> business, rather than journalistic standards, are dying.
Your concession that the NYT is not run to journalistic standards is
noted.
Jeffrey Turner
> http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
>
> (Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper
> columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while
> lamenting the current state of journalism.)
There's a lot to lament about the current state of journalism.
But it's clear that Card isn't an economist.
> An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local
> daily paper in America:
>
> I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's
> journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it
> before the public, because the public has a right to know.
>
> This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a
> vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
>
> It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late
> 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be
> more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
> authorized to approve risky loans. [...]
Well, not really true. Fannie and Freddie didn't get into the
subprime markets in a big way until 2002-03. And that was because
investors saw other banks making huge profits in the mortgage
markets and pressured them to.
> Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who
> produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a
> position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was
> a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money
> and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the
> deregulation of mortgage lending?
Deregulation was only the enabling factor here. The real story is
Gresham's Law for investments.
> I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican
> Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be
> treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or
> "Fannie-gate."
Oh, the irony. The subprime fever hit the non-CRA banks first, and
the removal of the wall put up by Glass-Steagall made the insurers
less wary of the over-rated mortgage-backed securities. That,
together with an ideologically-driven lack of oversight from Bush
administration regulators is what cranked up the expansion of mortgage
backed securities into the subprime area.
> Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney
> Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems,
> who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory
> agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were
> still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting
> sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
> [...]
A nice fairy tale, but Fannie and Freddie were late to the feast,
and motivated by greed for quick profits - not by government
"do-gooders" intent on putting po' black folk into houses they
couldn't afford.
> These are facts.
Like I said, there ARE problems with the state of journalism today.
> This financial crisis was completely
> preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was
> ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was
> ... the Republican Party.
Ah, twere it only so.
This "letter" should end with "And they all lived happily ever after"
or something equally appropriate to a fairy tale. The real facts just
don't back it up.
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
gjoh...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Ernst Blofeld
> <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The mass media is still making a pretense of objectivity, but not a
> >very convincing one. I don't think shaming them will work.
I agree. The only problem is that you think they are all pretending
to be objective when they are really all part of some
konspiracy to back the Democratic party.
I think they are pretending to be objective when they are really
just obeying their corporate masters, which happen to be conservative.
The difference is that my opinion makes sense in the real world and
yours doesn't.
>
> No, Ernie, your ability to shame anyone vanished over the last eight
> years.
>
> As did every right winger's.
Not every right winger, Just the defenders of the Bush
Administration. That just happens to include every single usenet
Republican.
gjoh...@gmail.com
The "letter" is typical for the economically illiterate Republican.
It's takes a small fact that happens to be true, and makes it into an
overwhelming "truth" that doesn't reflect reality.
Ernst Blofeld
> I agree. The only problem is that you think they are all pretending
> to be objective when they are really all part of some
> konspiracy to back the Democratic party.
You seem to have adopted some dumb ironic rhetorical strawman from
ages ago as a serious proposition. It isn't a conspiracy. The
reporters and editors are mostly lefties, and that viewpoint informs
their coverage.
> I think they are pretending to be objective when they are really
> just obeying their corporate masters, which happen to be conservative.
Pinch is a conservative?
Phlip
> ago as a serious proposition. It isn't a conspiracy. The reporters and
> editors are mostly lefties, and that viewpoint informs their coverage.
One important GOP attitude: "Claim my greatest strength is my greatest
weakness".
TV news has been solidly supporting the GOP for decades. News reports about
overcompensated CEOs don't go very well between advertisements for gas
guzzling cars and the latest wonder pills.
This is why modern "reporters" who barely deserve the title will throw
softball questions to McCain, then read questions from McCain's own playbook
to ask Joe Biden.
Ernst Blofeld
> This is why modern "reporters" who barely deserve the title will throw
> softball questions to McCain, then read questions from McCain's own playbook
> to ask Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is being asked tough questions? On what planet? The guy is a
walking gaffe machine. If Dan Quayle had said half the things Biden
has there would be a USENET news group devoted to his stumbles.