President Obama was elected more than a year ago. In the months before his inauguration, President Bush worked closely with him on policy questions so that he did not commit Obama to any large decision that Obama would be forced to reverse. So we have already seen about a year of policy decisions from our current president.
During that year, I have listened to almost every KUOW Gang of Four program. In that year, I have not heard any of them criticize any of Obama's decisions. The Gang members are, let me remind you, supposedly tough, cynical journalists, who would probably tell you that they speak truth to power, and that they criticize Democrats as well as Republicans. But in an entire year, I have not heard any of them say anything critical of Obama. Not once.
What makes this even more remarkable is that they have not criticized Obama even when he has implicitly criticized himself. For example, after the Norwegian committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize, they agreed that it was a little strange (as Obama himself implied in his speech after the announcement), but by the end of the program had talked themselves into thinking that Obama deserved it, somehow.
(The award was not completely unprecedented. As some academic observers have pointed out, the committee sometimes gives out "aspirational" prizes, prizes given to people who the committee hopes will work for peace. You could view Obama's prize that way, or you could, as some cynics do, view it as a bribe.
Sadly, I have to add that the aspirational prizes usually do not work out well for the recipient. Often they end up strengthening his or her enemies.)
Nor have they criticized Obama for continuing Bush policies that they criticized while Bush was in office. Glenn Greenwald has his faults — search on his name plus "sock puppet" if you want to learn about one of them — but he is right when he says that Obama has continued many Bush policies criticized by leftwing extremists. And sometimes Obama has even gone farther than Bush did.
Let me repeat: I have never heard any of the Gang criticize Obama for continuing Bush policies, even when they had criticized those polices while Bush was in office. Policies that — in their opinion — were grounds for prosecution, are now silently tolerated.
I would like to think that members of the Gang are honest enough so that, if you pressed them, they would admit that they did not approve of some of those Obama policies — even though they are not willing to say so without being pressed.
But today's program made me wonder about even that. In the last part of the program, they got around to discussing Obama's decision to commit more troops to Afghanistan. None of them condemned the president, even though none of them agreed with his decision. Instead, they reacted weakly, saying it was what they expected, and similar things. This was not, to put it mildly, how they reacted to President Bush's decision to "surge" troops into Iraq. (No one will be surprised to learn that none of the Gang mentioned the success of the surge.)
We expect "mainstream" journalists to be watchdogs, and to criticize politicians, even when they largely agree with those politicians. But, as the Gang has shown us over this last year, we can not reasonably expect that when it comes to President Obama. Perhaps in the next year or so, some of them will bark at least occasionally. But the record shows that we can't count on that, and so we citizen journalists will have to work harder to do the work that the Gang, and most other "mainstream" journalists, are unwilling to do.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(In the October 9th program when they discussed the Nobel prize, the host, Marcy Sillman, made a serious factual error, saying that the Peace Prize was awarded by Sweden. In the same program, a caller asked the Gang to supply talking points for her to use with her neighbor. None of the Gang seemed to think it odd to be treated as Democratic consultants.
In today's program, Eli Sanders of the Stranger made an even more serious error, saying that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was responsible for Maurice Clemmons being free. In fact, Huckabee commuted Clemmons' original sentence in Arkansas because it was far beyond the usual punishment for his crimes. Some years later, a parole board set Clemmons free. There were many mistakes after that, by officials in both Arkansas and Washington, but Huckabee's original decision was reasonable — given what he knew then.
Both programs would get zero grades, since neither had conservative or Republican content, even from callers.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 04, 2009 01:43 PM | Email ThisBut I have to admit, your "The Gang members are, . . . tough, cynical journalists . . . [that] speak truth to power" joke was a good one though. You wacky, crazy guy!
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 4, 2009 02:06 PMToo funny.
"In fact, Huckabee commuted Clemmons' original sentence in Arkansas because it was far beyond the usual punishment for his crimes."
Oh dear, not far beyond the usual punishment!
Not that!
Yet, you listened to almost every program for a year. Points for trying. No points for comprehension.
And yet some blogs post news about errant policies that matter, and some post about hypothetical jokes and Film noir superhero fantasies all at the same time it provides the last refuge for self serving propoganda from a discredited self serving
hack.
Wonder what we can reasonably expect?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 4, 2009 02:46 PMOBTW, good job! on the html, but try linking to the actual phrase (e.g. ad hominem) in the actual post next time as opposed to your signature in a follow-on post. Easier for readers to follow.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 4, 2009 03:51 PMNo, they fancy themselves as quite the elite of journalists.
This is why they deserve to be called out.
Posted by: daveo on December 4, 2009 08:39 PMOlder phones have GPS recievers for 911? WRONG. Cell *sites* have GPS recievers, and they measure the time between transmission and reciept of your signal. The data from several of these sites is compiled at a central location, typically the switch, and a location is derived from a triangulation of the signals by a piece of equipment specifically designed for this purpose. This is required *by law* and wireless carriers face serious fines if the system goes down anywhere for more than ten minutes. But that's just Phase I, which has been law since the late '90s. Phase II gets much more in detail, and that's what we're required to maintain.
When someone dials 911, their location is triangulated by the methods described above and provided to the 911 call center. OF COURSE we bill for it; it costs a LOT of money to run what is basically an additional cell network piggybacked onto ours. But we run it because it is MANDATED BY THE FCC.
In the article, it mentions switching off the GPS receiver capability, but since the triangulation capability operates off of the air interface your phone relies on for service, that wouldn't matter.
go read the e911 article on wiki or here for more info.
Posted by: flashoverride on December 5, 2009 12:08 AMThe liberal mindset is fascinating. It is nearly impossible for them to ever admit that they have ever been wrong about anything. Some of my old liberal friends were convinced that Bush was going to engineer another 911, declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections. When I point out to them that they were wrong,(as I told them they were at the time), they get angry. Liberals do the same with global warming. They know it's a hoax, and they are mad as heck that the hoax has finally been exposed.
I disagree with you Jim when you say we expect mainstream journalists to criticize politicians. We used to back in the days before liberals took over the New York Times, the AP, Time, Newsweek, and the traditional television networks. I don't expect mainstream journalist to criticize Demorats at all these days. I expect them to be mouthpieces for the left. Particularly in Seattle on Public Radio.
A few weeks ago our trusty old PC began to eat its memory in spite of every trick I tried. We decided to get a Mac which meant going to the Apple store in University Village. We took the ailing PC down there on a Friday night so the Apple geeks could perform a Vulcan Mind Meld and transfer our files to the new iMac. The Apple folks were really nice. I've never seen so many geeks in one place.
We decided to walk over to the QFC and pick up something for dinner. I've never seen so many unhappy looking people. Nobody smiled. Nobody exchanged pleasantries. Their faces were pinched into what appeared to be permanent scowls. Most of them likely work at the UW. These are not folks you can tease or joke with. It freaked us out.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2009 09:55 AM(See Rahm and Ezekiel Emanuel for further details of the Democrat Party's personality, integrity and moral values cleansing programs and seminars)
Posted by: Saltherring on December 5, 2009 12:37 PMPart of the answer of course is the famous "Seattle Freeze" which is partly due to the Scandinavian heritage of many Seattleites.
Having said that, Seattle seemed to be a much warmer city before the far left descended upon it.
We go to the Tri-Cities every summer and nearly everyone is friendly. The little restaurant where we have breakfast is always filled with nice people and we often strike up a conversation with complete strangers. That rarely happens here in Seattle.
Again, I don't want to say all leftists are grim and unfriendly, but go sometime to the University Village QFC, or the Metropolitan Market nearby at NE 55th and 40th Ave NE. I think you'll understand what I am talking about.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2009 02:01 PMWHY do we allow Acor, NPR
Posted by: righton on December 5, 2009 07:42 PM