Bloviating Media Blowhards at Princeton
Jack Kemp is attending a seminar on the future of news at Princeton, where Steve Boriss from Pajamas Media (and the head of the St. Louis Conservative Meetup) is sitting on one of the workshop panels. He sends us a field report:
Tim,
The conference was kind of low key, with many talking in gereralities. I spoke to Steve Boriss, who is originally from the Bronx. He was one of the few speakers who were conservative, pro business.
I also spoke with a retired NY Times copy editor who took their buyout package. He tried to defend the Times article about the ex-soldiers committing murders (leaving out it was at 1/5 the national average for that age group) - and I pointed out the “General Betray-us” full page ad bought at a discount in the Times to show that they didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt because of many pro-individual soldier articles they (allegedly) published. He was an interesting man to talk to.
Big liberal writer Eric Alterman stood facing a small group of listeners (me included), just before he joined an afternoon panel, and complained that The Nation doesn’t get the same low postal rates as the big media publications get, such as Murdock’s. I guess that’s why he reads The Nation. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that if few people want to read a publication (in this case a hard leftist rag), then they can’t buy postage or anything else at bulk rates. Does Eric also complain that he has to pay more for a band-aid than the Health & Hospitals Corporation of New York? Put some ice on it, Eric.
The “highlight” - for me - yesterday was after the Princeton prof. main speaker (Prof. Starr, I believe) a self-stated liberal, said that we should see more informed voters now that we have much more people going to college. I raised my hand and informed him and the whole conference that my tour guide at Mt. Vernon asks high school kids, “Who won the American Revolution?,” and the reply that the British did. Also told him about Jay Leno’s show pictures of ex-presidents to graduating seniors, they didn’t recognize Eisenhower and thought the famous profile picture of FDR with a cigarette holder was “the Penguin” from Batman! This impressed him because he incorporated these facts into his tone as his talk continued.
“I don’t know if I actually met this guy or not. I’m terrible about remembering names.
I’m pretty sure I wasn’t talking to him, though; I certainly wasn’t focusing my attention on him. So even if I was — which, as I say, I doubt — the dude is snarking about a private conversation without asking my permission or even mentioning it. Nice.“
Comment by Anonymous — May 15, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
“I don’t know if I actually met this guy or not. I’m terrible about remembering names.
I’m pretty sure I wasn’t talking to him, though; I certainly wasn’t focusing my attention on him. So even if I was — which, as I say, I doubt — the dude is snarking about a private conversation without asking my permission or even mentioning it. Nice.“, Altercation, by Eric Alterman
Comment by Anonymous — May 15, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
if you think curad charges too much for a bandage, you can go to band-aid or a store brand. There is no monopoly, no price fixing in bandage products.
the postal service jealously guards its business in distributing second class and bulk mail, ensuring a monopoly (though as a businessperson who uses the mail service, I think they are fairly priced and reliable despite their monopoly). But then I send my publications by first class mail and willingly pay the freight because my customers willingly pay it. Like the guy said, no one will die for want of poetry.
The Nation and National Review (he mentioned both in the conversation you overheard) are special cases–they are intended to be the marketplace of ideas. They don’t publish pictures of naked women or wrestlers or souped-up cars. The value in these magazines is that they publish a lot of black and white text by thinking people for thinking people. Because of a want of free thought, we have entered into many unnecessary wars, bought and sold unsafe things, and engaged in a lot of dangerous and silly behavior that might have been avoided if free speech were truly free. But as your attitude demonstrates, the people whose opinions and ideas most commonly turn out to be correct are also the people who would chase away marketers and advertisers. People tried to shut down Air America, for example, with letter writing campaigns to advertisers on that network. Free speech is very dangerous to the companies that make a profit on war, poisoning our environment, and poisoning our minds. Since these companies are largely driven by advertising, there is very little of it in the magazines that discuss the diseases these companies inflict on our country and our people. Hence, National Review or The Nation may have the same number of subscribers as, for example, Maxim (probably not, but let’s say they do for the sake of argument). But whereas Maxim can be four color throughout and pay its writers and editors handsomely and easily absorb any cost of distribution because it is largely supported by its advertisers, National Review and The Nation cannot because they have few advertisements. They operate on a shoestring, are frequently in the red, rarely pay their authors, barely pay their editors, and are harmed by high postage and distribution costs. The cover price goes up and the market shrinks because a large number of the subscribers themselves are not wealthy, and often might be activists, school teachers, ministers, and students–the people who need the information contained in the pages, but whose income might not stretch to cover a high subscription cost. Likewise, libraries are generally run on a shoestring and will often drop a periodical if the price is too high. So the option of going to the city library may or may not exist.
In years past, the post office made the determination that some magazines were valuable for containing political speech and though and others were less valuable because basically, they just provide pornography for self-gratification. Now I can fully understand why you might disagree and believe that the latter is more important than the former, but those of us who are educated, who understand how democracies work, and center our lives on being good citizens instead of self abuse–you may refer to us as “the grownups”–understand that political thought needs to be fostered and encouraged. So the postal service used to use some of the money from delivering your nudie magazines to offset the cost of providing reading material of true value to people who make the decisions and prepare for the future and educate the next generation.
I hope I have made the situation clear to you. If there were any words you don’t understand, please let me know and I’ll be glad to help you out. In the future, perhaps it would save you some embarrassment if you submitted your blog posts to me for editing and approval before exposing them to the world at large. I could straighten out your logic and provide you with the missing facts and make you appear (at least to people who don’t know you well) to be a thoughtful person whose writings are worth reading. No charge.
Comment by gabby hayes — May 15, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Looks like Mr. Kemp touched a very sensitive nerve, Gabby! Me thinks thou Doth protest too much-especially that nudie magazine part.
Oh, may I ask, has The Nation ever advocated privatization for the post office to encourage competition and increase efficiency? Mr. Alterman is angry about the services he receives, yet he would be the first to oppose such a plan. But then, that`s free enterprise-can`t have that! In fact, I suspect Mr. Alterman and The Nation would like to have socialized medicine, too, and thus everyone would pay through the nose for a band-aid.
When last I checked, part of being a grownup is being able to disagree in a civil manner. You may want to re-evaluate that comment.
Timothy Birdnow
Comment by admin — May 15, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Does someone really have the right to privacy at public conference in an open floor discussion, especially since they did not say their comments were off the record? The topic Mr. Alterman discussed was a public policy advocacy, the type of things people talk about in the public square. I don’t pass along anything like the few personal family discussions I heard others involved in with their friends at the conference.
I’ll have to ask the Sen. Obama supporter in San Francisco who overheard the Senator talk about the “bitter small town Pennsylvanians” as to whether releasing such statements is fair. Or perhaps the fellow who transmitted Trent Lott’s remarks at Strom Thurmond’s party.
Jack
Comment by Jack Kemp — May 15, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Despite all the strong feelings, the discussion here with someone complaining about the Post office governemnt monopoly position being harsh on The Nation and the counterargument by Tim asking whether that monopoly should be broken up is great carrying forward of this discussion of postal rates policy and economic realities. Obviously we will not all come to the same conclusions here, be at least we have been treated to a new exposition of facts and opinions.
The keynote speaker at this conference, Prof. Starr, a self-proclaimed liberal stated Wednesday that we were better off in the 19th Century when vigorous partisan debate occurred because it got people involved in the process. This is exactly what we are seeing here in this very example. I welcome it - and totally agree with Prof. Starr on this point.
This debate is like panning for gold. You swirl up a lot of dust, but the valuable truths get found.
Comment by Jack Kemp — May 15, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
The postal service has been privatized for decades, dilweed!
Comment by chuck martin — May 15, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
[…] Jack Kemp is attending a seminar on the future of news at Princeton, where Steve Boriss from Pajamas Media (and the head of the St. Louis Conservative Meetup) is sitting on one of the workshop panels. He sends us a field report: Tim, The conference was kind of low key, with many talking in gereralit … Source: Bloviating Media Blowhards at Princeton […]
Pingback by Jay Leno Celebrity Gossip | Bloviating Media Blowhards at Princeton — May 16, 2008 @ 3:17 am
I don`t know what you think privatization is, Chuck; the USPS is an entity that exists solely within the United States government. The Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet-level post, but 9 out of 11 members of the governing board are appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. There is no stock sold, no shareholder reports, no competition for mail. Granted, there is a competitive field for parcels, but none for letters and light metered mail at all, because the U.S. does not allow it. Prices are not regulated by the free market but by fiat.
In short, it is a “business“ wholly owned and operated by the United States government. Some privatization, dilweed!
Comment by admin — May 16, 2008 @ 7:00 am
While an individual can chose from Band-Aid brand, Curad or the generic drugstore company brand to bring down their cost per bandage, they will quantititvely not be able to undercut the unit cost that the New York Health and Hospitals Corporation pays buying a huge number of band-aids per year.
New York City’s left-leaning government has banned Wal-Mart from opening a store within the city limits (I believe Chicago has done the same), making it difficult to take advantage of any discounts from the buying power of that huge chain. Perhaps the liberals here would care to join an effort to lift that ban. The annual savings realized by individual customers will cover the cost of purchasing The Nation, The Utne Reader, Mother Jones and any other publication they care to read - even the Limbaugh Letter!
Jack
Comment by Jack Kemp — May 16, 2008 @ 7:45 am
While it’s true the postal service is not privatized, it’s also true they do not have a monopoly on the service. If I want to send something to someone I don’t have to use the U.S.P.S. You say “parcel” as if that excludes mail, when it clearly does not, at least in my experience.
In any case, your response, “Oooh, looks like I touched a nerve” is a rather primitive rhetorical trick to avoid actually responding. So much for intelligent debate.
Comment by Paul — May 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Which, of course, makes the point, Paul; Alterman has no reason to complain. Still, I suppose you are not aware that in 1845 Congress made it illegal for companies to compete with the U.S. post office. I would direct your attention to this article http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-146.html which gives a rundown on the considerable effort the Postal Service has taken to squelch competition. Competitors may not use a house mailbox, under penalty of imprisonment and fine. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=case&court=us&vol=453&invol=114
Here is a quick excerpt you may find of interest:
“Last fall Sen. James R. Sasser (D-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to allow private companies to carry priority mail at the same price the Postal Service charges during an 18-month trial period. Currently, postal regulations mandate that competitors must charge at least double the Postal Service’s rate for priority mail.(149) The amendment would have allowed private companies to carry bundles of letters for as little as $3 a bundle; currently, such discounts are forbidden by postal regulations.(150) As Frank told the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, the Sasser amendment “provides for large corporations to take all of their mail from one place to another place and bundle them up without stamps and send them, via these packages.”(151) Frank warned that the Sasser amendment “would be the beginning of the end of the Postal Service as we know it. . . . It would open up priority mail to be raided by the overnight couriers.”(152) (According to the Postal Service’s Consumer Affairs Department, “priority mail” is an oxymoron: over 17 percent of priority mail nationwide was delivered late according to the most recent official report.)(153) Sasser is expected to reintroduce his amendment this year.“
You are clearly wrong, sir, or at least confused to the point of being out of the argument.
As to that last, yes, Jack touched a nerve, and Gabby produced a lengthy sneer to prove it. As was said about Edward Gibbons by William Paley “who can refute a sneer?“ I saw no reason to bother. You managed to ignore Jack`s refutation of Gabby, who really did not deserve the effort.
Timothy Birdnow
Comment by admin — May 16, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
I`ll humor you, Paul.
What were Gabby`s points, by the way?
1.That the post office has a monopoly-something given to it by the government.
2. That you can go elsewhere to buy band-aids. Sure-as long as it is in a union shop, government regulated industry. I believe Jack`s point about Wal-Mart was spot-on.
3. That we need more intelligent discussion? I would agree, but the point is moot; the people who would read the Nation or National Review are willing and able to pay for it. A certain amount of effort is expected where thought is concerned, and one cannot complain that a lower-volume publication has a higher postage cost. It`s a matter of lower demand. You on the left have been dumbing down the educational system for decades, teaching political correctness, “self esteem“ by not assigning grades, environmentalism, gender studies, and generally wasting educational time and taxpayer money. The teacher`s unions, which the left supports, is more interested in making life good for teachers. You oppose school vouchers, home schooling, testing for teachers, performance testing for students. Now you complain that you suffer the consequences of this! What did you guys expect?
4. Gabby complained about pornography and wrestling magazines, yet who has pushed pornography on our society? Who fights laws against distributing such material? Who fostered the “sexual revolution“ in the sixties. Anybody? Oh, by the way, I suspect that the readers of Wrestling Illustrated are better using their time than reading idiotic leftist rags like The Nation; it at least makes them happy. Liberals are both terribly confused AND always unhappy, and there is no point in Joe Sixpack becoming any duller or more unhappy.
5. Air America failed because of a deep conspiracy by Conservatives. It had nothing to do with the fact that nobody was listening-oh no! Of course, we all know that the television networks are biased against Liberals-just ask Dan Rather about his National Guardsman story!
6. Gabby suggests that free speech is under assault from higher postal rates. Once again, I would direct you to an easy solution, one you would be most unwilling to take. Of course, we have freedom of speech coming out of our ears; anyone can start a (free) website and spout to their hearts content.
7. Gabby complains about low pay for writers. Considering the amount of money I have made writing, you have absolutely no sympathy. The value of a thing is what that thing will bring, not what the producer THINKS it is worth.
I hope that clarifies things for you Paul (and you, too, Gabby! How`re Dale and Roy doing, by the way?) Since you wanted a reasoned discussion of a sneer, I`ve given you one.
Comment by admin — May 17, 2008 @ 8:09 am
[…] and he came back with a few observations which printed here under the title I assigned it “Bloviating Media Blowhards at Princeton“. This post triggered a number of angry responses-largely because leftist Eric Alterman chose to […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » Reasoned Discussion of a Sneer; Alterman and Friends Upset with Jack Kemp — May 17, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Mr. Alterman writes for The Nation, and in order to gather further guidance and background information on his objections, I decided to go to the The Nation’s website and view their collective wisdom from past articles.
It seems The Nation has published the results of a far more controversial remarks made at a party for Strom Thurmond by Trent Lott such as “Back to the Future With Trent Lott”
http://www.thenation.com/search/?search=trent+lott&scope=1
I would assume Mr. Altrman has no objection to the Nation repeating that conversation held at a birthday party, albeit not at a private home.
The Nation also has written a number of articles, such as “Bitter Fruit in Pennsylvania” http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/younge , referencing the revelation of remarks Sen. Obama made at a closed meeting of donors in San Francisco concerning “bitter” small town people who “cling to their guns and religion.” Whether the Nation appreciated this information leak or not, they have chosen to disseminate it on their pages. And I am not aware of Mr. Alterman objecting to that decision, as well, by The Nation.
Comment by Jack Kemp — May 17, 2008 @ 9:38 am
One could make the argument that Mr. Alterman is not an elected official seeking some office as the subjects of the two Nation articles I mention above, however as a political journalist of national reputation, he has entered the public arena of politics with his statements and can no more pretend his open pronouncements about the government allegedly unfairly overcharging his publisher for mailings are merely those of a private citizen. Mr. Alterman, as a measure of his noteriety, will be challenged in online forums (as I have with my blog posts) in a more heightened way than someone taking a position about government “fairness” at an office water cooler.
Comment by Jack Kemp — May 17, 2008 @ 10:05 am
[…] brings to mind the business about Eric Alterman. Our own Jack Kemp was party to a conversation with the Nation`s very liberal […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » The Rhetoric of Failure; Liberal Class Warfare — May 19, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Great article!Thank you!
tiffany necklaces
Comment by yushun — May 20, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.
Comment by Cancer — August 12, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Thanks, Tiffany!
Ditto, Cancer.
Comment by admin — August 12, 2008 @ 5:45 pm