Glenn Greenwald is commenting on Jeffrey Rosen's decision to swear off blogging and begins his commentary thusly:
The one trait that defines establishment pundits more than any other is a pathological inability ever to accept blame or admit error. That's because they work in the most accountability-free profession in America, where people … get promoted despite no retractions or remorse, and establishment media stars in general can pretend that they bear no responsibility for enabling the abuses and crimes of the [country's political leaders].
[Tip of the toque to Jay Rosen (no connection to Jeffrey)]
Well now, that sounds very good, doesn't it? And who knows? Such a sweeping generalization about all “establishment pundits”, like all sweeping generalizations, is probably right. Isn't it? That's likely because Greenwald and Salon — like all of those who make Sweeping Generalizations — are probably backed up by crack research staffs so they can back up those statements? Aren't they?
Now I don't have such a crack research staff but let me make a Sweeping Generalization or two of my own, if only because it seems like so much fun:
- Bloggers, be they smarty pants like Greenwald or just your regular anonymous online one-trick ideological ponies, often apologize for coming to the wrong conclusions all the time. At least that's the experience I've had in my six or seven years as a blogger. One of the hallmarks of the blogosphere is that biases and conflicts-of-interest are stated upfront. Isn't it? Unlike “establishment pundits”, bloggers are never wrong and frequently see good points in the arguments of their ideological or political opponents and often call their readers attention to those good points which don't reflect their world view. Don't they?
- It is “Establishment Pundits” and not voters who failed to vote who are, of course, responsible for the world's ills. Right? And, in any event, political leaders bear no responsibility for their actions or behaviour. One should never blame politicians for the world's ill because, after all, whatever went wrong was the fault of “Establishment Pundits”. After all, as we all know, when “Establishment Pundits” say jump, most of us, being the sheeple we are, yell “How high?”!
- Even though Greenwald writes frequently and often for one of the most widely read Web sites on the planet, runs (as he himself says) “one of the most popular and highest-trafficked in the blogosphere”, comes from a top law firm in New York City, went to top American universities, wrote some bestselling books and is white, male and lives in the United States, don't even be thinking he's part of the “establishment”. Why that very resumé would automatically disqualify you from being part of any establishment. Wouldn't it?
Yet he can't serve in his country's military, if he if he wanted to; and he can't live in the same country with his partner because it's still not possible in the US to sponsor a same-sex partner (as he pointed out on his blog).
He might be able to fit in in our establishment, but certainly nor in his country's.
Greenwald is absolutely right. Yesterday's assassination of Tiller is a prime example of what he's talking about. Will any pundit, that contributed to the campaign of hate speech against abortion providers that undoubtedly put the idea into this wacko's head that killing Tiller was the right thing to do, be held responsible or show the slightest bit of remorse for their actions. I don't think so. They'll simply carry on with their putrid business as usual.
I read mea culpas all the time from bloggers when readers, usually in the comments section of the blog, point out incorrect facts.