Ace on ‘Context’

The thuggery against Tabitha Hale compels him:

The media slips an awful lot past the public with the word “context.” They frequently claim they don’t carry stories like this because the “context” doesn’t support making it worthy of mention. . . .
1. We don’t have to patrol the left for violence because the left is entirely non-violent and law-abiding. This assumption is of course false on its face and absurd even in postulation.
2. We don’t have to patrol the left for violence because we have such moral certitude about the goodness of our ends that we are justified in using otherwise-immoral means, such as violence, to attain them.

Go read the whole thing, because Ace is awesome when he’s really pissed off. And it pisses me off, too.

Ten years ago, I did a news article for the Washington Times examining the dearth of coverage about the murder of Jesse Dirkhising, an Arkansas teenager who was raped and suffocated by two men. One of the two killers had just been convicted, and another was still on trial. Why had the murder of Matthew Shepard merited wall-to-wall coverage while the death of Dirkhising — an equally horrendous and senseless crime — got no national coverage at all? I called up the networks to ask, and one response was particularly memorable:

“We’ve been watching the trial and will continue to monitor it,” ABC News spokesman Todd Polkes said Wednesday. “Currently, we have no plans to report it in our national newscasts. It appears to be a local crime story that does not raise the kind of issues that would warrant our coverage.”

What kind of issues do “warrant coverage”? And why are some issues so transparently more equal than others? Who decides these things?

No one ever satisfactorily answered those questions, and here again we see how media bias involves preconceived ideas of what issues “warrant coverage.”

Look, just from the standpoint of sensationalistic “if-it-bleeds-it-leads” newsworthiness, isn’t “Brutish Man Attacks Pretty Girl” kind of a catchy story? You don’t have to politicize the story in order to tell the story, yet reporters seem so afraid of what the story’s political impact might be that they refuse to tell it.

Just like poor Jesse Dirkhising.

Michael Moore: Own a Gun? Racist!

“There’s a reason why we want to own these guns. . . . The vast majority of these guns are owned by people who live in safe parts of town, or mostly in suburbs and rural areas, places where there are very few murders. . . . Why do you have a gun? What are you afraid of? . . .  That imaginary person who’s going to break into your home and kill you — who’s that person going to look like? It’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it, really? . . . We never really want to talk about the racial or class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or people of color that we imagine, we’re afraid of. . . . We also need to address the larger issue of, why are we such a violent people? And not just personal, domestic violence, but a nation that invades other countries, that has such a huge weapons budget, that just seems so intent on violence being the answer.”
— Michael Moore on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” MSNBC

Fear and Loathing in Cairo

“In this case, rightwingers who have an interest in stoking fear and loathing of Muslims worldwide pounced at the opportunity to smear all Egyptians with this crime. Popular rightwing bloggers Debbie Schlussel, Robert Stacy McCain, and Sister Toldjah were among those who immediately used the attack to reinforce their anti-Muslim, anti-revolution arguments. But the real cause of sex crime is power, and its abuse, and that is a problem in all the nations on this planet.”
— Amanda Marcotte, “Adding insult to Lara Logan’s injury,” Guardian (U.K.)

Others may, and certainly will, speak for themselves. On Tuesday, when CBS News went public with the story of Lara Logan being sexually assaulted by the Cairo mob, I wasn’t online, but in Washington on a shoe-leather reporting trip to Capitol Hill. Nearly everyone else in the blogosphere had already weighed in by the time I became aware of the story and had time to write about it Wednesday morning:

Maybe Egyptians could use one of [Jill] Filipovic’s pious lectures about “no means no” and “stop means stop.” I’d probably be accused of some sort of thought-crime if I were to suggest that the spontaneous outburst of savagery against Lara Logan of CBS News says anything about the future course of democracy in Egypt. . . .
There are profound and fundamental flaws in feminist ideology, flaws which this outrageous crime in Cairo might help us to understand, but we will never achieve such an understanding if we permit feminists to control the conversation. And one way they exercise that control is by threatening to cast into outer darkness anyone who, in seeking the truth, incautiously says the wrong thing out loud.
What we ought to be saying out loud, as Michelle Malkin reminds us, is prayers for Lara Logan. . . .

You can read that whole thing and decide for yourself what to think about my first reaction to this criminal atrocity. When you’re through reading that, you can go read the entirety of what Amanda Marcotte writes at the Guardian. This is one of the wonders of the modern world, that everyone with an Internet connection has access to so much information and so many opinions, and that each of us can consider the facts, survey the opinions, and make up our own minds.

What happened to Lara Logan a week ago in Cairo has become one of those symbolic battlegrounds where intellectuals make war over ideological abstractions like “democracy” and “equality” and “freedom.” These are, of course, only words describing mere ideas, and should not be mistaken for the actual facts of events in Egypt.

Such are the characteristic errors of intellectualism: Those whose speciality is the use of the written word to express ideas are prone to confusing the words they write with actual facts.

An immense gulf separates (a) what happened to Lara Logan in Cairo and (b) what I or Amanda Marcotte or anyone else writes about that event.

Actions are one thing, and words are something else.

Knowing few facts about the crime, whose perpetrators have not yet been identified, we are left to write about the circumstances that led to the crime: A famously attractive female reporter for an American TV news network, assigned to the scene of a revolutionary uprising in a distant country most of us have never visited, savagely assaulted by a mob of men. From whatever handful of factual dots we can assemble — including everything we know about Egypt and its culture, which for most of us is precious little — we then assemble a mental picture in gestalt fashion, commenting on what we think happened and describing what we believe to have been the contributing factors in this crime.

What we must resist, however, is the intellectual arrogance that would lead us to imagine that our thoughts and beliefs are coterminous with the facts of the event. Because the facts — what really happened last Friday in Cairo — have a concrete reality that our thoughts and beliefs do not have.

Here is the danger of intellectualism, the arrogance of the articulate classes who suppose that their superior facility with the written word and their access to the pages of influential publications enables them to alter reality merely by the act of writing about events, including distant events they did not witness.

Amanda Marcotte re-frames the crime against Lara Logan to fit her own political commitment to feminism, while accusing others of interpreting the crime in terms of “anti-Muslim, anti-revolution” prejudice.

If Marcotte or any other American feminist wishes to fly to Cairo and lecture Egyptians about rape, I certainly wish them bon voyage. Yet I doubt they’ll be taking that trip any time soon, because their ideology isn’t likely long to survive direct contact with the reality of life in Egypt.

As for the accusation of prejudice against Muslims or against the Egyptian revolution, I suppose that’s like saying that Edmund Burke was prejudiced against the French when he famously cautioned in 1790: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.” And at the same time, Burke freely confessed his actual prejudices:

You see, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that [the English] are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. . . . Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.
– Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Such is the prejudice that has caused many intelligent and well-informed people to warn that recent events in Egypt may be harbingers of peril for America and her allies.

If things go badly in Cairo, we shall not be the first to suffer, nor shall our suffering be worse than that of the Egyptians themselves, just as it was for the French to whom Burke addressed his epistle. We wait to see whether what was true in Burke’s day, and what has so often been true in the centuries since, is also true now, namely that this revolution will eventually make victims of those who were among its first and foremost advocates.

As for Amanda Marcotte, who presumes to lecture us about our “fear and loathing” after having led the online lynch-mob against the Duke lacross team, we have good reason to suspect that she is mistaken, as she has been so badly mistaken so often before. 

However, we might yet be persuaded to credit Ms. Marcotte’s Valentines to the Egyptian revolution — just as soon as she starts writing them under a Cairo dateline.

UPDATE: Among the several absurdities piling up around this incident, I’ll note only (a) Anderson Cooper turning the rape of Lara Logan into a story about Nirs Rosen being mean to Anderson Cooper; and (b) an attack on “some Kapo token Spectator Jew, Aaron Goldstein.”


‘Obama the Moderate’ Myth

CNN spins it:

President Barack Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget was slammed by the left and the right Monday. Outraged liberals called it a callous assault on the poor; dismissive conservatives labeled it a debt-riddled assault on future generations.
Which begs the question: Is Obama’s budget blueprint exactly what the president needs to capture the broad political center in the runup to 2012?

CNN’s Alan Silverleib clearly intends to signal that the answer is “yes,” which is the entire point of asking the question. Expect to see many further reiterations of this bogus theme in coming weeks, as the MSM pose their flexible “Moderate Obama” presidential action figure as a super-hero standing guard against “extremism” of all kinds.

HuffPo/AOL Deal: On Second Thought … Hell, No, It Still Doesn’t Make Any Sense

After this morning’s stunning news that AOL had agreed to pay more than $300 million to buy the Huffington Post, I tried to find some argument to justify the deal.

Honest, I did. I even read Felix Salmon’s analysis at Reuters:

The $315 million that AOL is paying for the Huffington Post is roughly 3X the valuation seen at its last capital raise two years ago, is 10X its 2010 revenues and is roughly 5X estimated forward 2011 revenues. Those are all big numbers, but not insanely so, for what is clearly a big strategic move on the part of AOL. After all, AOL has a market cap of $2.3 billion: right now it still dwarfs HuffPo. That might not be true in a few years’ time, if HuffPo continues growing at its current rate and AOL continues to lose subscribers and revenues.
My feeling, then, is that this deal is a good one for both sides.

Yeah, tell me another one, pal. HuffPo extimates its 2011 revenue at $50-odd million, but what about its net profit?

What’s that Felix? I can’t hear you for all these crickets chirping.

Jerry at Goldfish and Clowns is also wrestling with the finances of the deal: 

The only semi-rational logic behind AOL shelling out serious coin for HuffPo is the belief Huffington’s lightworker abilities will somehow draw ten bajillion visitors per nanosecond to AOL . . .

The market isn’t buying that argument and AOL stock, which was trading at $24 a share a week ago, is now down to $21 and change. The Wall Street Journal‘s Shira Ovide has a good analysis of this floptastic deal while my friend Donald Douglas examines, “What Huffington Post Means for Journalism’s Future.”

What it means, I suspect, is that the Left is willing to “invest” in liberal media ventures that are supposedly for-profit but which, in fact, lose money. Because, after all, whose money is being invested? Not theirs.

Five words: Government employee union pension funds.

That, I suggest, explains this whole deal. Private investors are now selling their AOL shares, while managers of pension funds for AFSCME, SEIU and other unions are buying AOL stock, thus providing the investment capital necessary to fund expansion of the Left’s online media presence in advance of Obama’s re-election campaign.

Yeah, and maybe George Soros is buying AOL stock, too, for all we know.

Call me a kooky conspiracy theorist, if you like, but when a business deal doesn’t add up as dollars-and-cents capitalism, there must be some other explanation. And if ever you see a turtle sitting on top a fence post, you know it didn’t crawl up there by itself.


AOL Pays $315 Million for HuffPo

Curiouser and curiouser:

The Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.
The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company’s largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009. . . .
Arianna Huffington, the cable talk show pundit, author and doyenne of the political left, will take control of all of AOL’s editorial content as president and editor in chief of a newly created Huffington Post Media Group. The arrangement will give her oversight not only of AOL’s national, local and financial news operations, but also of the company’s other media enterprises like MapQuest and Moviefone.

Question: What would AOL have paid for the Drudge Report, which throws so much traffic it can melt down your servers? But other questions come to mind:

Go over to Matt’s page at AOL’s Politics Daily, scroll down and you’ll see, “News From Our Partners” — which include Salon, Newser, The Daily Beast, Fox News, ABC, Time and The Week. What becomes of those partnerships? I dunno. But the news from AOL’s Daily Finance is simple:

AOL announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire The Huffington Post, the influential and rapidly growing news, analysis and lifestyle website founded in 2005, which now counts nearly 25 million unique monthly visitors.

Twenty-five million uniques at HuffPo? Really? And that makes it worth (a) $315 million and (b) hiring Arianna as an executive editor?

Our own traffic has amounted to 200,000+ visits per month since August. Although those numbers aren’t the same as “uniques,” the data is public — it’s there on SiteMeter, available for analysis to anyone who cares to look  — and can be compared to any other site that makes its SiteMeter data public.

OK, so to get from 200,000 to 25 million, you just move the decimal point a couple of places over and . . . Big Fur Hat invites offers from AOL: “Wanna buy iOTW? We’ll allow you to overpay for us too.”

Which is exactly right: AOL paid waaaay to much for that site, and as for the value of Arianna Huffington’s services as an editorial executive: What are they paying her for that? Whatever it is, they’re paying too much.

I’m sorry: $315 million for 25 million monthly uniques? No, that’s crazy. The only way this deal makes any sense at all is as a bid to increase market share: AOL is buying out what had previously been a competitor for its own news products. That an online media giant is now buying up a content provider — and paying such an inflated price — is a signal of market confusion.

Speaking of confusion, Stephen Green asks: “Where did AOL come up with $315 million?”

Good question. This deal smells like last week’s fish.

UPDATE: Further analysis at The American Spectator: “Did they misplace the decimal point?”

UPDATE II: Helpful background from Associated Press:

[AOL’s] fourth-quarter results show it is still struggling to boost ad sales. AOL had just a 5.3 percent share of the U.S. display advertising revenue in 2010, down from 6.8 percent in 2009 . . . Facebook, meanwhile, accounted for 13.6 percent of display revenue last year, up from 7.3 percent in 2009. . . .
The work of [HuffPo’s] 70-person paid staff is augmented by content from news outlets and 6,000 bloggers who write for free.

OK, now figure about $75,000 per paid staffer (salary+benefits), and your annual payroll is somewhere north of $5 million.

So the price paid by AOL is equal to more than 50 years of salaries at HuffPo? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Next question: How many of HuffPo’s 6,000 bloggers (???) are going to continue writing for free at a site that just collected a $315 million buyout?

If AOL calculated those bloggers into the value of the deal . . . well, good luck with that.

UPDATE IV: Of course there’s a huge Memeorandum thread, via which we get John Hawkins:

The world’s not a fair place. Someone as incompetent as Barack Obama is President, The Black Eyed Peas got to play the Super Bowl, and Arianna Huffington is now worth $300 million dollars. That’s the breaks, brother, and we just have to roll with it.

To hell with fairness. What I’m wondering is, if HuffPo is worth $315 million, what’s Hawkin’s asking price? One meeeellion dollars?

UPDATE V: Da Tech Guy points out that AOL also just bought the legions of hateful HuffPo commenters, and Purple Avenger at AOSHQ notes further evidence that maybe AOL CEO Tim Armstrong isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed: Last year the company lost $782 million.

Think about that. I’ve done some stupid things in my life, but losing $782 million? No. Never did that.

UPDATE VI: Chris Wysocki in the comments: “Who wants to lay odds that AOL is going to be the source of Keith Olbermann’s next paycheck?”

Yeah, Scared Monkeys made a similar analogy: HuffPo as the MSNBC of AOL. The Lonely Conservative wonders how long before AOL demands a government bailout.

Professor Reynolds mockingly says the ridiculous price paid for HuffPo “means that InstaPundit’s valuation just skyrocketed,” when of course it means no such thing. Because this deal makes no sense as a business proposition, it cannot be weighed in as a factor for calculating the value of any other Internet property.

What has been proven, if anything, is that there is a sucker born every minute. But we knew that already.

From the Department of Not Exactly News: Chris Matthews Is Very Confused

You can’t make up stuff as funny as this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“I feel ashamed about this. I feel ashamed as an American, the way we’re doing this. . . . We’re not handling it as Americans should handle a matter like this. And I don’t feel right about it.”

There’s a lot of commentary concentrating on the fact that Matthews criticizes Obama, but as Ed Morrissey says, the whole 12-minute clip is worth watching.

Like many liberals trying to make sense of the Egyptian crisis, Matthews has been whipsawed between his support for democracy and his support for Democrats. It’s enormously upsetting to Matthews because he so very much wants to credit Obama with doing the right thing, even when (a) it’s not really clear what “the right thing” is, and (b) Obama is quite obviously doing everything wrong.

Putting aside the frightening thought of Islamists turning Egypt into Iran-on-the-Nile, conservatives have a much easier time making sense of this crisis: We expect Democrats to bungle foreign policy. We never believed Obama had any kind of miraculous abilities, and we especially jeered at Obama’s naive notion that the secret to foreign policy was to celebrate every week as “Be Nice to Foreigners Week.” Continue reading From the Department of Not Exactly News: Chris Matthews Is Very Confused →

El-Baradei: CNN’s Choice, Not Egypt’s

A little-noted passage in a Wednesday news article:

The Obama administration also reached out to Egypt’s top military officer, stressing the U.S. desire to see calm restored to the streets of Cairo, where pro- and anti-Mubarak forces fought with fists, stones and clubs.

One of the things that has puzzled me for the past couple of days is why U.S. media seem so tardy in following up on indications (see yesterday’s Reuters article and Tuesday’s report by Eric Dondero) that Egyptian military chief Lt. Gen. Sami Enan may emerge as the post-Mubarak leader.

The most obvious explanation — one I discussed by phone yesterday with Dondero — is that the Western press evidently jumped to the conclusion last week that Mohamed El-Baradei is the de facto popular leader of the anti-Mubarak opposition. This media-as-deciders trick gets exposed by Egyptian student Sam Tadros at American Thinker:

CNN’s anointed leader of the Egyptian Revolution must be important to the future of Egypt. Hardly! Outside of Western media hype, El Baradei is nothing. A man that has spent less than 30 days in the past year in Egypt and hardly any time in the past 20 years is a nobody. It is entirely insulting to Egyptians to suggest otherwise.

(Hat-tip: Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom.) El-Baradei is just a media-hyped camera hog with no meaningful popular support and — perhaps most importantly — no support within the Egyptian military. And as the Tadros article makes clear (read the whole thing) the army’s distrust of Mubarak’s son Gamal, who has no military background, was an important background factor in the current crisis. Tadros’ criticism of El-Baradei echoes the quote from the Egyptian university professor who called for Gen. Enan to help form an interm government:

We do not want El-Baradei. He spent too much time abroad, and knows nothing of the daily reality of the Egyptian people. He does not represent us.

This explains a lot about what has happened in the aftermath of Tuesday’s speech by Mubarak. Because El-Baradei is not a popular leader and has no real political base, his status as figurehead leader is dependent on the continuation and success of the protest movement. Once the “transition process” turns to actual politics — i.e., organizing a party, canvassing for votes, etc. — El-Baradei is through.

Remember that before Mubarak’s speech, the protesters had already announced that they were planning their biggest demonstration for this Friday. So when Mubarak announced that he would leave office after the September election, what did El-Baradei say to CNN?

El-Baradei, having already delivered an “ultimatum” that Mubarak must leave Egypt by Friday, said Mubarak would be a “dead man walking” if he did not go immediately. 

This radical intransigence by El-Baradei was the precursor of what has happened in the past two days. El-Baradei clearly wants to get credit as the man who overthrows Mubarak, but if that doesn’t happen now — while El-Baradei still has the protest crowds and the TV cameras — then his moment at center stage is past.

CNN and other Western media are assisting El-Baradei in his self-glorifying game. They need to wake up and smell the opportunism.

PREVIOUSLY: