{"id":217,"date":"2006-08-17T11:06:51","date_gmt":"2006-08-17T15:06:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=217"},"modified":"2006-08-17T12:19:29","modified_gmt":"2006-08-17T16:19:29","slug":"standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=217","title":{"rendered":"Standards"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A few months ago I read an article in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/\">The New Yorker<\/a> about <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com\/\">Bill O&#8217;Reilly<\/a>.  It treated O&#8217;Reilly not as the cyst on the derriere of our political culture but rather as an entertaining character one might see at a county fair.  He&#8217;s not a character.  He&#8217;s a real guy whose misinformation many people take very seriously.  More recently, someone over at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tnr.com\/\">The New Republic<\/a> wrote a somewhat similar  piece about <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tnr.com\/user\/nregi.mhtml?i=w060814&#038;s=reeve081506\">Ann Coulter<\/a>.  Sure she&#8217;s nuts and all that, but she&#8217;s a part of the political cultural landscape and besides sometimes she says stuff that might be kinda sorta true.  Naturally, this poorly reasoned argument garnered much <a href=\"http:\/\/digbysblog.blogspot.com\/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115576890378214138\">fierce<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/dailyhowler.com\/index.shtml\">sound<\/a> but most of all <a href=\"http:\/\/www.prospect.org\/cgi-bin\/mtype\/mt-tb.cgi\/3739\">deserved<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/lancemannion.typepad.com\/lance_mannion\/2006\/08\/the_king_is_a_f.html\">criticism<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>In response, Jonathan Chait of TNR <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tnr.com\/blog\/theplank?pid=32178\">writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>>DEFENDING IDEOLOGICAL INCORRECTNESS:<\/p>\n<p>>Elspeth Reeve, our extremely talented reporter-researcher, penned a clever, interesting, very well-executed defense of despicable authoritarian pundit Ann Coulter. Now, *I found her ultimate point to be highly unpersuasive,* as I imagine most people did, but this was a piece less about the destination than the journey. What made her column interesting was not *the counterintuitive shock value* but the fact that she had thought-provoking observations about Coulter&#8217;s role in the political culture, however indefensible her conclusion may have been.<\/p>\n<p>>Her piece attracted the ire of Atrios, someone named Charles P. Pierce, and other partisan hysterics. That, of course, is unsurprising. *They cannot imagine the notion of measuring a piece by any criteria other than ideological correctness.* There are a lots of smart and interesting liberal writers who aren&#8217;t ideologically &#8220;surprising&#8221;&#8211;Rick Perlstein, Thomas Frank, most of the American Prospect staff, to name but a few. The Atrioses and the Pierces, on the other hand, offer their readers nothing but the certainty that they will confirm their ideological predilections. A world in which there are non-ideological criteria for judging an article&#8211;where being thought-provoking or smart matters&#8211;is a world in which they have no place.<\/p>\n<p>And so the ad hominem, Bill O&#8217;Reilly style.  Let&#8217;s not bother, so says Chait, with what they said about the piece (they did offer serious criticisms of the piece, follow the links above and see for yourself).  Rather, let&#8217;s attack what we take to be their motivations.  This silly, shallow and shameful.<\/p>\n<p>But even worse than the inexcusable ad hominem (don&#8217;t they have editors?) is the assertion that simply being provocative&#8211;however wrong or dishonest&#8211;overrides editorial responsibility for truth and sound reasoning.  Whatever happened to that?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A few months ago I read an article in The New Yorker about Bill O&#8217;Reilly. It treated O&#8217;Reilly not as the cyst on the derriere of our political culture but rather as an entertaining character one might see at a county fair. He&#8217;s not a character. He&#8217;s a real guy whose misinformation many people take &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=217\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Standards<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ad-hominem"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}