Chapomatic

Stephen Hayes Again

3 Responses to “Stephen Hayes Again”

1. john Says:
   July 11th, 2005 at 10:43 am

   I see the Weekly Standard now has a variation of the game “Bacon” — maybe they could set up a website like this one at UVA:http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/. Instead of seeing the degrees of separation between between Kevin Bacon and a random actor, it would be the degrees of separation between

   Sadaam and and a random, supposed AQ operative. It would be fun to plug in the names

   “Cheney” and “Bush” or anyone on Henry Kissenger’s list of clients or Carlyle stockholders.

   The Standard whines about this new connection not making the front pages of the MSM and that

   CNN bimbo Carol Costello doesn’t have the same politics as Limbaugh squeeze, Daryn Kagan.

   They write: “But none of this was interesting enough for any of the major television networks to cover it. Nor was it deemed sufficiently newsworthy to merit a mention in either the Washington Post or the New York Times.”

   My response: “Why hasn’t Cheney or Condi or Rummy or W or Scottie made mention of a finding that would bolster their case for war and continued occupation?” Could it be that the finding won’t hold up under scrutiny? Could it be that their credibility on this issue is so shot to hell that no one would listen even if it were true?”

   Hmmm. Yes, Carol Costello of massive Botox, too many visits to the gym, tanning bed, and the wine store is thwarting the War on Terror.

2. chap Says:
   July 11th, 2005 at 10:57 am

   Well, the basic point indicated by Hayes makes sense to me–that these connections exist and are not listened to. (I feel the same way when we talk CBRNE weapons found in Iraq, actually.) The study of connections can be misleading, certainly, but sometimes they tell you things you didn’t know before. (On a previous post I mentioned Valdis Krebs and the InFlow software work–connections on a larger scale, and very useful.)

   My guess as to your question about why top administration doesn’t do this is that in fitting with the administration’s style, they stay out of “he said-she said” and let others squabble and deal with particular data points while spending the talking time repeating the primary message.

   Prof. Cori Dauber over at Rantingprofs, Paterrico and his one man war against the LA Times, and Tim Blair taught me a lot about how an enforced narrative frame, selection bias, and elitist guild mindset skew our news. (Remember the annual “10 Censored News Stories” we used to see in the alternative weekly newspapers? I’ve found hundreds that don’t fit the world view of the guy who put the “10 Censored” list out…)

   And your jab at Costello (whoever she is–sorry, don’t follow the TV news) has a nugget of truth. If a wartime center of gravity is public will to war, then news and op-eds affect the center of gravity.

3. john Says:
   July 11th, 2005 at 2:01 pm

   “why top administration doesn’t do this is that in fitting with the administration’s style, they stay out of “he said-she said” and let others squabble and deal with particular data points while spending the talking time repeating the primary message.”

   Oh, come on! The “he-said, they-did” is a stock routine for Dick & Condi! But, to be fair, you say you don’t follow the TV news — that’s the kind of crap they spew whenever they come on Russert’s show.

Trackback URL for Stephen Hayes Again: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=1012

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Preview: