Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 02:18 AM
King Pineapple
 
Posts: n/a
Default Scheer? A Confirmed Case of Lunacy

Sniveling College Kid "Itell OnU" wrote in message
...

A Firm Basis for Impeachment
Robert Scheer


LOL. "Robert Scheer", he says. NEXT?

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html

Scheer Deception: The Lies and Jargon of Robert Scheer
By Ben Fritz )
October 8, 2001


Many pundits sling jargon or make blithely irrational arguments. Some,
however, seem to specialize in twisting the facts to fit their ideology,
continually making assertions that are at best unsupported and at worst
blatantly false until they--and presumably their readers--come to accept
these false tropes as truth. Robert Scheer, a nationally syndicated
columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has established himself as the leader
of this breed, with some of his worst spin coming since the September 11
attack. Sadly, this is only the latest iteration of a trend that can be seen
in Scheer's columns throughout the year.

A brief history

Scheer has had an interesting career in journalism. He started at the
radical left publication Ramparts in the 60s, then become a national
correspondent for the L.A. Times for 17 years. For the past eight, he has
been a columnist whose work appears weekly in the Times and papers across
the country. He also co-hosts a radio show on an affiliate of National
Public Radio in Los Angeles and writes for publications like The Nation.
Throughout his career, Scheer has been one of America's leading liberal
pundits, reliably bashing Republicans and many conservative Democrats.

Dissemble, spin, repeat

An overview of Scheer's writing reveals that one of his favorite tactics is
to create a politically potent trope and repeat it over and over until it
seems true. When faced with criticism, Scheer simply dismisses his critics
without addressing their arguments and continues to repeat his idea, as if
the more he says it, the truer it becomes.

An excellent example of this tactic can be found in what my co-editor
Brendan Nyhan has labeled the "Taliban aid trope." Scheer created this trope
in May, when he attacked a "gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of
Afghanistan," saying it "makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and
rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the
will of God."

Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Lef****ch, Brendan pointed out that the
$43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a
gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to
the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated,
in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to
alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to
exacerbate it."


Since the US began focusing on the Taliban for harboring Osama Bin Laden,
whose Al-Qaeda network is the primary suspect in the September 11 attacks,
Scheer has repeated this false assertion about U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and
in fact twisted it even further. In a September 17 column, he says that the
aid was a tacit endorsement of Bin Laden:


This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call it what you
will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United Nations, but
the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal that its support of
Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable.

Note how Scheer takes note of his critics' points by prefacing them with
"Call it what you will," as if these points were arbitrary labels and not
facts. They are facts, however, and Scheer is simply trying to avoid them.

Scheer wasn't done spreading this trope, or with his irrational dismissal of
critics, however. Two weeks later, on October 1, he spun humanitarian aid
for the Afghan people as some sort of a fairy tale:


Believe that [the Taliban convinced farmers to stop growing opium through
religious appeals rather than by force], and you can believe that the $43
million in aid that Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that same
week--to help the Afghans, "including those farmers who have felt the impact
of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we
welcome"--was simply humanitarian aid and not really a reward to the Taliban
for helping the U.S. in its drug war.

Again, Scheer does not explain to readers how humanitarian aid funneled
through the U.N and NGOs can be considered a gift to a government that never
receives funds or controls any food aid. Notice also how he selectively
quotes Powell, avoiding the statement mentioned earlier in which Powell
explicitly notes that the aid will bypass the Taliban. Even more disturbing,
however, is a fact brought to our attention by Dan Kennedy of the Boston
Phoenix in an email: Powell's statement was made in response to a question
about future aid and had nothing to do with the $43 million aid already
provided. Once again, Scheer is twisting the truth to fit his argument.

Although Scheer's use of the Taliban aid trope has been the most disturbing
this year, it is not the only falsity he has repeated. In another instance,
Scheer has twice tried to frame the current economic slump as a recession
caused by President Bush and Congressional Republicans. This started in
July, when Scheer argued that Al Gore should criticize the Bush
Administration and Republicans for economic policy:

The job market was never better than under Bill Clinton and it's not too
much to expect Gore to hold the Republicans, who have controlled both houses
of Congress and the White House, responsible for the loss of 300,000 jobs in
the last three months alone.

The truth that Scheer is avoiding here, however, is that the current
downturn began while Bill Clinton was still President. Furthermore, in the
three months prior to July, Bush's economic policy had barely begun to take
effect. There is no logical reason to hold the economic policy of Bush and
Republicans in Congress responsible for a downturn that began before Bush's
inauguration.

Earlier in that column, Scheer also dissembles when he refers to a
"recession" that at the time had not been established (although it is now
quite likely that we are in one). Blaming Bush for the weak economy,
regardless of the facts, is a favorite tactic of Scheer's, however. He did
so again just a month later, as my co-editor Brendan Nyhan pointed out, when
he succinctly referred to "a recession [Bush] helped create." At this point,
however, there was still no evidence that the U.S. was in a recession, nor
was there evidence that the slow economy was caused by President Bush.

Such facts seem to matter little to Scheer as he creates his false tropes.
The truth is merely an obstacle to be illogically dismissed.

Labels and frames

Another favored tactic of Scheer's, and one that can be seen in his false
tropes as well, is to bash President Bush and other Republicans whenever
possible. There is nothing wrong, of course, with criticizing political
opponents. What is troublesome, however, is that Scheer often does so not
with reasoned criticism, but irrational broadsides and unsupported
allegations.

When it comes to President Bush, Scheer seems to have two insights that he
repeats endlessly: the President is rich and he is dumb. From global warming
to economic policy, Scheer seems to always find a way to return to these two
points.

During a discussion of the importance of Social Security and Medicare, for
instance, Scheer sees fit to state that many benefit from these programs,
"[u]nless your family happens to be super rich like the president's." In a
column on global warming, Scheer again takes an unnecessary swipe at the
Bush family's wealth, making ridiculous generalizations about young people
in the process:

Here's a guy born with credit cards in his cradle, enough to take him
anywhere in the world, first class, who nevertheless pointedly refused to
go. Even kids without any money manage to scrape up a few bucks and go see
the world, but not young George, who satiated his curiosity about foreign
lands with a few beer busts down in Mexico.

Scheer's ostensible point here is that Bush "never seemed to think that
there was a world out there worth visiting, let alone saving," as if a
vacation in Europe would necessarily make him more competent in foreign
policy. Notice also the irrelevant assertion that Bush went on "beer busts
down in Mexico," which is, again, hardly relevant to his current foreign
policy. Also notable here is Scheer revealing his own class bias, as he
absurdly asserts that even the poorest of young people manage to travel
around the world.

The broadsides don't stop there, though. Another one of Scheer's insights
into Bush's foreign policy is that it "can more charitably be viewed as the
confused performance of a struggling C student." In the same column,
Scheer's conclusion about the Bush's administration's rejection of many
foreign treaties is, again, that the President is dumb: "[i]t is therefore
unfair for critics to hold his proposals to too high a standard of logic and
sophistication," he writes. "After all, this is George W. Bush we're talking
about."

Scheer also plays on a common and again unsupported liberal trope: that Bush
is merely a front man and Vice-President Cheney is running the country.
"It's a sad measure of the president's need for adult supervision," Scheer
wrote in July, "that Cheney has become the first vice president in modern
U.S. history to seize control of the White House and render the president
himself a public relations front man sent around the country to do photo
ops." Once again, Scheer presents no evidence to support his attack, simply
asserting that "[e]veryone knows that Cheney, not Bush, runs the show."

To be fair, however, Scheer doesn't exclusively pick on President Bush. Vice
President Cheney himself came under attack in a column on environmental
policy that labels him "an oil-guzzling, intellectually irresponsible,
anti-environmental oaf."

Best of breed

At a time when all too many pundits engage in their share of lies, spin, and
jargon, Robert Scheer stands out in a class by himself. In column after
column, his favored tactics have been irrational criticism, distortion, and
spin. At his worst, Scheer's false tropes spread and become part of the
commonly accepted discourse. Since September 11, for instance, as Dan
Kennedy noted in the Boston Phoenix, the Taliban aid trope has been repeated
in The Nation, The New Yorker, The Denver Post and Salon. For those
concerned about the rise of irrational discourse in American politics,
Robert Scheer stands out as one of the worst offenders.


Craig , WPE1HNS
Meredith, NH USA

Drake R8B/Alpha Delta DX Sloper
Sony SW-77
Sony ICF-2010
2 x Phillips/Magnavox D2935
Uniden CR-2021
Knight Kit Star Roamer (permanently tuned to Turkey on 9460)
GE Superadio II/Select-A-Tenna
Delphi Ski-Fi XM/3" Antennae

Tuning since 1963




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
max power transfer theorem Dave Antenna 184 March 13th 04 11:58 PM
Heil HM-10 ships with no case now ???? Joe Equipment 0 December 20th 03 05:20 PM
Heil HM-10 ships with no case now ???? Joe Equipment 0 December 20th 03 05:20 PM
Scheer? A Confirmed Case of Lunacy King Pineapple General 0 July 19th 03 02:18 AM
Scheer? A Confirmed Case of Lunacy King Pineapple Scanner 0 July 19th 03 02:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017