Lying in Ponds

memeorandum is a great idea — it links to a mainstream media news story or opinion column and then links to related weblog posts. It’s an excellent way to see a range of reaction to individual pundit columns. For example, here’s the reaction to the recent Bill O’Reilly column on Dan Rather, with links to blog comments across the spectrum, from Avedon Carol to Jeff Jarvis to Charles Johnson.

In a very unusual column yesterday, Maureen Dowd loaned her soapbox to someone with political views very opposite to her own:

People often ask me why President Bush inspires such passionate support. My brother Kevin, a salesman who lives in Montgomery County, Md., can answer that; here is a recent e-mail message, trimmed for space, he sent to friends:

“Ladies and Gentlemen,

Now, just as four years ago, I breathe a huge sigh of relief and rejoice in the common sense of the American voting public. Congratulations to President Bush for winning re-election in a poker game played with a stacked deck. No candidate, including Richard Nixon, ever had to endure the biased and unfair tactics of our major media in their attempt to influence the outcome of an election. … He never complained, just systematically set about delivering the same consistent message. You may remember that four years ago, I felt physically ill watching the Democrats try to legislate their way to the presidency. …

Can you imagine Ann Coulter or Paul Krugman doing something like that? I can’t.

Jonah Goldberg at the National Review Online doesn’t think much of William Safire’s contrariness:

Again, I don’t want to psychoanalyze. But by constantly calling himself a contrarian or — as he often did when convenient — a “libertarian,” by going for the pun rather than the punch, for bending-over backward to appear “reasonable” and nonpartisan, Safire at times gave the impression that he wasn’t comfortable calling himself a conservative. He endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 (no doubt in part because he wanted a Pulitzer for his unending BCCI columns) on the grounds that George H. W. Bush was a liar. This was a bit like courting Helen Thomas because Cameron Diaz has bad skin some mornings. Safire was a godsend for conservatives when he was originally hired by the Times — which happened, ironically enough, in part because Safire had written Vice President Spiro Agnew’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” speech. And he has done heroic service. But he is a hero of an old war.

As another former resident of Wyoming, I also found this photo amusing, on Eric Muller’s IsThatLegal blog. An opposing WAC basketball coach once said that Laramie may not be the end of the world, but you can see it from there.
As an aspiring meteorologist, I mostly enjoyed the wacky Wyoming weather, and my wife and I will always remember Laramie for great people at UW, great people at our church, jets flying over Air Force-Wyoming foootball games, Fennis Dembo and the run into the Sweet Sixteen, and especially the birth of our first child.

Eric Boehlert of Salon harshly assesses the career (subscription or “day pass” required) of New York Times columnist William Safire:

In large part because of his occasional unpredictability and his lively writing, Safire has won admiration from readers across the political spectrum. “I think Bill has been one of the best columnists in the last 20 to 30 years,” Haynes Johnson, former liberal columnist for the Washington Post. “He’s a bright, challenging, stimulating columnist.”

He is also respected by many readers for his entertaining and erudite weekly column about language, which runs in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, and which Safire will continue to pen.

Yet for all of his talents, over the years Safire has clearly abused the column — by presenting highly questionable propositions as if they were accepted facts, making baseless accusations against public figures (often with the insinuation of criminality), and wielding the column with alarming transparency as a blunt instrument to settle personal scores and prop up his allies, both here and abroad.

Here at Lying in Ponds, I’ve documented William Safire’s relative lack of partisanship (although he ramped it up this year). He writes with independence and style, but an outstanding columnist should also be factual, and humble enough to admit to errors.

Mr. Boehlert catalogs Mr. Safire’s many accusations of both Democrats (Bert Lance, the Clintons) and Republicans (George H.W. Bush) over the years. Although many of these accusations have not survived further scrutiny, Mr. Safire has rarely issued a correction or apologized.

Jay Rosen of PressThink continues an excellent discussion on one of his favorite topics — whether “the fading mystique of an objective press” is a positive or negative development.

Brendan Nyhan has lots of recent pundit analysis on his weblog. He admires David Brooks’ admission, debunks David Broder’s Bush success search, criticizes Tony Blankley’s fifth-column column, and poo-poos David Broder’s goo-goo Arnold swoon.

I’ve been following the strange local story of a group of apparent anarchists who attacked the state Republican headquarters in Raleigh a few days after the election. Now the local IndyMedia affiliate is referring to those arrested as the Raleigh Three.

Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson has demonstrated an impressive degree of partisanship this year, as he was one of our most pro-Kerry and anti-Bush pundits. But in yesterday’s column, he offered tactical criticism of his own Democratic Party, his second crossover column of the year. That distinguishes Mr. Meyerson from the four Democratic pundits ahead of him in the standings — Paul Krugman, Robert Scheer, Molly Ivins and Joe Conason have not written any crossover columns this year, although Mr. Scheer came close.

Here at Lying in Ponds, I’ve sometimes defended William Safire against the charge of partisanship, because that’s what the data clearly shows. He was ranked 33rd in partisanship out of 37 pundits in 2002, mainly as a result of civil liberties criticism of the Bush administration. He is ranked 23rd out of 33 pundits this year, despite strong support of the war in Iraq and George W. Bush’s re-election. I have sometimes linked to substantive criticism of Mr. Safire’s columns by Spinsanity and others.

Courtesy of Romensko, here is more reaction from Howard Kurtz, The New York Daily News and The Boston Globe.

The New York Times announced yesterday that longtime columnist William Safire would end his political column in January:

Mr. Safire, 74, will continue to write his Sunday column, “On Language,” which has appeared in The New York Times Magazine since 1979 and has led to the publication of 15 books on the English language.

No successor to Mr. Safire as an Op-Ed columnist has been chosen yet.

“After more than three decades of opinionated reporting on the world’s first and foremost political battle page, it’s time to hang up my hatchet,” Mr. Safire said in the statement. “The Times said at the start of this run that it wanted ‘another point of view,’ which was what it surely got, and its editors did not wince nor cry aloud. In my more scholarly persona, I couldn’t resist continuing as Sunday language maven, so although Mr. Hyde will close up shop, Dr. Jekyll will carry on.”

Because I was traveling last week, I missed the launch of the Media Bloggers Association:

Top bloggers announce new association to create resource for journalists and others covering blogging on the media

Media Bloggers Association launched at BloggerCon III

Palo Alto, CaliforniaNovember 3, 2004 — Twenty-eight of the top media bloggers have joined together to found the Media Bloggers Association (MBA), a non-partisan organization for bloggers who cover various aspects of news and political media. The MBA web site at http://www.mediabloggers.org launched today at the BloggerCon III event at Stanford University Law School.
. . .

The entire press release is here. Lying in Ponds is proud to be one of the founding members.

Many thanks to Robert Cox of The National Debate for the work he’s done to get this off the ground. We’re looking for new members:

The MBA is now actively seeking new members. The only requirements for membership are actively blogging on the topic of news and political media and displaying the MBA logo-hyperlink on the home page of member blogs. In order to be considered for membership, applicicants must submit a brief essay and pay a small application fee. The MBA believes in the independence and freedom of expression of its members and is not concerned with issues of editorial integrity, journalistic fairness or objectivity of members nor in resolving disputes between members. The MBA creates an opportunity for members to leverage a network of media bloggers, to more widely disseminate information and original reporting done by member blogs and bring members a wider audience.

Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity criticizes President Bush, Chris Wallace, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer for misconstruing a 2001 statement by John Kerry as a general endorsement of Mr. Bush’s approach in Tora Bora:

Kerry did say that “what we are doing” was the “best way to protect our troops” and minimize their proximity to hostile forces. But he was speaking generally about tactics used to clear tunnels and caves; it’s not clear that he was endorsing the decision to conduct the Tora Bora operation using Afghan troops working with US special forces.

However, several politicians and commentators have suggested that Kerry’s statement explicitly endorsed the tactics used at Tora Bora.

. . .
Brooks wrote Saturday that Kerry “supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down,” citing the quote in question as evidence. And Krauthammer made a similar claim on Oct. 29.

What happened at Tora Bora is still not totally clear. But what Kerry said on “Larry King” can easily be checked by any journalist who cares to investigate.

Glenn Reynolds linked to what he called an “astonishing anti-Bush tirade” by E.J. Dionne on NPR’s All Things Considered. Well, I listened to the audio clip of the post-election discussion with Robert Siegel and David Brooks. Maybe it’s because I’ve had to read hundreds of Paul Krugman columns, but it didn’t seem like much of a tirade to me, although Mr. Brooks did compare Mr. Dionne to Rush Limbaugh.