The more I think about Peggy Noonan's statements on Sunday, the more horrified I get. Noonan is a graceful writer who was particularly hot during the campaign. And yet is there anyway to listen to her comments, and not hear them as a willful endorsement of kind of national blindness?
The job of journalists is to challenge the government and to challenge their readers and viewers. What sort of journalist tells his readers that some things must be mysterious? What sort of writer tells her readers, and viewers, essentially, to not ask too many questions? We have a fine era, when otherwise respected, intelligent, and well-read people step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance. What a mess.
In case you haven't seen them, Noonan's comments are below. George Will doesn't come off any better. I'm less surprised by that. In fact the whole panel is kind of depressing. They've been in the same city for too long.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
who [was?] particularly
challenge [their] readers
jeez. give it a fargin' break. do me a favor. please.
I finally remembered what Noonan's comments (actually, Noonan in general) reminded me of: the dreaded Bliss Ninny!
I think Noonan reflects a grand portion of America, and not just the intelligensia with whom she is generally associated. I noted it in an earlier post, if one wants to get a sense of what Hannah Arendt meant by the banality of evil, we have Ms. Noonan, who in her comment tacitly approves of what she wishes at all costs to avoid bearing witness.
She got caught red handed, and it is chilling to look at--I could only watch once, days ago, but there are a thousand and one ways in which others, ourselves, look the other way on a daily basis.
However, I tend to agree with TN on this; what makes Noonan particularly egregious is that it his her job, her profession, to shine a light rather than obscure such things as government sponsored torture and crimes against humanity, and it is a profound lapse of professionalism--in our free speech, free press based culture--to claim otherwise.
I have never thought that she was a journalist at all. When I heard and saw her during that interview a name came to mind:
Kitty Genovese.
There's no excuse for Will.
But Noonan, she brings something to mind: the women in my family. You see, we had a sexual predator in our midst; he molested and stalked me for years. When I was 17, being the stubborn thing I am, I began telling the women in my family what had happened.
And it had happened to all of them. Grandmothers, aunts, great aunts, cousins, even my own mother. This creep had managed to hit on every single one of them, repeatedly. And every one kept it secret, because it was shameful. And in their shame, they failed to protect babies, like me, being molested for the first time when I was 11.
But you see, he was the good guy; always ready to help out, to fix a broken-down car or washing machine, or pay the overdue bill. . .nobody would believe he did these terrible things. And nobody wanted to drag the family name through the mud. Except everyone knew. So keeping the small bits of security he offered the community, protecting the family name, rode on the increased the risk to girls.
There shouldn't be a mystery here; there should be sunlight, Peggy. Shame on you.
Right on. So sorry for what happened to you, though.
It's okay. Speaking out when I was 17 was very healing.
And it let me know just how strong I am.
Speaking out now, clearing the air, and holding those responsible for wrong-doing responsible will likewise help heal our country.
And that's a very good thing.
This is a reminder of what happens when the stronger don't look out for the weaker, for "the least of these". Thanks for the analogy-- it's stomach-churning to hear about, but good for you that you were able to move past it to a better life. I will keep you in my mind as i help my daughters make decisions in life.
the kind that's smart enough to know the horrors that go on to rule this empire and do very well for herself propping up her little corner of the status quo.
why rock the boat, who knows what the plebs might get up to
Eichmann in Jerusalem: "When I think of the great country of Germany, and the prosecution of me in Israel, it is hard to imagine anything good coming of it. Sometimes life is mysterious, sometimes you just have to keep walking..."
This overrated, cloying, dolphin-deluded, sanctimonius Reagan necrophiliac plumbs America's fetid moral depths with an offhand apology for brutality. A thousand points of light emitted by cattle prods.
Yet she summons enough outrage to call Palin's nomination "bullshit."
As a Christian, one should like to think that she will burn well.
Most excellent poetry
well said
Peggy Noonan is NOT a journalist. She is a hack and a propagandist for hire:
But you don't have to take my word for it:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/punditgate-and-the-enron-journalists/
Nooners is not a journalist. Pundit maybe. Bush apologist, undeniably. Journalist, no.
If Bill Safire and MoDo had a love child ...
Nooner is an idiot. She lost all credibility when she, among many others, practically got the vapours over Commander Codpiece in his flightsuit - Mission Accomplished!
I'm glad you said this, because I was going to say the same thing. Neither of them are journalists, if they ever have been, but I'm not sure if Noonan has ever been one. My earliest memories of her are as a speechwriter, not as a journo.
I too am shocked.
Noonan who should know better is astonishing like the "nice people" of Germany who let Hitler take over while they purred sophisticated ramblings.
The powers that be think we are very ignorant it appears.
I can not believe that they are trying to sell the My Lawyer Said I Could torture defense.
It is brain dead like Noonan's mindless moanings, yet they think it is real.
Has anyone ever heard of Woodward and Bernstein? What if they had just "kept walking" and let life be "mysterious"? What kind of country would we be living in today? It would be worse than the alternate reality in "Back to the Future 2"! Ms. Noonan, go write some fiction, go and be mysterious, go walking, or better yet, JUST GO AWAY! If you claim to be a journalist, then I'm claiming the throne of England.(sorry Charlie) Truly a disgraceful, repugnant, and sad commentary of the alleged "stars" of our national media.
From the latest New Yorker (put together before the memos hit the front pages apparently) a poem by Dora Malech:
Let the Record Show
I spent the morning trying to remember
the joke about a peanut and assault.
People dropped bombs on each other elsewhere.
I knew that many of them were at fault
and many blameless. I kept my office locked
and the lights off. The phone just kept ringing.
I didn't answer. Nor when someone knocked.
I was supposed to be doing something.
Sam was great, calling out Will in Nixonian style, though.
in other non-journalist news....Liz Cheney is apparently out spinning for big daddy dick...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/liz-cheney-defends-father_n_190759.html
So essentially (according to Ms. Cheney), if our soldiers who had these tactics done to them in the SERE program to train them for the TORTURE they would receive in the instance of their capture, then it's OK because other countries are doing it, and it IS torture. However, when we do it, it is NOT torture. Am I missing something? Or this typical neo-con double talk? I'll wait...
Go ahead...wait...just don't hold your breath!
George Will became a joke with this column last week, as far as I'm concerned.
In it, he insinuates that people who play videogames shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they are too juvenile.
As if baseball didn't consist of men playing a boy's game.
Demon Denim by George Will April 16, 2009
who wouldn't want to pay for this in 2009?
I'm reminded of that SNL sketch, "George F. Will's Sports Machine"...
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/george-f-wills-sports-machine/2734/
I think journalists like Noonan and Will spend so much time staring at America, they develop a sort of romantic vision of what they want America to be, and then stick everything they see into that context. David Brooks tends to do the same with politics. It makes for pretty writing in some ways, because who doesn't like a story that makes sense. The problem is that reality doesn't always make sense, it doesn't always fit with the storyline.
She's a former speech-writer, and has always been a columnist raher than a journalist. I would file her under 'pundit', and in this instance a deeply wrong and morally compromised one.
It's Straussianism, which a not insubstantial portion of the right subscribes to. Our elites, who know better than we, sometimes have to do difficult things that we plebians don't understand. A nation needs its myths to survive, but belief in the myths is an indulgence the leaders can't afford.
Very chilling moment there! Having 2 old "elites" close their eyes and smile at laws and morals being destroyed and lives crushed for an erronious policy.
Pegy Noonan has no credibility left, she is the cause of the death of the MSM; highly paid water carrier for the political elites who want to use and abuse the people that elect them. That's why people don't buy newspaper and magazines anymore.
Coates is right but wrong. There have been journalists over time who have attempted to critique government officials. The Detroit Free press won a Pulitzer for busting open the Kilpatrick text scandal.
But to say that it's a journalist's JOB to do this?
Hell no. Since when?
Take an era you'd imagine to be "the golden age of journalism".
Then take the most important political story of the day.
Did the journalists cover that story? If they did, how? How long did it take them?
While I agree with the general critical thrust of Coates' argument (that is, the political critique that he is offering in relation to torture, legality, and human rights), the notion that there is an inherent ontology of journalism is simply untrue. He offers the following:
"The job of journalists is to challenge the government and to challenge their readers and viewers. What sort of journalist tells his readers that some things must be mysterious? What sort of writer tells her readers, and viewers, essentially, to not ask too many questions? We have a fine era, when otherwise respected, intelligent, and well-read people step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance. What a mess."
This is simply unfounded. It is, respectfully, a canard. Journalism is NOT by definition "critical" or an activity fashioning apparatuses intened to "challenge" (power). Journalism has always been and will continue to serve as a normativizing structure. While the critique-to-power edge has been the way in which journalism has earned its stripes among certain folk (generally those on the left who subscribe to bourgeois liberalism), journalism is not composed of some sort of essence whereby its practitioners always push back or "challenge." Furthermore, to offer a negative critique of our era, as a kind of sui generis of journalism's historical trajectory, because there are people who "step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance," to call it a "mess," is to ignore history--and especially American history. From the very beginning of the nation, journalists have been "endorsing ignorance" AND challenging the government--think here of the controversy that led to and followed the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of the late 1790s). Think of the "respected" and "well-read" journalists and writers who turned a blind eye to slavery in the 1850s in order to "protect" the Union. Journalism has always been about politics and particularly about IDEOLOGY. If there is an ontology of journalism it is simply that, A SPACE FOR IDEOLOGY. You all know this: there is no objectivity; there is no attempt to get all the facts. Ideology always clouds how we construct our archives. Noonan here is simply giving voice to what journalists do all the time-LEAVE THE OTHER SIDE "MYSTERIOUS." The point here is that there is no "job of journalists" except to report their particularly ideologies. We can critique their politics, their ideologies, their world-views; we cannot say they are not doing the "job" of the journalist. (My caveat of course is that if they are fudging numbers or purposely mis-representing someone or something, then we have another issue. But if they are doing none of these things then they are supporting their politico-ideologies by "moving-on." Journalists do that all the time. And so do citizens.)
I think you and Lester are confusing the result with the mission. I make no defense of journalism, historically. But the stated aim, is exactly as I laid it out. I don't think even George Will would quibble with it. That many journalists fail at it doesn't alter what they claim to be doing. Political representatives are elected to, ostensibly, "represent the people." I think a history of political representatives would throw the actuality of that claim into question. It doesn't mean it isn't the stated ideal, and one that you can hold people accountable too.
Anything else, is to descend into nihilism and just throw up you hands when you see something like what Noonan did. I don't really have the option of doing that. I'm a journalist.
I'm not suggesting you throw up your hands.
But there are a whole host of ethical standards that journalists should live up to, and that some of these standards are "more standard" than others. Protecting sources for example is something that most journalists strive to do, even when the political context doesn't really allow for that. Striving for "objectivity" is something that most journalists--not columnists or pundits, JOURNALISTS--strive for. This, even though the concept of "objectivity" has all types of problems with it. Plagiarism is a definite no-no, and people who are caught are usually punished severely.
The "speak truth to power" part though? Not so much. Which suggests that there are standards that everyone lives up to, standards that are required to be a card-carrying member of the profession, standards that if violated will lead to unemployment.
And standards that are not.
You are taking a stand and saying that this one standard is the one upon which journalists should rest their hat. You are not alone. But as judged by PRACTICE you are in the minority.
Yes and no. You said that the "job of journalists" is to challenge the government. That is YOUR mission--being on the left. There are conservative, pro-government journalists whose mission is to buttress the state apparatus. Thus, there are at least TWO DIFFERENT stated aims. There is no way to say that journalism or any activity only has one stated aim. As Derrida put it, the only universality is utter singularity. Please tell us who "created" journalism and stated its ontological and sacrosanct aim or mission or "job."
Now, I like your political representation argument. But in my view the term "represent the people" is too capacious to signify anything. Of course a "history of political representation" would not "throw the actuality of that claim into question" because political representation has always in some sense captured the wish of "some" people. Further, "represent" might only refer to demographics and voting in legislature. The Federalists surely did not care what "the people" or "folk" wanted; they fashioned themselves as benevolent patricians who knew what was best for their constituents. Hence in their view they WERE representing the people.
Finally, the notion of a stated ideal is NOT something could ever gain consensus. That is, no one would agree on the stated ideal of journalism, the stated ideal of representation, or even, for instance, the stated ideal of Catholicism (they have traveled a long way from Augustine to Benedict XVI). There is no need to "descend into nihilism" (although Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are always good to read). Instead, it is important to recognize that Noonan et. all ARE journalists (as you do today) and challenge their politico-ideology, rather than whether they are "truly" practicing journalism.
The role of journalists required to be critical in the sense that they have to give critical opinions based on the facts rather than complimentary opinions. However, journalists most certainly ought to report facts in a rigorous and independent fashion, and should do their best to discover facts which it is in the public interest to know. It is for this reason that reportage in the public interest enjoys special protection under the law from the suits of defamation, breach of confidence etc.
When a journalist says that a line of investigation which resulted in the exposure of facts which are most definitely in the public interest was not worth following as it might make people think less of a previous government, she is not acting in your interest, but in those of that government. This is the essential definition of a corrupt journalist - one who does not have the interests of their audience at heart.
I mean 'is not to be critical in the sense that they do not have to etc.'
TNC - allow reader editing of comments, if only to save me from my inability to proofread!
The role of the journalist includes using language that makes an argument clear, not obscure.
Any editor I've worked with would send this back saying use plain language.
Well I am not a journalist.
Also, the writing is quite clear.
Also, the language is plain enough.
What did you not get? I will translate...
Also, clearly you have not worked with an editor at The New Yorker or The Atlantic. The language there is often discursive and not "plain."
One last thing:
Part of that "freedom of speech" thing, that "freedom of the press" thing is that is it FREE TO SHILL FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
While I understand the sentiment in claiming that they are not journalists (they clearly fail to live up to many of the basic standards of their profession) they are, though miserable and miserably compromised, in fact journalists. Lets not let them off the hook by suggesting they are not.
peace.
These people are morally bankrupt, how can one compromise on something so basic as torture? There is no debate to be had on whether torture is wrong or not - not unless one wishes to ignore the last 400 years of history. There are not 'intelligent people' who back torture, but people who start from the position that torture is correct and then reverse engineer a legal opinion from that, whilst totally ignoring the glaringly obvious draw-backs of their position.
Weren't the concentration camps "mysterious"? Poles and other Europeans didn't ask questions, did they? NonNazi Germans didn't ask questions. Noonan astonishes with this horrible remark. Don't look, don't tell. God help us.
Out of this whole horrible nightmare, Noonan's viewpoint is actually the thing that makes me angriest. The idea that we shouldn't look.
What Peggy Noonan said about torture was both scary and sad. I think about the Nuremberg Trials. The British and Russians just wanted to hang all the Nazi's. America said no. If I have my facts right it was Harry Stinson, the Secretary of War under Truman, a Republican who successfully argued for the trials. Justice can only be served when it is based on a foundation of law.