Range of opinion from AEI to AEI

My friend C. -- an astute observer of the news media -- writes (I cleaned it up a bit and added the links):

Earlier tonight, ABC had an item on North Korea; during that item, they put on a clip of Danielle Pletka, underlabeled American Enterprise Institute. More blah-blah, and then a clip of David Frum, underlabeled Ex-White House Speech Writer.

Not only they didn't specify WHICH White House, but I suspect that they met him while walking the hallways at the AEI, looking for Danielle. Yet, they made it look as though it was a SECOND opinion, from another angle (saying the same thing), hiding the fact that he's also at the AEI!

There was also more blah-blah, and then an ex-Asst. Sec. of Defense. For all I know, he was also at the AEI!

This is how they sneakily try (and succeed, in most cases) to pull the wool over our eyes (but they have to be sneakier than that to fool me).

C. raises an interesting issue. These think tanks are mostly about producing talking heads for rent, with quick and easy access to the news nets, and 24/7 p.r. machinery to ensure that their fellows get on the air. The think tanks' affiliations or financing are never identified giving viewers the impression that the spokespeople are neutral braniacs with objective opinions.

Not surprisingly, right-wing think tank representatives outnumber left/lib ones in the media three-to-one.

Is this just lazy ''journalism'' by overworked show bookers who need to fill as much airtime as possible as easily as they can? If so, you'd think they'd stuff a few leftie think tank names into their Rolodexes. There are plenty of them.

So it's gotta be something else.

I wonder what ...

UPPITY DATE: According to commenter Andy Vance, the third talking head was Lawrence J. Korb, now a fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress. Interestingly, he used to be with the AEI, but apparently saw the light.

Comments

[Dave W.]

"Is this just lazy ''journalism'' by overworked show bookers who need to fill as much airtime as possible as easily as they can?"

This is a rhetorical question, right?

It's all about ENTERTAINMENT! (See Chayefsky, Paddy, movie "Network", 1975; substitute "Fox" for "UBS" wherever found.)

So, propose that a certain skinny blonde rightwingding would be much improved with a .45 calibre hollow-point in the forehead, and get yerself a booking!

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

'So it's gotta be something else. I wonder what ...?'

Well, consider that a 'committee' is well defined by 'four or more people sharing a brain.'

When one considers the caliber of politians who run for office, one realizes that collectively they represent a 5%tile group groping in the dark for answers to support their predeterimed position.

Therefore, following mathematical principles, they can increase the mental acuity of their efforts by increasing the number of semi-functional minds involved.

Likewise, as any marketing or progranda master knows if the message is repeated often enough it either is accepted, and becomes a part of society, or self-extinguishes.

[sooey]

one good thing about neo-con think tanks is that they keep neo-cons off the streets: "you look like a generous serf of the nanny state. could you spare a few hundred grand for an office and a computer so that i can write my policy paper "Liberals - Men with an Ace" without all these shirkers about telling me to find my own corner?"

[johnnykap]

Mme. Z, in today's polarized environment, very few people don't think there isn't any inherent bias coming from think tanks, radio and tv shows, and newspapers. Give the plebes some credit. Why do you think "right wing" (sic) think tanks outnumber left whing think tanks 3 to 1? Could it be that we have more passion for debating ideas than lefties? Why, yes, that is plausible. Could it be that we actually have more ideas? That's possible, too. Given that all 3 national governments in North America are conservative, we need a bigger feeder system of ideas, since it is our ideas that are becoming public policy. But don't worry. You're still well represented on the talking head shows. Correction, you have a large quantity of representation. I shouldn't say you're well represented.

[Andy Vance]

The third guy was Lawrence Korb, who's now with the Center for American Progress. So that's something.

The bigger problem is that the report (available online at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2177077) was mind-numbingly stupid. Thanks, Jake Tapper, you hunka hunka brainless goo.

[True North]

The poor American MSM consumer doesn't have a chance to get the straight goods.

Take this editorial on The Wall Street Journal that supports it's warped view of what needs to be fixed in US elections - by claiming Canada is one of the nations with a healthy electoral system due to its Photo ID Laws - 5th paragraph. http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008630

Photo ID laws? How about laws and decent funding for a non-partisan elections commission - and paper ballots. Oh, sorry, these ideas are off limits to Americans.

WJS is making up facts to push the BUSHCO police state solution.
Truthyness in action.

[Ti-Guy]

"If so, you'd think they'd stuff a few leftie think tank names into their Rolodexes. There are plenty of them."

Well, there are lefty think tanks, but as Garrison Keillor said, liberals/lefties tend to call their think tanks "Universities."

[Darwin O'Connor]

I feel the media should not be looking at both sides of the issue and letting the viewer sort it out. Often one or both sides will have nothing to say but logical facallies. The media should even bother publishing those. ("When he was reached for comment, nothing of substance was said")

They should be working to find out the facts and present those. When the facts aren't available, explain the problem and keep digging.

[Todd]

Darwin O'Connor said:

"They should be working to find out the facts and present those. When the facts aren't available, explain the problem and keep digging."

Laudable, but facts aren't something that get presented in a vacuum, nor are they completely insulated from the influence of Power. And capitalist media demands instant results; otherwise, people would see the "Still Working" sign and switch to another channel. The poor advertisers wouldn't be getting their money's worth (SOB!).

More grist for the mill of revolution . . . .

[Todd]

Antonia, don't reporters, editors, producers, etc. get some kind of training in recognizing the various think tanks, their political tendencies, etc? Or is it pretty much something you have to learn on the job (assuming you learn it at all)?

As a teacher I'm always being invited to go to various workshops put out by (usually) the professional association of which I'm a member; don't media folks have that sort of thing?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Ti-Guy,

'Well, there are lefty think tanks, but as Garrison Keillor said, liberals/lefties tend to call their think tanks "Universities."'

Yes, that is he common name for them. Funny how that open concept has worked for so long, eh? LOL

[Bill-Muskoka]

Ti-Guy,

Does it strike you, or anyone else, somewhat redundant that we have policy analysts employed by the federal government, as well as territorial, and provincial?

Then we have StatsCan we fund as well. So we have all the analysis we need without the think tanks.

[johnnykap]

Bill-M, seems most people agree uni's are the left's think tanks. So much for receiving an unbiased education. It's refreshing, however, that the skulls of leftish mush the uni's crank out do make a turn to the right when they enter the real world. You mite want to check out "Hard America, Soft America". It does a nice job of detailing it. Just substitute Canada whenever you see the word America.

Todd, do you really think training is required for someone in the drive-by media (or anywhere for that matter) to tell what an institution's political leanings are?

[sooey]

what the hell do we need think tanks for anyway when we've got paul desmarais juniour telling us for free that canadians need to improve our productivity by working harder.

[lazlo pink]

johnny goes to school
part 1: facts

johnnykap, may i introduce you to the reality stick? here, grasp it firmly by the ergonomically formed grip, extend your wrists and deliver a crisp knock to your noggin. repeat until you can resist spewing nonsense.

with apologies to ms. z. its time to eat some of that precious bandwidth because johnnykap, you deserve it. over the course of these threads, johnny has made some pretty ridiculous claims. let's have a look, shall we?

jk, "Libs can't argue facts so they resort to insults. Some of you lefties, Lazlo, are humorless."

jk: "Sooey: Isn't that what people say when they are calling a pig?"

jk: "Artdeco: you are one of those unthinking types who reflexively thinks everything Bush does is bad."

need i point out how one's pique is disqualified by doing exactly as one accuses? johnny, if you want to claim the high road you should at least pretend toward civility. resorting to insults is pretty much your only rhetorical device and you don't even do that well. as for my humour, well trust me johnny, this is going to be all about the chuckles.

now you were saying something about facts...

jk, "What I find annoying about libs is that the vast majority of them don't argue on the basis of facts. I present things as I see them, you are free to disagree, but usually there is a healthy dose of facts underneath"

ah, the sweeping generalization with just a taint of smear, followed by some of that good, good self love. a healthy dose of facts? the reason your facts are "underneath" is because you've buried them in a steaming pile of fertilizer, watered them with distortion and reaped a crop of half truths. the problem that an artless popinjay like johnny has with facts, is that they have a nasty habit of brushing themselves off at inopportune moments. like now.

jk, "The front page of the NYT today has an article professing shock at how revenues are up dramatically in the US in spite of recent tax cuts."

and here we have the perfect johnnykap fact. because indeed the ny times had an article expressing some surprise over a greater than expected revenue. the only trouble is that some of us angry, old libs might actually read that article. roll the tape!

the times article, published on july 9, by edmund l. andrews, had quite a few interesting points to make. it is far from a policy vindication and certainly isn't the triumphal proof of economic victory that johnny would portray from the headline. but as an example to wags like johnny, let's introduce some facts, from the article in question:

"But budget analysts, supporters and critics of Mr. Bush alike, cautioned that this year's windfall would do little to improve the government's long-term budget woes."

what's that? all is not saved, tell me it isn't so.

"One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth."

compared to an outhouse, a toilet looks good.

"The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Over the past decade, tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections."

bull-dump luck, even a lackwit like george bush catches a break once in a while. so why would this bump in revenue occur, if not for the wizardly genius of the bumpkin in chief? i'm going to call it the profiteer effect, because this revenue spike is generated by the top 1% of the population in earnings.

"These people have incomes that fluctuate much more rapidly, so when the economy is doing well and the stock market is doing well, tax revenues will be up," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization. "Rapidly fluctuating tax revenues will continue to be the norm for years to come."

so this massive pile of money is pouring into the coffers from the ultra-rich. this tax revenue comes from a big year for corporate and investment earnings, enormous dividends and vulgar executive bonuses. it shouldn't be too shocking that this particular tax stream has been overflowing. look at all of those record smashing profits for big oil, those mega-million dollar golden parachutes and super inflated stock options. let's not forget that mr. cheney's stock in haliburton has improved by 600% because, really, when your pouring billions a month into a failing war, those no-bid corporate profits still get taxed.

but the spending and debt are easily outpacing even the surprise increase in revenue. shame that all of that debt is leveraged against the social security nest egg that george wanted to fix. got to get me some of those no-bidding type contracts, they sweet. too bad there hasn't been a commensurate jump in earnings for the rest of the nation. in fact johnny, the average american's buying power hasn't increased, you just pay more at the pump.

"Spending has not been restrained," Mr. Riedl said. "One hundred percent of the reduced deficit is because taxpayers are sending more money to Washington."

and why is that a bad thing johnny? oh, that would be...

"Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets."

which is just a fancy way of saying that if the market turns, the bottom drops out and that money dries up.

"Over all, individual and corporate taxes have lagged well behind the economy's growth over the past five years. Government spending, by contrast, mushroomed far faster than the economy.
And federal debt has ballooned to $8.3 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion when Mr. Bush took office. Republicans are trying to raise the authorized debt ceiling to $9.6 trillion."

oh those darn pesky facts, eh, johnny. hope you aren't relying on social security as too big a part of your retirement plans. seems those good old conservative economic theories done went and almost doubled the debt since that naughty bill clinton balanced his budgets between blow jobs. (beg pardon)

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush."

johnny, have you noticed that i've cherry picking my quotes from the article you cited as such great news? i admit it, i selectively chose my quotes. i just grabbed the words from the conservative experts in the piece. johnny loves conservatives! and that's a fact.

tune in next time when johnny wallows in guilt by association!

[Todd]

Mr. Kapp said:

"Todd, do you really think training is required for someone in the drive-by media (or anywhere for that matter) to tell what an institution's political leanings are?"

Ignorance abounds.

Zionism? Remember that word?

And you keep insisting on lumping together liberals and radicals as "The Left".

JK,

'check out "Hard America, Soft America"'

Why, is there a Viagra sale on down there?

[johnnykap]

Sooey, you don't need a think tank. Start small. Maybe a think thimble?

lazlo: Sigh. Why do you and so many others apologize to Antonia and then just go off anyhow? If you're really sorry, wouldn't you not post it?

jk, "Libs can't argue facts so they resort to insults. Some of you lefties, Lazlo, are humorless." You show that in most every post, lazlo, both the humorlessness and the lack of arguing facts.

jk: "Sooey: Isn't that what people say when they are calling a pig?"

Obviously you are inferring that my question about pig calls was meant as an ad hominem attack. I can assure you I meant no such thing. Sometimes a question is just a question. You were incorrect to infer anything more than that and cannot prove otherwise.

jk: "Artdeco: you are one of those unthinking types who reflexively thinks everything Bush does is bad." Please tell me where I'm wrong. If you want to call that an ad hominem attack, then by all means do so. I consider that to be a mild, accurate description of how I see Artdeco. To me, an ad hominem attack would be something like "lazlo is so dumb he sits on the tv and watches the sofa." I try to avoid the real lowbrow stuff while still letting you know exactly where I stand (hint: it's not on the tv).

You spent a lot of time reviewing that NYT article that I referenced and creating your post. I give you full marks for taking on a project and seeing it thru. That's an admirable quality. Hopefully, you didn't have to burn the $5 like I did for the paper. The only teeny-weeny problem, lazlo, is you misunderstood what I was saying in my post. The whole point was that a leftist rag like the NYT professed shock that cutting taxes actually raises revenue, even though it has worked every time it has been tried. You libs think that in order to raise government revenues, you need to raise taxes. We neocons think the opposite. And guess what? History, yet again, has proven us correct. So it bothers us cons when the NYT professes shock about that above the fold. You mite want to check with me next time so we're clear before taking that kind of time to create such a lengthy discourse. Ordinary people live and learn. You just live.

I'm a financial planner and I can assure you I have made neither SS nor CPP any part of my retirement plan. I recommend to clients that they leave it out of their plans as well. Here's some free advice: don't include it in your plan either.

I'll leave the Halliburton-is-bad, corporations-are-evil, rich-people-suck, anti-capitalist reflexive Artdeco stuff for another time. But rest assured I will not ignore it.

Todd, I do remember zionism. Wiki says, "Since the founding of the State of Israel, the term Zionism is generally considered to mean support for Israel". That's why I consider myself a zionist. Do you consider yourself one? Most of my financial planning is done for teachers and school administrators in the K-12 system. You have confirmed most of my thots about teachers.

[johnnykap]

JK,

'check out "Hard America, Soft America"'

Why, is there a Viagra sale on down there?

Laz, I don't know who posted that but that's how humor should be handled around here. This guy knows that Rush Limbaugh, one of the people that I really look up to, got caught with Viagra pills. So it's his way of giving me a shot for that. I'm not going to cry about it to Antonia. I'm not going to apologize in advance for posting a response. I'm simply going to give credit for a job well done. "Good job, anonymous poster. Good job, indeed!!!" Limbaugh himself had some great lines about it. "I told my doctor I was worried about the next ELECTION", to name one. It would have been even funnier if he had referenced Rush's name because not everyone in Canada knows Limbaugh got caught with the pills, but I do think it was a good effort. And you will also notice he did not reflexively go into an anti-Rush screed. He showed restraint. Please try to incorporate that kind of humor in your future posts.

[Bill-Muskoka]

JK,

'Laz, I don't know who posted that but that's how humor should be handled around here. This guy knows that Rush Limbaugh, one of the people that I really look up to, got caught with Viagra pills. So it's his way of giving me a shot for that. I'm not going to cry about it to Antonia. I'm not going to apologize in advance for posting a response. I'm simply going to give credit for a job well done. "Good job, anonymous poster. Good job, indeed!!!"'

Why, thank you. I merely had forgotten to fillin my poster name as I was rushing out to a meeting.

[johnnykap]

Ok, Lazlo, I told you I would not ignore you so here we go.

The Times article was not a vindication of Bush policy, you state. Exactly. Would you expect otherwise from the Times? That's the point, Laz. I reflexively take everything I read in the Times with a tablespoon of salt. "The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared." Leftist fear mongering. A common tactic. Go pull out your old magazines (not THOSE magazines) from 15 years ago telling us how we are running out of food and we've only got 10 years to reverse global warming. I realize lefties jump on that stuff as gospel, but I'm a little more sceptical.

You call W a lackwit. So someone who goes goes to Yale and has an MBA from Harvard is stupid, huh? Let's assume you're correct. He's stupid. What does that say about the libs he's got running around in circles?

The ultra-rich. Become one, Laz. There's nothing stopping you. It's a free country. Vulgar executive bonuses? You receive a significant portion of your income from what could be classified as bonuses. Are they vulgar? Do you reject them on that basis?

Halliburton, ah, Halliburton. The scourge of the left. A company doing work that few companies can do. A publicly traded company that you have the opportunity to invest in simply by picking up the phone. A company whose stock price was certain to go up 5 years ago. This was obvious to you. So, why didn't you do it, Laz? Morals? Or maybe your investing eye is better only when looking thru the rear view mirror? I'm in the securities biz, so perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the prescient Laz predicts the next great stock will be?

A failing war? A country has been freed. We all hope that country will become successful. Or do we? Perhaps I wrongly assume you are pulling for the Iraqis. It seems you are pulling against the Americans, rather than for the Iraqis so you will have some bragging points in a blog.

"The average American's buying power hasn't increased, you pay more at the pump." Rather simplistic, Laz, even for you. I bought a 1GB memory card for my wife's camera the other day. $36, including shipping. A 1/2 GB card that I bought a year ago was almost double that. Do you think that savings and others like it should be factored in, or should we only focus on gas prices? Of course, you will for political reasons focus on gas prices. Do you think W sets the prices? You do understand what happens when politicians set prices, I hope. Why do libs cry about high energy prices but then do everything in their power to block drilling projects like ANWR because of non-existent environmental concerns? Don't forget, Laz, we all depend on the free flow of oil at market prices. Even libs. And if high energy prices are hurting you so badly, why didn't you offset them by buying energy stocks? After all, it was obvious to you the price of gas was going up. Why not take advantage of it?

One area where we are in agreement is spending. It needs to be cut. Welfare, SS, and other non-essential social programs would be a good place to start. But don't forget, Laz, it's easy to point fingers. Canada can coast spending little on defense because we're here watching over you. The US can't do that.

Individual and corporate taxes always lag behind economic growth. Just like your thots tend to lag behind your fingers. Some indicators are leading, some are lagging. That's the nature of economics.

So continue to believe in your statist economic views in public. Others will believe you are a compassionate person. But in private, act on your knowledge to foretell market swings and make a ton of money!!!! No one needs to know where it came from...

[Darwin O'Connor]

johnnykap: "Bill-M, seems most people agree uni's are the left's think tanks. So much for receiving an unbiased education. It's refreshing, however, that the skulls of leftish mush the uni's crank out do make a turn to the right when they enter the real world. You mite want to check out "Hard America, Soft America". It does a nice job of detailing it. Just substitute Canada whenever you see the word America."

I have a theory. Universities teach people how to think logically and base their conclusions on evidence. What if when you apply that most people inevitably come to the conclusion that the left is broadly correct.

Maybe that's why university aren't and shouldn't be "balanced", similar to how I mentioned in a previous comment that the media shouldn't be "balanced" either.

The many of the people in these right-wing think tanks have been to university and know what they say is wrong, but they have been paid to use their training to convince an ignorant public that their right-wing views are correct because it benefits the elite.

Some of the things I learned in philosophy classes that I took in university (my degree is in Computer Science) taught things that really should be taught in high school because everyone needs to know them. There need to maditory philosophy classes, even if you have to bump math or science. You shouldn't be able to graduate if you understand was an ad hominem attack is.

[johnnykap]

Darwin: In a previous posting, someone bragged about how Canada has some great technological people. Your post is evidence to the contrary. Universities shouldn't be balanced? Well, you're getting your wish at least. Your theory will never be remembered like Darwin's other theory will be. The real Darwin's theory will be remembered because it seems to be an accurate description of the way species evolve. Your theory unfortunately does not hold up as well under scrutiny. You suggest philosophy should replace math and science. In between lattes, did you get a chance to study any economics? It would seem very few of Antonia's supporters have even a base understanding of incentives and economic philosophy. But great idea. Drop the important stuff and worry about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if you aren't there to hear it. "You shouldn't be able to graduate if you understand was an ad hominem attack is." Based upon your logic, there would be virtually no graduates, since most people understand what ad hominem attacks are. Read any post by Sooey, Ti-guy, Lazlo, M-Bill, Todd and others and you will quickly see that most people have an intuitive understanding of what they are. Well, maybe not Sooey. To end on a positive note, Darwin, you do have a technical background in a field heavily concentrated in logic. So I am holding out hope for you that at some future point, you will jump on the conservative bandwagon. We'll be happy to have you.

M-Bill, I would like to personally congratulate you on your Limbaugh joke. Well done. I trust you will incorporate my suggestions for improvement next time.