Getting Rich By Being Wrong - Friedman, Beinhart, Zakaria, Goldberg

[otohara]

The Iraq Gamble
At the pundits' table, the losing bet still takes the pot
By Jebediah Reed

A few years ago, David Brooks, New York Times columnist and media pundit extraordinaire, penned a love letter to the idea of meritocracy. It is "a way of life that emphasizes ... perpetual improvement, and permanent exertion," he effused, and is essential to America's dynamism and character. Fellow glorifiers of meritocracy have noted that our society is superior to nepotistic backwaters like Krygystan or France because we assign the most important jobs based on excellence. This makes us less prone to stagnancy or, worse yet, hideous national clusterfucks like fighting unwinnable wars for reasons nobody understands.

At Radar we are devoted re-readers of the Brooks oeuvre and were struck by this particular column. It raised interesting questions. Noticing our nation is stuck in an unwinnable war (or two), we wondered if America hasn't stumbled off the meritocratic path. More specifically, since political pundits like Brooks play such a central role in our national decision-making process, maybe something is amiss in the world of punditry. Are the incentives well-aligned? Surely those who warned us not to invade Iraq have been recognized and rewarded, and those who pushed for this disaster face tattered credibility and waning career prospects. Could it be any other way in America?

So we selected the four pundits who were in our judgment the most influentially and disturbingly misguided in their pro-war arguments and the four who were most prescient and forceful in their opposition. (Because conservative pundits generally acted as a well-coordinated bloc, more or less interchangeable, all four of our hawks are moderates or liberals who might have been important opponents of the war—so, sadly, we are not able to revisit Brooks's eloquent and thoroughly meritless prognostications.)

Then we did a career check ... and found that something is rotten in the fourth estate.

http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/01/betting_on_iraq_1.php

[JCMach1]

1. Mr. Zakaria has no room to talk... I work with his ex...

There are two sides to every story- but... A few year older than he, she fell for the good-looking, intelligent, but then uneducated Mr. Zakaria. She paid for his University/grad school, got him his American citizenship, and then boom. He left her like a hot potato for a hot job offer in the states...

[burythehatchet]

2. I hate how Jon Stewart fawns over him.

[Kurovski]

27. I'm a huge fan of Stewart's and I do not care greatly for Mr. Zakaria,

despite his prodigious charm.

Just to let you know. :-)

[JCMach1]

48. When I heard the back-story of Zakaria's personal life

I was completely turned-off from anything he had to see. It's the same with someone like John Fund, or Bill Bennett...

[umtalal]

4. I am an Arab American Muslim and I am well connected to ME

Zakaria is a douche bag and Friedman is a moron. Zakaria has a huge chip on his shoulder and it shows through and through. As'ad Abu Khalil from Angry Arab Blog has a hey day picking on those guys and others.

Here is a link if someone wants a good educated laugh:

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

[wicket]

52. Wow, I'd ever heard that

Thanks for the info.

[hang a left]

3. Good article.

We are so screwed.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Jebediah Reed -- Career Status: Irrelevant.

Another internet pundit wannabe who gets his vicarious jollies by ripping on those who are actually successful.

Reed suffers from the illusion that he has all the answers and knows the "truth" concerning the topics of which he writes.

Hey, Jebediah: How about spending a few calories of energy and some of you wildly excessive spare time doing something of significance?

[girl gone mad]

17. So someone isn't important unless they write for Newsweek..

or NYT or the Washington Post?

I like Radar and I am glad someone is calling out the pundits who got rich goading us into war. The system is sick and if left unchanged we will go down the same path again.

[Buzz Clik]

34. No.

The writer is irrelevant for harsh criticism (some of it dead wrong and all of it incomplete) of very successful writers for positions he claims they took years ago. It's asinine.

Friedman and Zakaria have come out strongly against the President and his war policy; this makes their so-called conversion even stronger. But, this guy chooses to dredge up old passages and carry on as if nothing has changed.

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read, particularly at a time when we need hard-hitting writing to keep us the hell out of Iran.

The system is sick and if left unchanged we will go down the same path again.

I could not possibly agree more. So why dwell on fuzzy positions taken three years ago? Why not focus on what is happening right now?

[Pokey Anderson]

6. Excellent piece.

I've been saying this about the media -- it's a meritocracy, but upside down. Not only do the pundits who were screamingly wrong keep their jobs and their mansions, but people continue to listen to their hokum. Meanwhile, the hardworking journalists trying to tell the truth are metaphorically standing on a street corner, hoping for a megaphone and hoping to put food on their tables.

[bambo53]

7. What an excellent article!

This Radar article needs more exposure.

[otohara]

8. Kick, It Is Getting Attention

it's posted on a few sites, including Editor & Publisher.

These people are accountable to no one and yet they continue to thrive.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Giving this crap attention is counterproductive

We need some positive movement. Use the press to expose the insanity that is about to happen, not to nitpick at journalists who, 5 years ago, might have disagreed with you or to praise those who supported your views.

[lectrobyte]

10. It's worth reading for the background on Zakaria if nothing else. I read

the whole thing in about 4 minutes, it may be "counterproductive" by some standards but sometimes it is helpful to have this analysis of the media.

[Buzz Clik]

13. His treatment of Zakaria is a perfect example of why this is a waste.

No mention of Zakaria's insights. No mention that Woodward's portrayal of Zakaria's contribution in the administration meeting was wrong and has been retracted. Just pissing and moaning that Zakaria initially supported the concept of invading Iraq -- as did every announced Dem presidential candidate with the exception of Obama (who, conveniently, did not have to go on record).

Zakaria is now screaming about the insanity of this war -- consistently and unflinchingly.

You want to criticize someone? Criticize those who continue to carry Bush's water. Start with 60 Minutes and the their extended PR spot for Bush this week. Bitch about the lack of editorial review concerning administration reports of Iran's activities in Iraq.

Dwelling on stands taken 3 to 5 years ago is a complete waste of time.

[lectrobyte]

16. It was interesting to me. I had no idea of anything on Zakaria other

than he was the guy from Newsweek on the Daily Show. So, Wolfowitz invites you in for a brainstorming session, and you had no idea they would use it... Sure, whatever.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Irrelevant to my point.

The article may be interestng if you're looking for someone to blame or someone to hate, but it is not fully accurate. Most importantly, it detracts from the real and present issues by focusing on the past and assuming that people and things don't change.

[lectrobyte]

45. Thanks for your concern.

[Buzz Clik]

51. I've given you the wrong impression.

I'm concerned about our obsession with Iran, but I'm not concerned about wannabe schlock bloggers who dwell on three-year-old opinions instead of focusing on the present.

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. No mention of Zakaria's insights on how Democracy is obsolete

And destined to be replaced by the concept of Liberty, meaning freedom of capital investment.

Interesting that you are so fond of the guy and hostile towards his critics.

He only changed his mind about the war in the past two months (wherein he stated "I have supported the war in principle up til now.")

Why do lefty pundits lose careers for being wrong, but right-wing neolibs like Zakaria and Joe Klein get rewarded?

[Gabi Hayes]

25. LG....great post, but....'lefty' journos don't lose their gigs for being wrong...they lose

them for being right

along with Scheer, ask Robert Parry, or the NPR guy that lost his job for covering Iran/Contra too closely for the comfort of Otto Reich. He bragged about personally intervening with many media corps to get them to soften their coverage during his tenure at Reagan's Office of Public Diplomacy, a group whose activities were deemed ILLEGAL by the GAO, or some other government watchdog agency

[Jim Lane]

47. Please elaborate on one of your points.

You wrote, "Zakaria initially supported the concept of invading Iraq -- as did every announced Dem presidential candidate with the exception of Obama...."

Dennis Kucinich has announced his candidacy. I don't think he initially, or ever, supported this fiasco, in "concept" or in execution. If you have information to the contrary, i'd be interested in seeing it.

[Jacobin]

12. No, I don't think so. I think its very productive

I think its important to embarrass the idiots who assisted in leading us down the primrose path and then made millions off the propaganda even after their predictions were shown to be utterly clueless.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want these people exposed for the criminals they are.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. It's very positive - about 4 commentators who saw reality

and it contrasts their fortunes with those who went along with the zeitgeist manufactured by the Republicans. And the whole point is that those who can analyse properly ought to be listened to now, to "expose the insanity", not those who were incompetent 4 years ago.

[followthemoney]

40. you are irrelevant.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Really? Curious that you replied to my post.

[SmokingJacket]

54. Read what he says about the journalists who were RIGHT.

They're the ones who should be getting the positive attention, not the Friedmans of the world.

And they're the ones we should be LISTENING to.

[Jacobin]

11. K&R. A MUST Read

The vapidness of the media exposed in a very very simple and interesting way.

Those who support the M.E. hegemony get rich and are WRONG. Those who speak the truth and predict outcomes are either fired or sent off to forgotten land.

Sickening but important in the way this article is done.

[Tuesday_Morning]

15. very interesting reading

K & R :kick:

[Tom Joad]

19. Thomas Friedman is extremely wealthy. Billionaire. Married one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/thomas-friedman-and-wealt_b_32837.html

Also one of the most despicable and violent people in america.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Gasp!

He must be guilty of something.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. please tell me you don't agree with the blatheriings of that overwrought, overratted

hack

On "The World is Flat"

http://www.nypress.com/18/16/news&columns/taibbi.cfm


.....The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.



On an ideological level, Friedman's new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit. If its literary peculiarities could somehow be removed from the equation, The World Is Flat would appear as no more than an unusually long pamphlet replete with the kind of plug-filled, free-trader leg-humping that passes for thought in this country. It is a tale of a man who walks 10 feet in front of his house armed with a late-model Blackberry and comes back home five minutes later to gush to his wife that hospitals now use the internet to outsource the reading of CAT scans. Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism, says we're not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we're not in Kansas anymore.) That's the whole plot right there. If the underlying message is all that interests you, read no further, because that's all there is.



It's impossible to divorce The World Is Flat from its rhetorical approach. It's not for nothing that Thomas Friedman is called "the most important columnist in America today." That it's Friedman's own colleague at the New York Times (Walter Russell Mead) calling him this, on the back of Friedman's own book, is immaterial. Friedman is an important American. He is the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity. Like George Bush, he's in the reality-making business. In the new flat world, argument is no longer a two-way street for people like the president and the country's most important columnist. You no longer have to worry about actually convincing anyone; the process ends when you make the case.



Things are true because you say they are. The only thing that matters is how sure you sound when you say it. In politics, this allows America to invade a castrated Iraq in self-defense. In the intellectual world, Friedman is now probing the outer limits of this trick's potential, and it's absolutely perfect, a stroke of genius, that he's choosing to argue that the world is flat. The only thing that would have been better would be if he had chosen to argue that the moon was made of cheese.



And that's basically what he's doing here. The internet is speeding up business communications, and global labor markets are more fluid than ever. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese. That is the rhetorical gist of The World Is Flat. It's brilliant. Only an America-hater could fail to appreciate i

[Buzz Clik]

28. Better post. It was the implication that "wealth is bad" that bugged me.

[Tom Joad]

30. Many of us here do have a problem with creating wealth by promoting war.

You are within your rights to disagree.

[Buzz Clik]

33. Yeah, I have a problem with that, but that is not what was stated.

The poster said he married into money. I seriously doubt that Friedman has earned a billion dollars (the stated, though unsubstantiated) worth of Friedman.

Now, if you can show me where Friedman's supposed pro-war stance prior to the invasion earned him his wealth, I will stand with you in condemning him. Otherwise, my ridicule stands unwavering.

[Tom Joad]

36. No, he didn't earn most of his wealth through his writings.

But a) he is a spokesperson for the wealthy class, that is at war with working people across the globe b) he is a liar, like his coworkers (and former coworkers) at the NY Times (e.g. Judith Miller, propagandist for war).

"supposed pro-war stance"?

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
-- Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree

[Buzz Clik]

38. Supporting the existence of the military does not equate to pro-war.

[Tom Joad]

44. Promoting its existence to promote the interests of McDonalds and

corporate power is pro-war (Hey, if you want do die for that next bag of fries, that's your choice, but don't take anyone with you). And he has explicitly supported the Iraqi war, and the slaughter of Arab people.

He has also said this:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2598

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls.

Friedman's July 22 column proposed that the State Department, in order to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears," create a quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against others." But Friedman said the governmental speech monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate violence, and also include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie Rubin calls "excuse makers." Friedman wrote:

After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."

[Buzz Clik]

49. Tangential argument -- I'm not going along for that ride.

Have fun.

[Tom Joad]

29. Perhaps we have found one of our token apologists for the rich and warmongering here at DU

There aren't many of them, so it can be seen as a source of amusement more than anything else.

[Buzz Clik]

35. Criticizing someone for the simply act of being successful is silly.

If that makes me a "token apologist" in your mind, so what?

I choose to think for myself and judge people by their actions and words, not what some poster tells me about his net worth and how he earned it.

This is one of those cases where the shallowness of certain posters at DU disappoints me.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. dupe

uuuu

[3121guitarist]

21. Why have so many liberals bought Friedman's awful books?

It's obvious the guy is a quack and a propagandist, even liberals fell for his last book. The world aint flat, his head is.

[Tom Joad]

37. Great quote from tom fried:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
-- Thomas Friedman, , warlord, The Lexus and the Olive Tree

[HughBeaumont]

50. I don't get it at all.

Everything about that book is wrong and anti-progressive on SO many levels. Never mind the title alone is stupid (a round earth is more interconnected than a flat one), championing the idea of destroying one middle class to lift another and espousing "the free market" determinants as the proof of that idea is Republican in it's very nature. Being callous enough not to understand the plight of the displaced worker here and not bright enough to realize the exploitation of the worker there doesn't make for a very solid argument. This practice is only going to get worse, the income gap is only going to grow and we're all going to pay the price.

[Kurovski]

26. A very good dissection.

And a tip of the hat to the four "right but poor" commentators, Scott Ritter, Jonathan Schell, William S. Lind, and Robert Scheer.

[Telly Savalas]

31. David Brooks is a proponent of meritocracy?

Doesn't he realize that under such a system he'd be serving french fries and not have his diarrhea of the cerebellum printed in a major newspaper?

[bluewave]

32. Great article. Should be posted on the MSM sites

and would be if they weren't shameless warwhores.

[leftchick]

42. Best Quote of the article

from Jonathan Schell...

The New York Times, in Schell's words, "savaged" his 2003 book The Unconquerable World, which effectively predicted the disaster in Iraq. (This as the paper of record was publishing Judy Miller stories about those famous aluminum tubes.) Schell's main audience is the committed group of lefties who subscribe to the Nation. He drily remarks that, "There doesn't seem to be a rush to find the people who were right about Iraq and install them in the mainstream media."


No rush at all!!! :argh:

[truedelphi]

55. I think that the average Americanis ready for Schell

BUt
>>Schell's main audience is the committed group of lefties who subscribe to the Nation. He drily remarks that, "There doesn't seem to be a rush to find the people who were right about Iraq and install them in the mainstream media."


The mainstream media is for the most part a carefully picked group of people who are actually card-carrying CIA or else those who are willing to act the part and do not even realize that they are only propaganda spewers

[entanglement]

43. Summary: Former cheerleaders abandon losing team

BTW, Friedman is a pompous moron.

[Wilms]

46. K&R . Thanks. n/t

[SmokingJacket]

53. Fantastic article.

Oh, how short our memories are....

[Morgana LaFey]

56. Demonstrates the REAL purpose of MSM --

Gatekeeper for the Offical Stories and Myths.

It's NOT to inform the public and thereby help promote democracy.