LIVE STREAM at 5:15pm EST: TPM’s Josh Marshall on New Media and American Politics

-

profile_pic2.jpg
Despite living outside of the Beltway Bubble, Talking Points Memo creator/editor/blogger extraordinaire Josh Marshall has had a profound impact on the DC political scene for the last 10 years.
Marshall has provided key coverage of a number of ground-breaking stories since TPM’s founding, including attacks on Social Security, the Bush administration’s attorney-firing scandal, and John Bolton’s ill-fated nomination to the United Nations.
Perhaps just as importantly, Marshall has helped inspire and support the first generation of policy bloggers.
The New America Foundation/American Strategy Program is pleased to host Marshall tonight, from 5:15 pm until 6:15 pm, for a chat with TWN Publisher Steve Clemons on the role of new media in shaping American politics.
His remarks will STREAM LIVE here on The Washington Note.
– Andrew Lebovich

Comments

16 comments on “LIVE STREAM at 5:15pm EST: TPM’s Josh Marshall on New Media and American Politics

  1. questions says:

    A link to ACORN coverage from Rachel Maddow’s blog — parts of the original unedited tapes are included. Not exactly what Fox showed….
    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/07/4126070-context-lies-and-videotapes-the-real-acorn-story
    And for this, ACORN is out of business?
    How many people believe what they saw wall-to-wall on Fox? How many of them have read or watched corrections based on the unedited video tapes?

    Reply

  2. questions says:

    Nice post Sweetness.
    I think the missing link is that Walt seems to assume, as I’ve pointed out before, that there really is a correct foreign policy that has been perverted by interested parties. Get rid of the interested parties and the truth emerges. It’s really a version of Platonism — looking for the eidos of US/I-P policy, I guess. And Thrasymachus comes in in the person of a neocon, declares the policy is what I, the stronger say it is, and voila, distortion of the truth.
    The problem is that Platonism probably isn’t really the right philosophical outlook for IR policy. There isn’t some true “balance” to use Kervick’s term. There isn’t a proper patriotic version to attempt to characterize Carroll’s view, and there isn’t likely to be an entirely moral version either since we’re not in the least bit consistent in the issues we push on (to attempt to characterize POA’s concern and to risk getting “slammed” again for daring to suggest that he suggests this view….)
    As soon as we jettison truth from the international scene, Walt’s concerns diminish greatly. And then we have to construct principles and try to stick to them as we can in some pragmatic fashion. And even at this level policy will be challenged because our principles run smack into the internal politics of the US, the internal politics of other countries, resource needs, misperceptions, miscommunication, endless game theoretic messes and so on.
    I end up, as I generally do, wondering what “strategy” can even mean in a world of nations in the state of nature regarding one another.
    Once “strategy” is gone from the map, IR becomes some version of a wing and a prayer, a principled stand once in a while, pragmatic go along to get along moments, bizarre inconsistencies, hopes and hopes dashed on the rocks of the elections in Gaza or whatever.
    And maybe that’s really the best we can do, at least for now.

    Reply

  3. Sweetness says:

    Walt writes: “To return to where we began: Isn’t it obvious that
    U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when
    former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-
    making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it
    clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular
    country in the region? The point is not to question their
    patriotism, which is not the issue. Rather, the question is
    whether an attachment to Israel shapes how they think about
    the peace process, Iran, and the extent to which U.S. and Israeli
    interests are congruent. Their patriotism can be above reproach,
    but their advice may still be advancing policies that are not in
    the U.S. interest.”
    I’m of divided mind here. I do think Walt has been “walking
    back” a lot of his sloppy thinking or writing and the damage it’s
    done. In this article, he makes many of the arguments I have
    made myself around the concept of “dual loyalty.” The folks in
    the cheap seats, like Carroll, have blown past these arguments
    because they are too lazy to think. Fortunately, not everyone is.
    So what to make of this post?

    Reply

  4. questions says:

    A different Walt link from the one WigWag linked to above — this one shows in all its glory Walt’s strategy all the way through the W and M thang:
    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/02/on_dual_loyalty
    An attack on those who would lightly charge “dual loyalty”, a legitimate ACADEMIC distinction among kinds of loyalty, a distancing from any notion of a hint of anything like all the evil connotations of “dual loyalty” — AND THEN BAM! Conflict of interest — keep the firsters out of policy positions. Note how the wicked “dualists” become simply those who should recuse — the unfamiliar rendered familiar, the unseemly made common-sense. Interesting technique, Mr. Walt.
    The right hand giveth, the left hand taketh (or the other way around)– and you can see it in one posting.

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    If anything has a chance of actually working, this is it:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07westbank.html?hp
    Institution building, leadership development, non-violent action, the development of political culture that can DO things, the building of solidarity that translates into functioning cooperative groups/institutions.
    It takes time, the payoff is uncertain, but it is the absolutely right thing to do. Action through inaction, wu wei.
    I wish the movement well.

    Reply

  6. questions says:

    And here is a factcheck dot org link:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
    Talking about the basic falseness. Old media meet new media!
    “This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS “agents” would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.”
    And Ron Paul added GUNS GUNS GUNS!!! Woohoo!

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    And some new and old media together….
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/1/853175/-Theres-no-debating-a-lie
    This post notes that the 16,000 IRS agents for health care meme is false.
    And so does this, but it quotes Newt Gingrich on old media lying about it….
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/6/854655/-Gingrich-lies-to-TODAY-Show-audience,-gets-away-with-it
    How about real time fact checking crawl under every single moment of every single news program?
    How about challenging all the movers and shakers who come on TV?

    Reply

  8. questions says:

    How ’bout one on “old” media:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/6/854628/-Coburn:-Dont-listen-to-Fox!
    Coburn says Pelosi is nice.
    Coburn says no one is going to jail over health care reform.
    Coburn says beware of Fox as your only source of news.
    WOW!
    Thanks!

    Reply

  9. questions says:

    Read Avnery’s piece up on CounterPunch regarding Israel and Iran and weapons and wartalk. Pretty interesting.
    And try to enjoy the process rather than the product. We have lots of the former and none of the latter.

    Reply

  10. Sweetness says:

    Kervick writes: “Barack Obama says he has secret uber-Presidential knowledge about the Iranian nuclear program, and that if I knew what he knows, I would believe they were trying to develop a nuclear weapon, just like he does. However, I don’t know what he knows. So who can say what’s what? And given the track record of the US government, it’s hard to give his words any credence. It’s just as likely that he is lying; or that he is befuddled; or that he is lost in the house of mirrors and yes-men; or that he has some intelligence agency stovepipe jammed up his rectum.
    Who knows? Certainly not the “new media”. There are temperamental skeptics and temperamental believers among the new media talkers and bloggers. But none of those people really seems to know anything.”
    My thoughts precisely. I think the only possible cure is to read as widely as possible and read things with which you constitutionally disagree. Then, maybe, you can discern the truth.
    Then, on many of these things, say Iran and Nukes or what Israel is going to do, the truth is evolving–probably–and sometimes taking “sudden” and “unexpected” (to us) leaps.
    Notice I didn’t say “leaps forward.”
    I have found the blog and the comments useful personally as a way or refining what I think, my values. Opened me up to many more perspectives than I get in an average day or year.

    Reply

  11. Dan Kervick says:

    The new media seems spectacularly boring these days. Or maybe I just don’t know where to go to find the really interesting stuff. But it sure feels to me like its all been said before.
    Considered as reporting, new media makes a marginal contribution – mostly to the usual tedious business of horse race politics and procedural inside baseball.
    Considered as a blind-leading-the-blind gathering place for people like me to sound off pointlessly about matters over which we have no control, get into arguments with my fellow-clueless, and add to the noisy trash cycle of recycled opinion and polemic, it’s wildly successful.
    Barack Obama says he has secret uber-Presidential knowledge about the Iranian nuclear program, and that if I knew what he knows, I would believe they were trying to develop a nuclear weapon, just like he does. However, I don’t know what he knows. So who can say what’s what? And given the track record of the US government, it’s hard to give his words any credence. It’s just as likely that he is lying; or that he is befuddled; or that he is lost in the house of mirrors and yes-men; or that he has some intelligence agency stovepipe jammed up his rectum.
    Who knows? Certainly not the “new media”. There are temperamental skeptics and temperamental believers among the new media talkers and bloggers. But none of those people really seems to know anything.
    Iranians: Like them? Hate them? Befriend them? Incinerate them? It’s just one more thing to entertain ourselves with on Huff Post, along with Scarlett Johansson’s tits.
    We’re just as lost as ever.

    Reply

  12. ... says:

    i am skeptical of all these new blogs covering the political landscape and etc…. the bigger they are the more i question them… huff post is something i don’t bother with… same tpm… i still read steves site, but i do wonder about perceived bias from time to time… the lack of hillary clinton coverage here is a source of curiosity for me as well… overall, i am not convinced of ”new media” if they are going to be sold to the highest bidder, or are being run by similar organizations that need propaganda outlets to brainwash folks…

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I disagree. As Secretary of State, I think she’s done plenty.
    She informed Iran that we were willing to “engage” with them, that it would do no good, and that more stringent sanctions would eventually be needed. Now how’s THAT for “diplomacy”? And it worked so well with Iran, that she has decided to use the same kind of diplomatic strategy with Syria.
    And she expressed the proper amount of attention to the Neda media extravaganza, while ignoring the fate of Tristan Anderson and the more recent American SHOT by the IDF jackboots in Israel, for committing the egregious crime of peaceful protest against a separation barrier internationally recognized as being ILLEGAL under international law. Now how’s THAT for protecting the rights and interests of American citizens visiting foreign nations?
    And who can fail to notice the slobbering adoration she dispensed at the AIPAC orgy, where all good Washington whores go to don their kneepads and drop to all fours? And her unfettered praise for Netanyahu’s charitable and fictional “concessions” was matched only by her chagrin at the seriously “flawed” Goldstone Report.
    No, Don, she’s done plenty. And she ain’t finished yet. But I guess she enjoys immunity in the blogosphere, if this blog is any indication.
    “New Media”, my ass.

    Reply

  14. Don Bacon says:

    I got you here, POA. How can anyone criticize Clinton’s performance when she hasn’t actually done anything?
    I mean, most of us have been rated by what we accomplished in life. He completed this. She did that. With Clinton (as with her competitor in the recent primaries) it’s only: She said this, and she said that.
    If talking were an achievement then you and I would be real contenders.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, its only a “New Media” if the bloggers tell us the truth. Otherwise, its really just another tool for propaganda. Obviously, some are telling the truth, others aren’t. It seems that the partisan slant of some of these so called “New Media” sites are a dead give-away of the site just being another mouthpiece for political interests. For instance, the absence of any critiques of Hillary Clinton’s performance on this site, a site that purports itself to be primarily devoted to “foreign policy”, makes me leery of the entire site’s content to a degree I have not previously experienced.
    And, uh, while you are on the topic of media, heres an interesting piece by Ami Kaufman from the Palestine Note;
    By Ami Kaufman….
    I can’t tell you what this post is about.
    If I do, I might get arrested.
    No, I don’t live in Iran. I don’t live in Myanmar. I don’t live in China.
    I live in “the only democracy in the Middle East”.
    What I CAN do is share with you the following three conversations I had with fellow journalists via e-mail and phone:
    Conversation #1
    Ami: Hi A. Listen, I’ve got a question for you. If I write about this story in The Huffington Post – am I breaking the law? I mean, The Huff is a foreign media body, therefore not binded by Israeli law, right? The JTA published a piece on it – so why can’t I?
    A: I haven’t seen any relevant documents, but I’m pretty sure you’d be breaking the law. I don’t know if they’d send you to jail – but they could take your journalist card.
    Conversation #2
    Ami: Hi B. Listen, I just talked to a friend of mine about the story, and I wanted your input on it too. Would I be breaking the law if I wrote about it for the Huff?
    B: Yes, definitely. Not only that – but representatives of foreign media organizations in Israel – the New York Times, for example – are also forbidden to publish the story.
    A few hours later, B gets back to me and sends me this link.
    Ami: B, so did this reporter break the law? The dateline is Jerusalem.
    B: From what I understand, he broke the law, and he may be subject to punitive measures. Just as an example, during the first Gulf War, Newsweek published a photo of the landing site of a Scud missile, which enabled the identification of the landing area, their reporter was expelled from the country because of this. But that example is breaking the military censorship law, while here we’re talking about the judiciary. It’ll be interesting to see what happens…
    Conversation #3
    Ami: Hi C, what’s up?
    C: Hi Ami. I wanted your advice. I’m thinking of writing about the story for this international website I work for. What do you think?
    Ami: Funny you should ask, C.
    I tell C of my latest conversations.
    Ami: I think you should be careful.
    C: Yeah, my wife thinks I should be careful, too.
    Ami: Yup.
    C: Ami, can you believe the conversation we’re having here? It’s sounds like we’re living in some dark totalitarian regime.
    Ami: Maybe we are, maybe we are.
    So, I can’t write about it.
    Here’s what Yoav Karni from the Israeli financial magazine Globes thinks:
    A democratic society can not ostracize a journalist, put them in house arrest, disconnect their phone, forbid their colleagues from even mentioning them, or even from reporting on their ostracism. If a society does so, it is relinquishing some of its democratic values.
    Still, I can’t write about it.
    And I can’t write about this….
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100401/us-israel-military-whistleblower/
    Or this, either….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/02/israeli-journalist-anat-kam-house-arrest
    But you can.
    And you can pass it around, too.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *