Kevin Drum

The Evolution of Blowhardery

| Mon Mar. 14, 2011 6:22 PM EDT

The Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that the audience for cable news plummeted last year. In particular:

The audience for cable news in the last year declined substantially. In aggregate, the median viewership fell 13.7% across the entire day in 2010. Prime-time median viewership fell even more, 16% to an average of 3.2 million, according to PEJ’s analysis of Nielsen Market Research data. Daytime fell 12%.

This is interesting. The audience for actual cable news dropped a fair amount, but the audience for prime time blowhardery dropped even more. So the problem isn't that 24/7 news is too boring and needs further injections of attitude, because it turns out that attitude isn't selling as well as it used to. On the other hand, CNN cratered in prime time far worse than the two blowhard cable news outlets, so apparently the public appetite for more high-minded analysis is weak too.

I don't really know what to make of this, but in a weird way I blame MSNBC. For a while, Fox was sui generis, and their viewers basked in the idea that they were part of an exclusive fraternity of insurgents fighting the liberal media monolith. Then MSNBC became the Fox of the left, and suddenly the liberal monolith was unmasked as.....Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Once prime time explicitly became just a battle of Team Right versus Team Left and Team Nothing, that made all the blowhardery just a little less special than it used to be in the good old days. Even diehard partisans probably started to lose interest, and that dampened the appetite for prime time cable shows of all stripes.

Then again, maybe it's all Glenn Beck's fault. When a guy like that becomes the face of cable opinionmongers, it can hardly help but give opinonmongering a bad name.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Flavor of the Day in Libya

| Mon Mar. 14, 2011 2:02 PM EDT

Jonathan Chait thinks that Barack Obama is too attached to defending the status quo in international affairs:

The Obama administration's decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan show that it's obviously not allergic to the use of military force. Rather, it seems to have an extremely strong status quo bias. The policy rationale for aiding Libya's rebels seems clearly stronger than the policy rationale for pressing on in Afghanistan. Yet here we are. You can justify each decision on its own terms, of course. But it appears to me that the level of fear of American intervention in the Middle East displayed by Obama here — a level strong enough to foreclose a no-fly zone in defense of, and aid to, an indigenous uprising — would also be strong enough to push it out of one or both of its current wars. Instead, we simply have status quo across the board.

This is probably true, but I'm not sure how it could really be otherwise. It takes a lot of energy to change the status quo, and it takes a lot of energy regardless of which direction you're trying to move it. There's only just so much energy and just so many resources that a president has at his disposal, and that limits his options considerably.

Besides, if the result of status quo bias right now is a strong tendency not to get involved in military operations that can easily spiral out of control, that's probably a good thing. Establishing a no-fly zone in Libya is suddenly the flavor of the day in amateur war punditry, but it's no silver bullet. Before we go there, I'd like to hear some experienced professionals telling me that a no-fly zone would (a) actually make a significant difference and (b) not be likely to lead to an escalation of forces. If Obama wants to hear the same thing before he commits the United States to yet another war, then good for him.

Nukes and the Free Market

| Mon Mar. 14, 2011 1:05 PM EDT

Matt Yglesias isn't a huge fan of nuclear power, but he still thinks nukes deserve some pushback against critics who are using Japan's current nuclear woes to argue that nuclear power is inherently unsafe:

We’re currently told that the death toll in Japan will be at least 10,000 people of whom approximately zero seem to have perished in nuclear accidents. What happens when a tsunami hits an offshore drilling platform or a natural gas pipeline? What happens to a coal mine in an earthquake? How much environmental damage is playing out in Japan right now because of gasoline from cars pushed around? The main lesson is “try not to put critical infrastructure near a fault line” but Japan is an earthquakey country, so what are they really supposed to do about this?

This is a good point: energy sources of all kind cause problems. Sometimes the problems create screaming headlines (nuke meltdowns, offshore oil explosions, mining disasters) and sometimes they don't (increased particulate pollution, global warming, devastation of salmon runs). But the dangers are there for virtually every type of energy production.

Still, it's worth pointing out that the problem with nuclear power isn't so much its immediate capacity to kill people. As Matt points out, no one has died in Japan from the partial meltdowns at its damaged nuclear plants, and it's unlikely anyone ever will. The control rods are in place, and even in the worst case the containment vessels will almost certainly restrict the worst damage. [Or maybe not. See update below.] The problem with nukes isn't immediate casualties, it's economic viability:

Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner, said Saturday that most of those proposed projects were not viable even before the Japanese crisis because private investors were unwilling to fund them, even with government subsidies.

Experts said it was clear that the situation in Japan would further erode enthusiasm and may even affect applications for continued use of existing plants, such as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in northern San Diego County.

"The reason there have been no new nuclear power plants ordered over the last 30 years is the economics of the industry," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "Wall Street has been allergic to any investment in nuclear power in the United States."

This is the problem with nuclear power, at least in the U.S. Nobody really wants to invest in new nuclear plants, and post-Japan they're going to be even less willing. Even if nobody dies as a result of radiation leaks, cleaning up those plants after even a partial meltdown is probably going to be staggeringly expensive. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable for investors to adjust their priors and recalculate their spreadsheets after the events of the past few days, and that recalculation is going to make nuclear power even less attractive than it was before — and that's despite the existence of government insurance guarantees and government subsidies.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the problem here isn't that nukes are genuinely more dangerous or more expensive than other forms of power generation, it's that other forms of power generation aren't forced to pay for their own externalities. Charge them properly for the carbon they emit and the mercury they spew and the particulates they make us breathe and they'd be just as expensive and just as dangerous as nuclear power. I think there's a pretty good case to be made for that. Nonetheless, until we do start charging properly for all those externalities, nukes just aren't going to be cost effective and nothing is going to change that.

The answer, then, is to force coal and oil and gas power plants to pay for their externalities properly. However, our most recent attempt to make even modest progress toward that goal went down in flames and the Republican Party has made it crystal clear that they'll fight to the death to keep energy generation from ever bearing its market price. So I'm not really sure what the next step is here.

UPDATE: I'm not entirely sure who to believe at this point, but if the New York Times is right then the Japanese nuclear plants might be in bigger trouble than I thought:

Japan’s struggle to contain the crisis at a stricken nuclear power plant worsened sharply early Tuesday morning, as emergency operations to pump seawater into one crippled reactor failed at least temporarily, increasing the risk of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material, officials said.

....Workers were having difficulty injecting seawater into the reactor because its vents — necessary to release pressure in the containment vessel by allowing radioactive steam to escape — had stopped working properly, they said. The more time that passes with fuel rods uncovered by water and the pressure inside the containment vessel unvented, the greater the risk that the containment vessel will crack or explode, creating a potentially catastrophic release of radioactive material into the atmosphere — an accident that would be by far the worst to confront the nuclear power industry since the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 25 years ago.

The containment vessel is supposed to maintain its integrity even if both the fuel rods and the pressure vessel melt down. If there's really a chance that the containment vessel will explode, then all bets are off.

Getting the Story Straight

| Mon Mar. 14, 2011 12:17 PM EDT

I've already defended former NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller's right to tell a prospective donor that he thinks tea partiers are motivated by racism and xenophobia. Schiller isn't a reporter and, right or wrong, his view is a fairly widely held one. There's nothing beyond the pale about expressing it.

But there's more. Lindsay Beyerstein has now watched the entire 2-hour unedited video, and says Schiller actually acquitted himself pretty well:

If you watch the entire conversation, it becomes crystal clear that O'Keefe's provocateurs didn't get what they were looking for. They were ostensibly offering $5 million to NPR. Their goal is clearly to get Schiller and his colleague Betsy Liley to agree to slant coverage for cash. Again and again, they refuse, saying that NPR just wants to report the facts and be a nonpartisan voice of reason. Schiller pointedly informs the fake donors that NPR broke with some very generous Jewish benefactors who had supported NPR for over a decade because they tried to tell NPR that it "couldn't have so much Palestinian coverage."

"And we said, 'sorry,'" Schiller says, "And we lost their funding, and it's gone."

In light of the Blaze post, James Poniewozik of TIME's "Tuned In" blog admits that he reposted O'Keefe's video without watching the entire two-hour exchange and suggests that many other reporters did the same. Poniewozik speculates that O’Keefe posted the extended video because he was confident that “by the time anyone took the time to go over the full video, the narrative would be established, the quotes stuck in people's minds and the ideological battle won.”

Of course that's what O'Keefe does. Talking heads on TV do this routinely, spouting obvious falsehoods because they know that 5 million people will hear them say it and only 50,000 will ever see the correction (if any). This is so common that it's practically taken for granted these days.

Still, O'Keefe is in a class by himself on this score. As Lindsay, says, "At this point, any news outlet that runs an uncorroborated James O'Keefe video is committing journalistic malpractice." Yep.

Defending Mortgage Fraud

| Mon Mar. 14, 2011 12:16 AM EDT

Paul Krugman, after pointing out that bankers and their conservative allies are busily insisting that a proposed settlement over fraud charges in the mortgage servicing industry is a "shakedown," explains why the settlement would be good for the economy, not a threat to the health of the banking industry:

First, the proposed settlement only calls for loan modifications that would produce a greater “net present value” than foreclosure — that is, for offering deals that are in the interest of both homeowners and investors. The outrageous truth is that in many cases banks are blocking such mutually beneficial deals, so that they can continue to extract fees. How could ending this highway robbery be bad for the economy?

Second, the biggest obstacle to recovery isn’t the financial condition of major banks, which were bailed out once and are now profiting from the widespread perception that they’ll be bailed out again if anything goes wrong. It is, instead, the overhang of household debt combined with paralysis in the housing market. Getting banks to clear up mortgage debts — instead of stringing families along to extract a few more dollars — would help, not hurt, the economy.

Remarkable, no? The level of shady dealing in the mortgage industry during the great housing bubble of the aughts was legendary. But even a rather moderate settlement like this one is simply unacceptable to mainstream conservative opinion. It's almost as if they don't care about anything other than the interests of rich people and big corporations.

Listen to Me!

| Sun Mar. 13, 2011 1:49 PM EDT

No, seriously, you can listen to me tonight at 9 pm Eastern on Virtually Speaking, hosted by Jay Ackroyd. Details here. We'll be talking a bit about the NPR fracas, followed by a conversation about my piece in MoJo this month on plutocracy and the death of the labor movement. It will also be available as a podcast if you can't listen in real time.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

| Sun Mar. 13, 2011 1:42 PM EDT

I get the fact that people in government aren't free agents and aren't supposed to criticize their own administration's policies. I also get that this probably goes double for press spokesmen. Still, this is contemptible:

P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case....Speaking to a small group at MIT last week, Crowley was asked about allegations that Manning is being tortured and kicked up a firestorm by answering that what is being done to Manning by Defense Department officials "is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

Jesus Christ.

Friday Cat Blogging - 11 March 2011

| Fri Mar. 11, 2011 4:49 PM EST

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the cats have lately become very lap-oriented right after dinner, and this has had a side effect: Marian has become quite attached to taking pictures of me buried under cats. So here's the latest. On the left, I'm slouched low in my reading chair so that Inkblot can settle comfortably on my stomach while I try to read. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. On the right, Domino is showing off her less intellectual side, rolling around in the sun on the back patio. One way or another, though, everyone's happy.

Blind Spots on Left and Right

| Fri Mar. 11, 2011 3:45 PM EST

Following up on Tyler Cowen's post about mistakes he thinks liberal and conservative economists make, David Leonhardt provides a matching pair of lists of economic blind spots among non-economists on left and right. You might agree with his lists or not, but he also has a broader point to make:

I think that liberal economists, by nature, tend to be less economically liberal than your average liberal. That’s not true — or at least it’s not nearly as true — about conservative economists and conservatives generally. As a result, some of the left’s biggest blind spots on economics arise much less often among left-leaning economists.

....The difference, I think, is that conservative economists’ blind spots overlap more with general conservative blind spots than is the case for liberal economists and liberal blind spots. That’s not a value judgment so much as an observation: liberal economists tend to be more economically conservative than average liberals.

Yep. Obviously there are some hardcore lefty economists out there, but for the most part liberal economists still tend to be fairly sober sorts who are wary of maximal arguments and generally in favor of market solutions in a wide variety of contexts. Conservative economists, by contrast, are largely willing — even eager — to trumpet a uniformly hardcore party line on things like regulation, taxes, unions, trade, and incentives in general. Maybe it's because they still feel like a beleaguered minority, maybe it's because the incentives work differently on the right. I'm not sure. But Leonhardt does seem to be right about this.

As a side note, I'll mention that I've seen a number of lefty bloggers engage with Tyler's original list of lefty mistakes, but I haven't seen anyone on the right engage with his list of righty mistakes. Maybe that's just because I haven't been reading the right blogs.  But I have a feeling that's not it. On the right, an awful lot of economic shibboleths have become almost religious totems, and that's just not something you're allowed to express any doubts about.

Quote of the Day: Pentagon Says Pentagon Treating Manning Just Fine

| Fri Mar. 11, 2011 2:17 PM EST

From Barack Obama, on the abusive treatment being meted out to Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, in the Quantico brig:

Well, OK then! As long as the Pentagon says so, I guess 23-hour solitary confinement, forced nudity at night and during inspections, repeated awakening at night, and leg shackles during all visits is perfectly fine for a person who hasn't actually been convicted of anything yet. I'm so relieved.