25
Jan
When Liberals Attack: Alterman V. Klein
“Eric Alterman is simply not a serious person —- and I’m writing about a very serious issue,” says Time columnist Joe Klein, in response to Eric Alterman’s recent ad hominem attack in The Nation, wherein he dubs Klein one of the mainstream media’s “most egregious offenders against journalistic standards and simple honesty.”
“I don’t want to address Eric’s remarks because they’re not worth addressing,” Klein says. “This guy just spews opinions without having any information or doing any reporting. You just did something Alterman has never done, for example, actually calling me to do some reporting!”
In the course of generally noting, “The punditocracy’s ignore-except-to-attack attitude toward liberals,” Alterman dissected a recent Klein column that Alterman claimed “accused Democrats” of playing too fast and too loose with issues of war and peace. He then criticized Klein for his perceived “animus toward liberals coupled with his cavalier treatment of inconvenient facts.”
“That’s typical of his essential narcissistic laziness,” Klein responds. “Alterman has been personally attacking me for years. It’s what he does instead of working… He’s so peripheral, I forget he’s in the business until someone calls or emails me his latest attack!”
The Klein column in question concerned the flap over revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) is monitoring domestic communications without first seeking warrants. Klein wrote, “A strong majority would favor the NSA program…if its details were declassified and made known.” But Alterman claims this is untrue, noting that when an Associated Press poll “asked Americans if the Bush Administration should be required to get a warrant before wiretapping, 56 percent answered affirmatively.”
Alterman also attacked Klein for relying on U.S. intelligence officials to support his claim that since the publication of the New York Times story on domestic spying, “the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them.” Alterman then added parenthetically and in his characteristically snarky tone: “(Perhaps the gullible Mr. Klein might be interested in buying some hot African yellowcake uranium, special price…)”
Alterman ended by paraphrasing what he termed “the punditocracy argument” thus: “Never mind that liberals are constitutionally correct. Never mind that their view is supported by a majority of Americans. And never mind that the Bush Administration has repeatedly lied to the American people on exactly these issues. Never mind, most of all, the truth.”
“I’m not nearly as smart as Eric, to have opinions without bothering to report first,” Klein counters. “Instead let me react by speaking to the facts. After all, I’ve lived my life by seeking out facts and then reporting them. One advantage I think I have over other columnists is that I do reporting.”
Klein says he will “have a lot more to say on this (NSA) issue next week – but first I have to learn more about it.”
Asked for an example, Klein says, “The notion of calling it wiretapping is questionable, I think, although I’m still not entirely sure.
“People like me who favor this program don’t yet know enough about it yet,” he says, “Those opposed to it know even less – and certainly less than I do.”
According to Klein, the NSA employs a “powerful front end computer program that can scan computers and cell phones and access all previous communications.” Then, he says, analysts look for patterns in the calls and emails.
“Once they’ve gone through that process,” he explains, “Then they go to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) special court.”
In Klein’s analysis, “the liberals are reacting to this issue in their usual reflexive way. Meanwhile, George Bush and others in his administration are being very cynical.”
The political flap over the NSA actions, Klein says, could be easily resolved. “All that’s needed is an updating of the FISA Act or the Patriot Act.” But this is unlikely to happen, Klein believes, “because George Bush is spoiling for and creating a fight on this issue, since he thinks it’s a fight he will win in the court of public opinion.”
As for his fight with Eric Alterman, Klein’s willing to forfeit. “Who cares really?” he concluded. “He’s written lots of inaccurate, foolish stuff about me before. It’s just silly. If it were someone who actually KNOWS stuff or caught me in an inaccuracy, then I’d be concerned. But Eric? He can say what he wants.”
I think you may need to have another peek at the meaning of “ad hominem.” Alterman can be nasty, but his piece on Klein is a critique of his professional practice and of the substance of his views on illegal domestic spying. Klein’s response is to blame Alterman’s “essential narcissistic laziness.” You won’t find any language like that from Alterman. And as for laziness, Alterman has written a lot of books — with his own name right on the cover!
January 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pmYeah, I think that you should give Klein a chance to rebut Alterman, because so far he hasn’t done so. That was just hot air. If Alterman’s really as bad as Alterman alleges, it should be easy to prove it.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pmDan, I took your suggestion and had another look in my Funkin’ Wagnalls under ‘ad hominem.’ Here’s what it says:
“of an argument directed at one’s prejudices rather than one’s intellect”
Given that Alterman calls Klein one of “the most egregious offenders against journalistic standards,” a dishonest person known for his “cavalier treatment of inconvenient facts,” “abusive” and “gullible,” I still think it fits.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:53 pmOf course you could also use the phrase to describe Klein’s rejoinder, but that probably is better defined as a tit — “n. A tap; a return blow; –chiefly in tit-for-tat.”
“as bad as Klein alleges”. I totally garbled my point.
Klein’s response was ad hominem because he didn’t provide any evidence for his points. If Alterman did, and I think he did, it wasn’t ad hominem.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pmIf transcribing the obviously self-serving comments of unidentified “intelligence officials” qualifies as “reporting,” then I suppose Klein has a point. But it is revealing that his response to Alterman fails to address much less refute a single fact in Alterman’s column. It’s also interesting that Klein thinks he knows enough of Alterman to claim that he never does any “reporting,” but forgets that Alterman is even in the business until somebody like Rory calls him.
Alterman’s brand of criticism comes off awfully harsh sometimes. But he backs up his arguments with facts. Based on Klein’s silly response, I can only assume that he has no factual basis to refute Alterman. In any event, to dismiss Eric Alterman as “not a serious person” is an embarrassment to Klein and Time. Apparently Klein has taken a cue from the Bush administration — attack your critics when you can’t beat their arguments.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:59 pmHuh? First of all, Alterman has written countless articles and several books that, while taking a stand, are based on thorough research. Anyone who has reviewed his books and bothered to check out his facts, as I have, knows that.
In this reply, Klein offers utterly nothing to refute Alterman’s allegations. In fact, he says he doesn’t squat about the subject of the NSA, about which he was opining in the first place. I mean: HUH?
I do however agree that it’s nitpicking to say that Alterman was not ad hominem in his statements. Whatever the original def of the term means, it’s come to mean a personal attack — and I don’t think even the common understanding permits it just because your opponent’s facts may be wrong.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:51 amRory, I think you may need a new dictionary.
The literal translation of “ad hominem” is “against the man(person)”.
As a logica fallacy, it typically involves two steps.
“First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.”
This is exactly what Klein has done. Unable or unwilling to refute the facts presented by Alterman, he attacks his character.
Alterman, on the other hand takes issue with what Klein has written, ie :
“Klein writes, “The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats.” In fact, this “stampede” was led by four Republicans.”
The difference between this and Klein’s “This guy just spews opinions without having any information or doing any reporting.”, is clear
January 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pmThe problem with calling what Alterman wrote an “ad hominem” attack is not so much a misuse of the term as it is treating a line or two of “ad hominem” comment as if it were the whole attack. Agree or not, Alterman made specific substantive arguments directed to what Klein had written, along with a sentence or two directed at Klein. Klein, on the other hand, seems merely to have unleased a stream of “ad hominem” invective unsupported by anything. Klein’s attack was entirely ad hominem; Alterman made at worst a couple of ad hominem sideswipes in the course of a substantive attack.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pmJoe Who? Klein? For quite a while his name was Mr. Anonomous. Of course, that was after he wrote his famous colorful novel that the Clinton haters drooled over. Before that his name was Mr. Nobody. Here’s a guy who built his future career on writing a “fictious” novel all about Bill Clinton knowing perfectly well that everyone knew whom he was victimizing. A roman a clef that Mr. Anonomous didn’t have the decency to put his name on. In my book his name is Mr. Scummy Opportunist, or better Mr. Bottom Feeder. So Time Magazine hires the bum and he gets his reward. He is an example of what has sent American journalism into the gutter.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:20 amKlein is a windbag. Most of his writing is ideologically motivated establishment propaganda.
When the record demonstrates abusiveness, dishonesty, and bad faith, is making note of it ad hominum?
January 28th, 2006 at 1:21 amCall me a concerned Canadian that happened on this discussion. Little happens in U.S. politics that fails to impact my home at some point, so I pay attention to what happens there. Having read this post, and the other 3 columns/posts in the exchange, I had to put my 2 cents in.
Regards Klein’s response, he seems to have caught himself with the brush he used to tar Alterman. There’s no shortage of ego, enmity, or ’snark’ on either side of the argument, but while Alterman attacks Klein professionally, Klein responds personally.
Moving into ’substance’, Klein’s questioning the use of the term ‘wiretapping’ (seemingly) because it doesn’t use wires is weak, especially on the heels of an admission he has to “learn more about it.”
Suggesting the dispute can be laid to rest with “an updating of the FISA Act or the Patriot Act” is ludicrous. Making legal this week what was, for good reason, illegal last week isn’t likely to settle anyone’s doubts. Quite the contrary, I’d hope.
However, it was Klein’s statement that “People like me who favor this program don’t yet know enough about it yet” that settled it for me. I’m no journalist, but I’d never buy a car without looking under the hood.
Where politicians and their agendas are concerned, for anyone else to make such a statement of blind acceptance is cause to question their sanity.
For a columnist in a major publication, a self-professed reporter, whose job it should be to question everything, it’s cause to question how it is he’s still employed.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:20 amLet’s see, Joe Klein dismisses Alterman’s remarks because they are so egregious and then proceeds to address those remarks. Klein then evidences Alterman’s lack of journalistic integrity by claiming Alterman has never even phoned Klein. But it is Klein’s own integrity that is in jeopardy as a phone call would not have shined any light on Klein’s work product and thus is irrelevant to the topic.
But confusing the issue is not enough for Klein who then proceeds to personally attack Alterman for his “essential narcissistic laziness” and for being “so peripheral”. Huh? This is either outright dishonesty or wishful thinking on the part of Klein. The ubiquitous Alterman seems to put out a new book yearly (some of them bestsellers), writes for the Nation, maintains a daily blog, is a senior fellow at a think tank, teaches and allegedly still finds time to sleep. Clearly peripheral and lazy.
But just in case Klein had not lost all of his credibility, he raises the ridiculousness level to red by boasting that he, like all good reporters, would just stick to the facts. No need for Joe Klein to resort to the behavior of an ever so peripheral, lazy, joke of a reporter who spews worthless information, and, uh, who thinks he is sooo smart. Then after providing zero facts, Klein who has now ranted longer on Alterman than your typical Bill O’Reilly rant on Hillary Clinton, finishes by once again asserting that Alterman was not worth responding to because he doesn’t know his stuff.
To Recap: 1) Dismiss as outrageous, 2) attack integrity of accuser, 3) obfuscate and mislead, 4) name call, name call, name call, name call, 5) hit opponent’s strengths in face of overwhelming evidence to contrary, 6) claim facts support you without providing facts, 7) dismiss again, 8) name call again.
Quite frankly, I thought this was a parody upon my first read and I now find myself embarrassed for the guy. Saturday Night Live wishes it could do comedy this well.
However, just because Joe Klein has decided to play the fool, it does not mean that Alterman is without fault. And Alterman should be chastised for criticizing Klein for relying on U.S. intelligence officials as sources when Klein actually does much worse — failing to source at all his claim that the domestic data gathering/spying program as “helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations”. Probably just another case of Alterman’s laziness getting the best of him.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:33 am