Going Roque

Let Me Tell You My Opinion

Going Roque
  • About Me

Information Processing

Archives

April 30, 2013 by Rachel

Is Austerity a Mistake?

A new paper from researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogo ff, has set the wonk world ablaze by debunking a 2010 study from Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, Growth In a Time of Debt. Reinhart and Rogoff claimed to have found a “main result is that…median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower.” According to Michael Konczal,

This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession. Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity budget states their study “found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth.” The Washington Post editorial board takes it as an economic consensus view, stating that “debt-to-GDP could keep rising — and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth.”

However, when their results were replicated by Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, they discovered a trifecta of mistakes and biases that essentially invalidated the study – whimsical weighting of national economies, selective exclusion of data that didn’t support their premise, and a coding error on the original Excel spreadsheet that failed to include five countries in the overall average.

ESCANDALO! Liberal economists who had expressed serious misgivings about the study since it was released quickly jumped into the fray, from Matt Yglesias’s thorough series of critiques to Paul Krugman’s history lesson on the tumultuous love affair that number-crunchers must have with their harsh mistress, Excel. However, as exciting as it is to watch guys in glasses argue over coding and spreadsheet columns, Jonathan Chait reminds us that the Rogoff and Reinhart paper was A) the starting point for the Bowles-Simpson Commission and B) the intellectual justification for a massive, devastating rise in unemployment here, and in Europe.

However, if any politician who used the flawed Rogoff and Reinhart study as a justification for embracing austerity measures changes their position now that it has been proven to be junk science, I will mail $5.00 to your home tomorrow.*

*First come, first serve until I run out of $5 bills. So, basically one person.

Posted in Corruption, Ideology, Information Processing, Public Square, Side-eye · 2 Replies ·

Archives

March 24, 2013 by Rachel

Representative sample

Recall the 2009 hullabaloo about how the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, required “four reams of paper” to print, because its length clocked in at “thousands of pages”? While some of this hysteria was deliberately engineered to symbolize the physical embodiment of Big Government, those who actually read the Senate versions of legislation understood something that escaped the punditry and armchair legislators: with only 12 senators under the age of 50, according to Michael Bommarito,

“Those versed in the typesetting practices of the United States Congress know that the printed version of a bill contains a significant amount of whitespace including non-trivial space between lines, large headers and margins, an embedded table of contents, and large font. For example, consider page 12 of the printed version of H.R. 3962. This page contains fewer than 150 substantive words.”

Translation: elderly readers require a million-point font; at standard 12 point type, those “thousands of pages” shrink down to roughly the size of a Harry Potter novel. Being represented by a council of wise elders has certain drawbacks and skewing effects.

menfolk

For instance, a sizable majority of Americans support Obama’s gun control proposals; 91% for background checks, 60% are in favor of the assault weapons ban. Yet somehow, it’s considered to be an extraordinarily heavy lift to get either of these measures through congress.

Brendon Ayanbadejo, shot for Men’s Journal by photographer John Loomis.

Similarly, a a Washington Post poll this month found that 58% of Americans support gay marriage. Even in the hypermasculine bastion of professional football, players are lobbying for marriage equality – yet members of congress are significantly less willing to entertain the idea than voters are.

Leaving out money and class – a difficult ask, since the makeup of congress is overwhelmingly white and wealthy, in addition to elderly; the cultural lag of our elected representatives may best be explained in terms of their own outdated perspectives. For instance, a working paper showed that elected representatives overestimated the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points, on average. Clearly, the American public is culturally outpacing their representatives on a number of important issues – but what is truly troubling is the question of whether said representatives know it, and choose to ignore it, or if they have no idea at all that those they are leading are headed in an entirely different direction.

Posted in Information Processing, Public Square · 5 Replies ·

Archives

February 24, 2013 by Rachel

The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things: the Unconscious Roots of Conservative Ideology

fox red tie

The ideal of democracy – a well-informed public engaged in good faith in a passionate, yet reasoned debate – has never truly existed. Still, if one removes the qualifiers from the previous statement, it is relatively close to the actual American practice of self-governance.

Yet, the gulf between almost-universally endorsed political abstracts and specific policies becomes painfully apparent when the polity attempts to apply them in the real world. For instance, when Herbert McClosky and John Zaller examined attitudes towards “capitalism” and “democracy,” principles which are theoretically linked, they found that “The evidence on this point is unequivocal: people who are most firmly attached to democratic values tend to exhibit the least amount of support for capitalism,” and vice versa.

With an inherent but invisible conflict brewing beneath the generalities that the public widely agrees upon, heuristics can be an extremely useful tool to develop a sort of mental shorthand for both diehard ideologues and the politically unsophisticated masses. Rather than becoming an expert on every subject, most citizens necessarily rely on a combination of personal experience and cues from elites. Nonetheless, as scientists are fond of noting, the plural of anecdote is not ‘data,’ and a reliance on one’s own standpoint and social group alone often results in problematic inconsistencies. This incoherence between abstract idealism and functional reality is particularly evident within the extensive research into the operational-symbolic paradoxes of conservative ideology. Analysis into how psychosocial predispositions act on political ideology assists in identifying errors in forming policy views, and ultimately in determining how occasionally contradictory political beliefs can be simultaneously held.

Continue reading →

Posted in Existential Crisis, Ideology, Information Processing, Public Square · Leave a Reply ·

Archives

February 22, 2013 by Rachel

Senator Rape

Dear Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert (R-Conway): when people were talking about “the rape caucus,” it was not actually supposed to be an official thing. I mean…

Posted in Information Processing, Side-eye · Leave a Reply ·

Archives

February 18, 2013 by Rachel

“Alright then, I’ll go to hell.”

In honor of the publication in 1885 of “Huckleberry Finn,” let’s talk about how ahead of the curve America’s Favorite Ginger Mark Twain was on practically every serious issue facing the country.

Samuel Clemens came of age during a period in American history marked by problematic moral questions, from the spiritual devastation of slavery to an explosion of scientific advances that upended the known world. As the literal and metaphorical borders shifted, traditional Judeo-Christian values failed to address these new questions. Reflecting on the meaning of this failure, Twain observed that “the altar cloth of one eon is the doormat of the next.”

He was almost obscenely prolific; the Mark Twain Project at the University of California received approximately one million handwritten pages from his daughter Clara. Additionally, more than 5000 new letters have been discovered since 1960, although some experts believe he wrote at least 50,000. Like Tom Sawyer spying on his own funeral, Twain gleefully anticipated the scandals and fanfare which he hoped would accompany his posthumously released works, many of which were scathingly heretical. Harold Bush and William Phipps, who wrote “Mark Twain and the Spiritual Crisis of His Age” and “Mark Twain’s Religion” respectively, tried to solve the problem of how Mark Twain could be on the one hand this sharp-tongued social critic, while Sam Clemens was deeply in love with his devoutly religious wife Olivia, and close friends with Reverends Joe Twichell, and Thomas and Henry Ward Beecher. In fact, the heresy trial of Henry Ward Beecher greatly alienated Clemens from organized religion. Additionally, the massive (and growing) inequality of the Gilded Age, along with the rise of scientific thinking, contributed to a widespread spiritual malaise which he both helped to create, and was deeply affected by.

More compelling than the national mood, however, was his own personal history. Half of his family, 3 of his 6 siblings and his father, were dead by the time he turned 12. He held himself responsible for the death of a fourth sibling, his younger brother Henry, and later for the illness and death of his infant son Langdon. He lost 2 more daughters in their 20’s, and he outlived his wife Olivia as well. He made and lost several fortunes, including Olivia’s inheritance, and was forced by bankruptcy into exile for almost a decade. There is little consensus on his religious perspective – Bush called him an adherent of the social gospel, Phipps labels him a “tolerant monotheist,” and many scholars believe he was an atheist –Twain was such a skilled satirist that sifting genuine beliefs out of the exaggerations and tall tales can be difficult. However, the string of personal tragedies he experienced must surely have called to mind the much put-upon Job. He wrote in The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson, “All say, ‘How hard it is that we have to die’ – a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.”

Clemens’ personal heartbreak coincided with the national upheaval of the Civil War. His slave-owning mother Jane was a proud confederate, while his brother Orion joined the Union Army. Sam himself briefly joined a militia composed of childhood friends, but his wartime experience was limited to camping in the woods for a week. The Clemens family’s split clearly mirrored that of the country at large; the moral compass provided by the church spun wildly as both abolitionists and slave-owners used opposing interpretations of the Bible to support their claims. He recalled how literal biblical interpretations were used by the clergy as evidence of God’s approval of slavery; later, he wrote that in the years leading up to the war, “There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one – the pulpit.”

Like the country at large, he would wrestle with issues of race and slavery for the rest of his life, returning to them again and again in his writing. The church’s claim to moral authority was catastrophically damaged in the wake of abolition. He wrote that:

“In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers. If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God’s will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God’s specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning…she had no word to say against human slavery. …. The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it…”

For Twain, like many Americans, the Church’s place on the wrong side of such a serious and clear issue as slavery irreparably damaged her credibility as an ethical leader.

While the church was failing to correct the world, Twain discovered a group of European social critics and scientists. He had left school at the age of eleven, and instead of attending college he devoured the newly published texts of Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Arthur Schopenhauer, Sir Charles Lyell, Friedrich Nietzsche, and many others. In a letter to his brother Orion in 1865 he wrote, “I have a religion – but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor. You are in trouble, & in debt – so am I. I am utterly miserable – so are you.” Twain had grown disillusioned with the traditional teachings of the Christian church, and began to look towards scientific fields for answers. He found that the principles of secular humanism (belief in science, ethical naturalism, a focus on fulfillment in this life rather than a possibility of an afterlife, rational moral principles not predicated on supernaturalism, rejection of religious dogma, and critical assessment of ideologies) made far more sense in assessing reality. For all practical purposes, he had begun the process of conversion from a good Presbyterian boy to a secular humanist.

Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, a tide of scientific advances were challenging religious dogma – and winning. Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” sent shock waves through society when it was published in 1859, inspiring an immediate and vicious denunciation from the religious community. Twain found the evidence more convincing than the rebuttal. In his biography, he remarked that “[t]he Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition.” In 1887, Twain crystallized his shifting spiritual views in a letter to his dear friend William Howells, writing:

“People pretend that the Bible means the same to them at 50 that it did at all former milestones in their journey. I wonder how they can lie so. It comes of practice, no doubt. They would not say that of Dickens’ or Scott’s books. Nothing remains the same. When a man goes back to look at the house of his childhood, it has always shrunk: there is no instance of such a house being as big as the picture in memory and imagination call for. Shrunk how? Why, to its correct dimensions: the house hasn’t altered; this is the first time it has been in focus.

Well, that’s loss. To have house and Bible shrink so, under the disillusioning corrected angle, is loss–for a moment. But there are compensations. You tilt the tube skyward and bring planets and comets and corona flames a hundred and fifty thousand miles high into the field. Which I see you have done, and found Tolstoi. I haven’t got him in focus yet, but I’ve got Browning…”

But the reactionary hysteria of religious institutions towards science was not the only area ripe for criticism; Twain would become increasingly more incensed by the symbiosis of imperialism and missionary zeal.

The turn of the twentieth century marked a very public political awakening for Twain. He underwent a 180 degree change regarding colonialism and interventionism in the one year period between 1898 and 1899. Formerly an ardent supporter of the Spanish American War, he had believed that US involvement would help to free Cuba from Spanish abuse. However, the very next year, when the US expanded operations to the Philippines, Twain sided with the Pilipino nationalists. He explained that he had been a “…red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific … But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines.” Although his ire was primarily directed against the political powers, he would soon come to believe that the Church bore as much, if not more, of the responsibility for military and economic devastation of resource-rich lands.

Twain referred to himself as “The American,” but when he made his definitive stand against religionists, it was in China. The violent Boxer Uprising which kindled and raged throughout China for three years was directly traceable to imperialistic policies of western nations, who forced the importation of both opium and millions of missionaries, seized Chinese land and exempted foreigners from many laws (a scenario that would play out again, with similar results, in 20th century Iran). Because many Christians had been targeted and slain in the rebellion, a prominent missionary named William Scott Ament, along with a number of missionary organizations demanded indemnities. Ament led both Chinese and foreign Christians to retaliate against the Boxers with looting, murder, extortion and arson on a massive scale. Twain, aghast at a Christmas Eve newspaper report of Ament’s actions, was inspired both to join the Anti-Imperialist League and to write a scathing indictment of imperialism, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness,” which refers to Kiplings pro-colonialism ode “White Man’s Burden.” Twain laid the sarcasm on thick, claiming that

“Mr. Ament’s financial feat of squeezing a thirteen-fold indemnity out of the pauper peasants to square other people’s offenses, thus condemning them and their women and innocent little children to inevitable starvation and lingering death, in order that the blood money so acquired might be ‘used for the propagation of the Gospel,’ does not flutter my serenity…”

The venom dripping from his pen is palpable. Although the sharpest barbs were aimed at Ament’s jugular, Twain used the essay to broadly criticize European and American imperialism in not only China, but the Philippines, Cuba, and South Africa. In another venue, a speech to the Red Cross, Twain said:

“I bring you the stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored, from pirate raids in Kiaochow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and towel, but hide the looking glass.”

Clearly, his political and religious views had radicalized from the weak neutrality of his Civil War days; he had come to believe that detachment in the face of oppression was a luxury no moral person could afford. But Twain’s most stylized and eloquent response to the tide of American military actions was kept under wraps while he was alive. “The War Prayer,” written in 1904, describes an unnamed country that has just declared war. The excitement and righteous fervor of the citizenry is palpable, as young volunteers prepare to leave for the front to fight for God and country. In church, the pastor prays “that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory…”

An old man claiming to be a messenger from God appears to complete the “unuttered” second part of the prayer, for suffering, chaos and death in the land of the enemy. The flock of the faithful concludes that he must be crazy. When Twain’s publisher refused to print the essay, he sent it to Harper’s Bazaar, who also declined. It was eventually printed in Harper’s Monthly in 1916, six years after his death, only months before the beginning of US involvement in the First World War.

The body of Twain’s nonfiction writing illustrates the deeper problem that the American public had to contend with. Governments have always been corrupt in their pursuit of power. However, a major role of religion has always been as a moral arbiter, resolving conflicts and maintaining social cohesion. Throughout Twain’s life, the church failed to properly serve their clear purpose, instead sowing greater seeds of discord and confusion as her grip on power slipped away. He was not merely disappointed by this spiritual failure; he feels righteous fury at the church for her betrayal of an ancient covenant. This anger is illuminated somewhat by his description of his own place in society. Upon receiving an honorary degree from Yale, Twain explained that his job as a humorist is

“…a worthy calling; that with all its lightness and frivolity it has one serious purpose, one aim, one specialty, and it is constant to it – the deriding of shams, the exposure of pretentious falsities, the laughing of stupid superstitions out of existence; and that who so is by instinct engaged in this sort of warfare is the natural enemy of royalties, nobilities, privileges and all kindred swindles, and the natural friend of human rights and human liberties.”

Twain had made a lifelong good-faith attempt to understand and improve religious piety. Because she either could not or would not do the same, he judged the church to be a bankrupt institution. Today, studies show that religious adherence in the United States has massively declined since Twain’s lifetime. Despite the strength of his denunciations, Twain did maintain hope for religion – derived, ironically enough, from the premise of evolution. In “Europe and Elsewhere,” after he excoriated the church for needing to be dragged behind the moral arc of the universe kicking and screaming, he closed the chapter with a hopeful prognostication: “It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.”

Posted in Existential Crisis, Information Processing, Public Square · Leave a Reply ·

Archives

February 15, 2013 by Rachel

The art of selling out

fiddlehead

In an op-ed today in the NYT, Lance Hosey makes the pragmatic case for beauty:

“Take color. Last year, German researchers found that just glancing at shades of green can boost creativity and motivation. It’s not hard to guess why: we associate verdant colors with food-bearing vegetation — hues that promise nourishment. This could partly explain why window views of landscapes, research shows, can speed patient recovery in hospitals, aid learning in classrooms and spur productivity in the workplace. In studies of call centers, for example, workers who could see the outdoors completed tasks 6 to 7 percent more efficiently than those who couldn’t, generating an annual savings of nearly $3,000 per employee.
In some cases the same effect can happen with a photographic or even painted mural, whether or not it looks like an actual view of the outdoors. Corporations invest heavily to understand what incentivizes employees, and it turns out that a little color and a mural could do the trick. Simple geometry is leading to similar revelations. For more than 2,000 years, philosophers, mathematicians and artists have marveled at the unique properties of the “golden rectangle”: subtract a square from a golden rectangle, and what remains is another golden rectangle, and so on and so on — an infinite spiral. These so-called magical proportions (about 5 by 8) are common in the shapes of books, television sets and credit cards, and they provide the underlying structure for some of the most beloved designs in history: the facades of the Parthenon and Notre Dame, the face of the ‘Mona Lisa,’ the Stradivarius violin and the original iPod.”

Bill Hicks took this line of reasoning to its logical extreme decades ago; it ends with a beautiful woman, preferably nude, in fully saturated color, selling Coke. And the truth about whether sex really sells, or if it just angries up the blood is, of course, more complicated than the conventional wisdom might admit. But the way the question is framed is problematic. Does beauty in art or nature need justification, a practical purpose, an angle to exploit? Is the ultimate measure of everything whether or not it can be used to turn a profit?

Jackson Pollock, “Number 8”

Now. Some people become very fidgety when, for instance, their favorite song turns up in a car commercial. I have little patience for the sort of purist who prefers their idols starving and struggling; as Nitsuh Abebe wrote in a very good profile of Grizzly Bear last year, artists have mortgages to pay and heroin to buy, like the rest of us, and while I personally would never always illegally pirate music even though it is easier and faster as well as free-er, you know. Kids these days. However: egregious brand clashes between band and product are certainly cringe-inducing (remember that painfully awkward Iggy Pop ad for a Royal Caribbean cruise?). On the other hand, the use of Walt Whitman in this Levi’s ad makes me want to high five Don Draper.

It is certainly a marvelous side effect for an artist to have his paintings featured in a movie, or a song used to sell iPods. There is, in fact, a compelling argument to be made that the demands of marketing can make one a better writer or visual artist. There is undeniably a fertile, profitable overlap between commerce and creation. Still, the concept that the value of not just one’s work, but even physical or natural beauty is market-based…that freaks me out. Maybe it’s just because nobody ever pays me for my paintings.

Posted in Existential Crisis, Information Processing, Public Square · Leave a Reply ·

Archives

February 2, 2013 by Rachel

The ‘Wizard of Blogs’

Nick Denton, 2010

     Nick Denton has written precisely one book, a 1996 exposé of the collapse of Barings Bank called “All That Glitters.” It did not perform particularly well commercially, nor did it receive outstanding critical acclaim. His work as a journalist for the Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, and the Economist was, if not unremarkable, at least unremarked upon. Despite his own sterling academic bona fides as a graduate of Oxford, the class he co-taught at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism with an academic and former Hungarian legislator from his Financial Times days, Peter Molnar, proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Denton abandoned the project mid-semester and no longer speaks to his former colleague. Similarly, his transition from traditional print media to online properties, First Tuesdays and Moreover Technologies, made him rich through fortunate timing with the dot-com bubble, but failed to satisfy his developing ambitions. At a glance, the man who now gleefully refers to himself a pornographer and gossip merchant is not the most obvious heir apparent to, let’s say, beloved American satirist/moralist Mark Twain.

     And yet, upon deeper observation, Denton represents not just a new kind of journalist, but a new kind of public intellectual; one who prizes radical authenticity over objectivity, the democracy of pageviews over the preferences of the media elite, and the clarity of an outsider perspective over access to the powerful. As the media mogul behind the Gawker Media family of websites (Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, Deadspin, Lifehacker, io9, Kotaku, Jalopnik and the soon-to-be-resurrected Valleywag; and formerly, Wonkette, Idolator, Consumerist, the wildly NSFW Fleshbot, Defamer, Gridskipper, Sploid, Cityfile, Oddjack, Screenhead, and Gawker.TV), Denton has tied the digital future of media to its historical roots in the sensationalism of “yellow” print journalism. In a profile in the New Yorker, Ben McGrath writes:

“Like all gossip merchants, Denton fancies himself a truth-teller who relishes flouting the conventions of good taste and privilege. He grew up in London, where the Fleet Street tabloid culture is cutthroat, and he shares the Murdochian view of American journalism as effete, earnest, and uncompetitive. ‘The staples of old yellow journalism are the staples of the new yellow journalism: sex; crime; and, even better, sex crime,’ he wrote in a memo to his staff. ‘Remember how Pulitzer got his start.'”

     In fact, Denton’s clearly defined editorial voice and eye for writing talent spread throughout the nascent blogging platform like a virus. Young editors and writers steeped in Gawker’s trademark outsider snark have made their way into an astonishing number of traditional, ‘legitimate’ outlets: Alex Pareene to Slate, Emily Gould to the New York Times, Jessica Coen to Vanity Fair, Ana Marie Cox to MSNBC, Gabriel Snyder and Richard Lawson to the Atlantic, Doree Shafrir to Rolling Stone, Gabriel Sherman to the New York Observer, and on and on. Clearly, this pattern of migration is unique to Gawker among gossip hawkers; one will not find a similar revolving door between the New Yorker and TMZ, for instance.

     Additionally, former Gawkerites Choire Sicha and Alex Balk, after making the rounds of New York media (NYT, Radar), began their own blog, The Awl, which began turning a tidy profit in an astonishingly short amount of time. They have since expanded to a family of sites (specializing in comedy, feminism, finances, and technology) which resemble an early incarnation of Gawker in both tone and design. In terms of influence, there can be little doubt that Denton’s peculiar sensibility has issued a challenge to the media establishment that they have been forced to answer. However, while pure influence may be enough to qualify him for a regular table at Balthazar’s and the literally rarefied air of the Aspen Ideas Panel, does it truly make him a public intellectual?

     In a 2008 New York Times post, Barry Gewen argued that the old ways of evaluating who is and is not a public intellectual – and by extension, whether or not public intellectuals as a class are in decline – from a classic postwar, New-York-centric perspective are still superior to the overly-inclusive definition of modern academics. Between the lines pulses a disdain for a laxity of standards, this new group of wildcat intellectuals who will, as he writes, practically let anyone into the club, so long as they have written a book. The old guard, however, had standards:

“Broadly, they viewed the public intellectual as someone deeply committed to the life of the mind and to its impact on the society at large. Irving Howe refers to the pursuit of ‘the idea of centrality’ among the writers he knew, and the yearning ‘to embrace . . . the spirit of the age.’ That is, public intellectuals were free-floating and unattached generalists speaking out on every topic that came their way (though most important for the New York Intellectuals was the intersection of literature and politics). They might be journalists or academics, but only because they had to eat. At the most fundamental level, ideas for them were not building blocks to a career….Drezner includes, for instance, Fareed Zakaria and Samantha Power. I yield to few in my admiration for these two writers, but for them to be considered public intellectuals in the old New York Intellectual sense — with its commitment to cultural “centrality” — I think they would have to demonstrate greater breadth than they have so far displayed. Zakaria would have to write, say, a thoughtful essay on the novels of Philip Roth and Power a book on the history of the blues.”

     He continued on in that vein, approvingly discussing the shame that the Great Old Ones had if they were forced to find gainful employment. How too, terribly bourgeois. This served, he theorizes, to maintain tension between academia’s demands that one actually be an expert at something, and the conflicting belief on the part of the New York intellectuals that people who have jobs are simply not that cool.

     Stephen Mack counters with another perspective on what it means to be a public intellectual which addresses an important angle of Gewen’s “dynamic tension” requirement by tackling another form of snobbery:

“Donatich’s smugly theatrical notion of a ‘conflict,’ a popular view within the intelligentsia, is both wrong and wrong-headed. It is wrong in the sense that it traffics in the self-serving fiction of American anti-intellectualism. And it is wrong-headed in the sense that it undermines the value of citizen responsibility by subordinating it unnecessarily to the most elitist argument for the public intellectual, the one grounded in the myth of an aristocracy of experts…. what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum. Hence, for example, when John Dewey built his career as a philosopher on a thoughtful, systematic, elegant, and sustained repudiation of the Cartesian notion of mind and, instead, argued for ‘experience’ as the foundation of human endeavor—he was hardly exposing himself as an anti-intellectual bigot. ‘Nuff said.”

     Within the interplay between these writers on who deserves to be called a public intellectual, what role experience in the material world plays, and crucially, who decides who gets into the club, a commonality emerges. As Mack puts it, “public intellectual” is not a class or a type – it is a function. The most important duty of a public intellectual, the work they must do, he claims, is “…to keep the pot boiling.” It is difficult to imagine any current figure who serves in this role of pot-stirrer, critic of the mighty, instigator, and general shit-starter better than Denton. In a 7 page long article reacting to brutal mockery from Gawker for her overly precious wedding announcement, New York Observer writer Vanessa Grigoriadis explored her own professional and personal discomfort with Denton’s model:

“Of all the ways in which Gawker is antithetical to journalistic ethics—it’s self-referential, judgmental, ad hominem, and resolutely against effecting change in the world—it pushes its writers to be honest in a way that’s not always found in print publications. Little is repressed; the id, and everything else, is part of the discourse (including exhibition and narcissism). Even the Gawker office, a kind of journalistic boiler room, can serve as a metaphor for transparency, open for anyone to see, operating behind a plate-glass window in a Crosby Street storefront. Some of Denton’s bloggers are onboard with this mission: ‘Quite frankly, fuck discretion,’ writes Moe Tkacik, a former newspaper reporter, on Denton’s newest site, Jezebel. ‘Discretion is how I didn’t figure out how to come until I was 24 years old; discretion is why women’s magazine editors persist in treating their fellow humans like total shit; and when you’ve spent a career trying to catch others in their own indiscretions, discretion just feels a little dishonest and superior.'”

Tellingly, Grigoriadis opened her piece with: “At the risk of sounding like a wounded old-media journalist…”

Alan Dye illustration from NY Mag article, “Gawker and the Rage of the Creative Underclass”

     For Denton and his staff, the accountability of page views are an inoculation against the myopia and elitism that plague old-media journalism. Although a cursory search will turn up oodles of photographs of Denton hobnobbing with Arianna Huffington, Cory Booker, and Bill Maher, publishing private emails from Brian Williams, or and toasting champagne with Janine Gibson, Denton believes that chasing after access in return for favorable coverage is the true form of selling out. Though he has become a fixture of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit, he is widely considered to be ‘skunk at the garden party’- as he was in his time as a relentless, ruthless reporter. His obsession with providing readers with what they really want, rather than what he or any other expert might think that they should want, has resulted in higher traffic on his websites than the LA Times, Time, the Washington Post, or USA Today.

     It has also resulted in experimentation in technique and methodology, including “traffic whoring,” which naturally spiraled into additional obsessing from media observers, as well as interest from large, shady investors which Denton was able to leverage into an election year scoop of the Republican candidate’s former business. It has, of course, also provided him with a Greek chorus of media figures who relish the opportunity to put him in his place; after Ben McGrath’s profile ran, his colleague John Cassidy aggressively dismissed any claims that Denton might be the next Murdoch in a follow up piece:

“Denton has moved beyond the stage of running a cottage business, but suggestions that he has joined, or is about to join, the ranks of moguldom, where revenues are measured in the hundreds of millions, or billions, are absurd….That said, he runs an innovative little company that has some well-known online brands, and he has bigger ambitions.”

Ahem.

     Whatever the case regarding revenues, Gawker has made it a point to expand their targets from just celebrities and old media, taking on hackers, Vladimir Putin, closeted tycoons, Apple, football players and their fake dead girlfriends, topless congressmen, and soon, the world. Denton has shown that he will not only tolerate, but actively cultivate a reputation as an outsider, even as his experiments provide a microcosmic view of the evolution of media; as he told NBC News, “This is going to sound really, really pretentious, but I believe in the larger truth and I believe that the truth is arrived at often in a rather messy fashion.” There is no more precise way, in my view, to define the function of a public intellectual.

Posted in Information Processing, Public Square, Throwing Shade · Leave a Reply ·

Recent Posts

  • Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Tokenism 101
  • Six Ages of the World: the Role of Faith in the Development of the Calculus
  • Lifestyles of the Rich and Shady
  • Representative sample

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Archives

  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013

Categories

  • Corruption
  • Existential Crisis
  • Ideology
  • Information Processing
  • Public Square
  • Reform
  • Religion
  • Side-eye
  • Throwing Shade

Recent Comments

  • Jay Sneed on Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Ryan Cohn on Representative sample
  • Andrew Stames on Tokenism 101
  • Nelson Allen on Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Andrew Stames on Six Ages of the World: the Role of Faith in the Development of the Calculus

All content © 2021 by Going Roque. Base WordPress Theme by Graph Paper Press