A regular at Lawyers Drugs and Money references the "progressives/liberals/Democrats are wrong, but not quite for the reason you think" flavor of many pieces at Slate, particularly focusing on William Saletan's "advice" to promote abortion rights.* Now, some time ago, I recognized the skills of those who professionally had to act even if done so in a rather bad way. Simply remembering those lines (how those on stage do it, even if they miss a few, is especially hard to fathom -- newbies must have cheats of some sort) is amazing.
The same might be said about those who write articles -- you try to do it (well, they do have editors) on a consistent basis, even if it is true various aspects leave something to be desired. Anyway, there is probably something to the idea that some editors and publishers aren't too concerned if the material leaves something to be desired. Various reasons. First, given all the content, there simply cannot always be consistently good material. Second, many readers accept this or in some fashion do not rebel. Third, some readers like responding to the stuff -- see Slate fray (it's fun, I got to say) -- and tend to continue reading all the same (with limits -- see Kausfiles). Finally, some do eat it up overall.
Still, one can justify this stuff only so far. First, there are seriously good blogs (hint on my style: I cite Glenn Greenwald a lot, but it is just meant to serve as a convenient example, suggested by how many things he himself cites; I also like citing a court opinion to get a flavor of what I'm saying since it too expands out to other sources) by many who actually do other things too (GG apparently is doing this full time now, but that wasn't always the case). The amount of material they provide underlines "it's hard" is not a great excuse. Second, for all those who criticize, many go along with the wrong-minded stuff. Finally, simply, if it's wrong, it's wrong. This especially includes those from sources like Slate that have the veneer of consistently liberal.
Last time, I briefly cited the magazine's two pieces on Wesley Clark -- when a question made it a perfectly relevant statement to make -- saying that McCain's service record doesn't necessary give him the executive experience necessary to be President. HORRORS! Focusing on the "gaffe" over the substance, and adding some alleged reasons for it, those articles are helping McCain to promote a false message. I note as well that some want to take the Obama camp off the hook as well, see also the FISA issue. But, as my link last time noted (expressing an event also cited by TPM, Digby, GG, Balloon Juice, Lawyers Drugs and Money, etc., all trustworthy sources), his own spokesman said Clark did something wrong. Something Obama didn't agree with. What exactly?
[Much less clear is claims Obama is backing down on his Iraq policy. His wording might cause some to distrust him -- mistrust not helped by some of his actions on FISA, the Iraq Occupation, etc. -- and healthy distrust is pretty much a good thing when it comes to executive power. Still, this seems about right. Responding to simplistic framing will be a continual concern for his campaign.]
Anyway, this entry was directly inspired by that new trend -- Slate hands writing NYT Book Review pieces. The latest was Jack Shafer on Arianna Huffington, and it fits in the above narrative fairly well. This isn't too surprising -- he is a self-interested party, a subject of part of what AH is criticizing -- the MSM. A reader might miss the point by reading the review, since it doesn't really let us in to the (admittedly fairly obvious) point that there is a clear conflict of interest here.
Either way, the review is dubious on various points overall, missing the point on such things as the media bury the lede (the fact certain info is mentioned doesn't mean it is emphasized as compared to other material), the repeated examples of the Democrats -- even while in power -- enabling Bush, and the fact that yes, Jack, McCain is not that much of a sign of the Bush Republicans losing, even if some conservatives don't like the guy. And, is Shafer serious when he says that "accusing the Democratic Party of pussyfooting after it has retaken both houses of Congress and now knocks on the White House door with a liberal candidate doesn't scan" ... where the hell has he been?
Now, AH probably trusted too much in McCain in the past -- a closer look probably would suggest he didn't change too much deep down. And, polemics tend to be somewhat overheated, leading to some patronizing cynicism. But, Shafer's "why is she so upset" routine is annoying.
---
* One major point made by LDM is that we should take the realistic likely result of abortion policies and decisions, as well as their potential scope, over some rosy-eyed view of things. Thus, Casey et. al. does not necessarily lead to the likes of Kennedy's "partial birth abortion" ruling, but by weakening the level of scrutiny required and welcoming many more regulations, the result is unsurprising. This results in things like the "misinformed consent" ruling that twists precedents in ways that sadly is not only predictable, but probably not too opposed by those who supported the weakened Casey path.
[OTOH, even some against abortion find the ruling troubling, on pragmatic and free speech grounds. The various posts on the XX blog over there, including the piece on Eve from Wall-E, btw, good reading]
The dissent in the federal appellate case is good reading, including cites to the likes of Scalia and Thomas to underline the slanted moralistic script [talking about embryos being "life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being"] physicians are required to read under the law, as well as a reminder that the same attorney "here unsuccessfully advocated for a common law rule [in a New Jersey case] requiring physicians to make strikingly similar statements to their patients."
I'd add that requiring physicians to tell women that they have an "existing relationship" with their embryo is dubious too. What does that mean? Do women have relationships with their fertilized eggs too?