Subject: Re: proposal |
From: Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> |
Date: 12/29/10, 22:56 |
To: barriticus@gmail.com |
Yeah, it's pretty all-around emblematic nonsense. I just sent the full proposal to Weisman, got auto e-mail saying he'd be sans communication until the 10th. Now going to work on this film treatment for Robert Green and attend to other things like Guardian columns. The more I learn about that pub the more I respect it. They were very happy with first column and want more so I'll have a chance to address media issues to a wider audience now.
Thanks again for all of your help, Barry. I'm proud to receive it.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com>Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:25:46 -0800To: Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com>Subject: Re: proposalAgreed -- read the original GG posts, of course, and then the Wired response last night. As I read the latter, I could only think, "Holy shit, what are they hiding? They've done everything but answer his simple question!" And yes, he destroyed them this morning. I don't know what to make of the whole thing other than that they're concealing collusion -- there's just no other reason I can think of that they would refuse to release redacted chat logs bearing on Lamo's substantive assertions, or to confirm that such chat logs don't exist. Whatever the value of what they're concealing, they must think it's high, because they're paying for it with their reputation.On Dec 29, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:Great, I'll finish up and send it tonight then. Also, Greenwald is in a one-sided fight with Wired editor. I'm very disappointed not only in Wired's decisions on Manning story but also this editor's nonsensical attacks on Greenwald.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/29/wired_response_1On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:
Excellent!On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:Here's the final (for now) summary version of the proposal that I'll be sending to Ted tonight. The marketing section is almost done and I'm more interested in getting your thoughts on this.Summary
In 2003, Thomas Friedman won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. In 2005, Friedman was invited to join the board of the Pulitzer committee. Our nation is killing itself from within.
Most every industry contains within itself a system of negative feedback by which to ensure that those who fail in their efforts are discouraged whereas those who succeed are encouraged. The most notable exception is the opinion media, which is itself among the most crucial and fundamental of all industries, being fundamental to the manner in which the public thinks - and thus votes, donates, and convinces its fellows, with the cumulative process thereafter being translated into action on the part of the greatest superpower to have ever existed. Thus it is that one of the most influential institutions in the world - the institution of the American punditocracy - is the least accountable. Once a pundit is made, he is rarely unmade.
Thomas Friedman is one of the most influential individuals to work in the most influential of industries, having written a popular New York Times column for well over a decade, having graced the various network news and cable networks for a similar period of time, and having written several bestsellers which are themselves read and respected by a large swath of the nations decision makers right on up to the current United States president. That Thomas Friedman has made a large number of terrible predictions while not elsewhere having made any particularly astute predictions, that his assertions sometimes directly and hilariously contradict assertions he mas made elsewhere, and that other columnists and even bloggers of far lesser influence have exhibited a far superior track record without having won any comparable acclaim is among the most obvious of indications that the United States is incapable of managing and distributing the information it requires to perform its role as a global superpower with reasonable regard for the consequences. It does not help matters that he is famously read by the current U.S. president.
To the extent that we actually examine the output of the most influential and widely-read of what a hippie or Nixon might term to be the "establishment" pundits, we find the same extraordinary failures perpetrated by the majority of them. Charles Krauthammer has managed to get entirely and profoundly wrong every U.S. military conflict of the past twelve years as well as a smattering of other nation's engagements. Having opposed the surge before a year later supporting it and attacking those who opposed it, Krauthammer even missed out on the conservative consolation prize. Nonetheless he has grown only more influential over this period and is now commonly counted as being among the finest of commentators.
The picture remains grim or hilarious - depending on ones sense of humor - even as we expand our view of it. Richard Cohen remains a respected staple of The Washington Post despite mounting evidence that he is unqualified for such a role by intellect and temperament. William Bennetts mediocre partisanship and routine delivery of demonstrably incorrect information on topics ranging from Prohibition to the present day have not prevented CNN from drawing on his talents for the benefit of historical election-night coverage that one might prefer consist largely of the competent. Martin Peretz continues to do his part in making anti-Arab bigotry acceptable by way of his purchased stewardship of The New Republic even as he earns further contempt from many of his own writers and others who share his views but can't help but notice the bizarre manner in which he seeks to advance them. And then, there are those less respectable pundits with whom we need not bother to criticize but with whom we nonetheless ought to concern ourselves in the literal sense of the term.
There are two bits of silver lining to a situation that is all the more serious by virtue of not being widely acknowledged. For one thing, the communications age has barely begun to make its presence felt in comparison to the new solutions it will soon bring thanks to those who have decided to take advantage of . Secondly, the pundits who have caused all the aforementioned trouble are largely douchebags whose profitable forays into douchebaggery are just as profitably outlined, as the author has discovered over the past few years. This second piece of good news is, of course, a subtle hint.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302