« • Main • LIBYA'S LEADER SPEAKS »

July 14, 2003

ARTICULATE IGNORANCE WATCH: CHARLIE ROSE INTERVIEWS HOWELL RAINES

For a beautiful example of wordsmith stupidity see the transcript of the Howell Raines interview by Charlie Rose. Note the repeated references by this arrogant self-flattering fool to the "hugely talented staff", the "most talented staff", etc. of the NYTimes. And of course, the self referential insistence on their superior intelligence: "...the great resource that the New York Times has, the great advantage it has over any other news organization in the world is brain power..." And of course, Raines's Times "is an irreplaceable national institution..." Pardon me while I get the barf bag. This is what Robert Nozick was talking about when he described the assumption of superiority on the part of wordsmith intellectuals. It is also the shared assumption that animates contemporary liberalism, as articulated daily in the NYTimes. Notice that not once does Rose or Raines address the way such liberal condescension informs the reporting of news. That is because, for all their verbal skills, they are blissfully unaware of the narrow limits of their own intelligence.

Posted at 12:03 PM by

Comments

Exactly. For all their talk about diversity, these people refuse to acknowledge that the ability to manipulate words in a facile manner (which is typically all they can do) is only one small aspect within the vast range of abilities known as "intelligence."

Posted by: David Foster on July 15, 2003 05:07 PM

"This is what Robert Nozick was talking about when he described the assumption of superiority on the part of wordsmith intellectuals." I recall reading this excellent article by Nozick (I learned about it via HORSEFEATHERS). I liked the articles so much I printed it out.

"That is because, for all their verbal skills, they are blissfully unaware of the narrow limits of their own intelligence."

Agreed. They ARE bigoted and NARROW-minded. THEY ARE ideologically driven more than they are ECLECTIC THINKERS. They are hubris inc. not unluck Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition that is why I call them the Liberal PC Inquistors. The New York Times is so biased and so irrelevant. There is so much more out there to read and BETTER QUALITY for almost everything. Sure I will read the occasional article on Ed.news or something fowarded to me but it is not the end of the world when I say I prefer Virgil, Cervantes and Dickens and have decided not to be bothered with the New York Times on a daily basis anymore. That's saying a lot. I have read it religiously for more that 30 years. But that's all finished now. They can do without me as a reader and without my letters to the editor (about 35 a year at least 1000 most not all delegated to the circular file). Still 3 or 4 for 1001 is something but it isn't much not when they publish such muck by mediocrities.
The rest is silence.

Posted by: Ricardo Munro on July 16, 2003 06:10 PM

Nozick's analysis is mainly dead on, but:

I think that understanding that journalists and teachers are (actually, almost by definition) Myers-Briggs NF Idealists -- who champion the oppressed and who platonically "know" and "feel" the "truth" in their "hearts" -- sheds as much light on their curious disregard for contradictory evidence as his theory of their sociopathy tracing back to being the teacher's pet in the perfect authoritarian-meritocratic-intellectual utopia of their childhood classroom.

Posted by: wordwarp on July 18, 2003 06:02 AM