In The Course of Human Pseudo-Events

Glenn adds two separate posts today about the publication of Scott McClellan's book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95), in which McLellan confesses to what most everyone already knows about the truth-challenged Bush White House, and blames the 'Liberal Media' for not being aggressive enough with the administration.

As always, there's more than one story here. Headlines around the world echo one story, about McClellan's claims. There isn't really anything new here, but it's notable when a Bush loyalist comes out and admits it. On second thought, after years of insider tell-alls, maybe it isn't that notable after all. But in either case, McClellan has written a book that contains damning information about the Bush's advisors, by whom Bush is said not to have been well served.

The second story is the response. The principals of the story, including Karl Rove, have gone on the network news shows to say how shocked they are, to impugn McClellan's integrity or motives, to say that he should have spoken up at the time if he had all these reservations. They have a point.

But see how phony this entire set-up is. The earth didn't just suddenly rupture and spew McClellan's book out onto the pavement as Mike Allen from Politico walked by. Galleys of the book were circulated months ago for comment and criticism, as noted in Allen's piece.

The staff of Public Affairs Books don't live in a bubble, either. Their business consist largely of publishing books by former administration officials and others in government, the contents of which are sought (and sometimes legally bound) for review by that same government, including the people they write about. They have to arrange publicity for the book, which usually doesn't involve keeping its provocative claims under wraps.

Also, not all of them want to work at PAB the rest of their lives. Others want to maintain good relations with those who might write books about them in the future. Like anywhere else, this is why favors get exchanged.

It would be remarkable if McClellan's book had not been seen months ago by the very people professing shock and outrage now.

But the shock value, the back and forth about McClellan's character, motives, accuracy of his recollections (whether Karl Rove and Scooter Libby did or did not have significant face time on a daily basis) are sufficient to fill the available air time and mind space and squeeze out any substantive examination of what his revelations actually mean.

Daniel Boorstin first wrote about 'pseudo-events' in his 1961 book. Although reporters are supposed to cover events, but government officials often stage 'pseudo events': press conferences, releases of classified documents, media availabilities or exclusives that are covered as 'real' events (and which act as gatekeepers for what are or are not 'real events') to frame the reception of bad news or just to change the subject.

The 'pseudo-event' tactic has become much more sophisticated since that article was first published. Just watch closely as the McClellan shows play itself out, if you want to see precisely how sophisticated it's gotten.

The Topic Which Shall Not Be Named

When I see that the title of one of Glenzilla's posts includes the words "Israel" or "American Jews", I wince. Hard. Not because I hesitate even a second to see what he has to say, of course. Here, here and here are great reads, typically well thought out but cringe-inducing in precisely the same way as the item that came across today.

From whence comes the ... ah, wince, then? Comments, natch.

Israeli government policies are peripheral to Glenn's main interests, as he says, and Israeli public opinions (not to mention the opinions of American Jews) are much more diverse than AIPAC and others would have you believe.

Although the facts of Israel's history, relations with its neighbors and the US, and the Palestinian conflict are complex, any actual discussion always seems to devolve into meaningless shouting.

For some reason, even pointing out the obvious facts constitutes Fighting Words. And on UT, what's coming is the inevitable HOTT moment with thirty three thousand pages of senseless name calling, irrational revisionist history, and non sequiturs to follow. The bridges will be empty of their trolls tonight, for sure.

But h_lance today offered, early on, a more precise look into the future:

...I have a cynical prediction about the comments section for today's column.

It will devolve into a false dichotomy.

There will be a battle between those who howl that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is anti-Semitism.

There will also be a lot of bigoted posts from "progressives", that rail against conspiracies, make inappropriate analogies between undeniably wrong Israeli policies and great atrocities of history, most of which were far worse in scale and intensity than Israeli policies, and that perhaps will contain coded references to the grossly inhumane idea that Israel should be "destroyed".

Or, as Paul Daniel Ash put it in the very first comment:

Maybe ...we could get the Hitler-baiting out of the way early in the comments thread?

As the afternoon has worn on, PDA's hopes have been dashed and h_lance's prediction has been vindicated ... more or less. As of just about 4pm EST, the 'nuclear option' (pun intended) hasn't been employed or threatened. But then, the night is young ...

Rules of the Game

I started this blog a few days ago to serve as a home for all those off-topic threads that creep up in the comments sections of high-traffic sites.

Personally, I don't mind these. On Glenn Greenwald's blog, for example, you find side discussions from well-informed and thoughtful regulars. Or sometimes, it's an amusing (intentionally or not) back and forth between passionate commenters with diametrically opposed views. Or, it's friendly banter and scatological nonsense. Or a flame war. To me, these are part and parcel of the community that open comments make possible.

Other people are not so sanguine. They complain about the burdensome scrolling, the RSI-inducing paging, the sheer awfulness of it all. The horror! They ask for a firm authoritarian hand to come and make it all better. They tell everyone else to shut the hell up so they can talk, or at least get their points in sometime before the first 75 pages of comments.

There's a win-win here. After the first 20 posts about libertarianism, for instance, or why your favorite presidential candidate is getting a raw deal, or how the forces of evil are keeping your favorite conspiracy theory from getting wider play, you might be tempted (or told outright) to take it somewhere else. By all means, bring it here.

A little structure, though, might help. So here are the rules for this site:

Rule No. 1: There are no rules.

Serving Suggestion No. 1: After a rigorous analysis, I've concluded that relocating all the OT threads from high-traffic sites to this one could generate somewhere between 640k and 979 petabytes of traffics. No one wants to suck the life out of another site. That really isn't my goal here.

So, link back to the discussion from whence you came. You can do this by putting the link in your comment, or by linking at your screen name when you write your comment.

Serving Suggestion No. 2: It would be nice if you summarized the argument, or the most contentious points, or just your own point when you first show up so that others know what the hell you're talking about. It'll be good for you too, like cod liver oil. Not necessary, though. (Cod liver oil, blegh).

Serving Suggestion No. 3: Identify your interlocutors, so that you don't just look like that homeless guy at the bus stop talking to himself. Also not essential, just a little value-add.

Serving Suggestion No. 4: You're welcome to flame all you want. Better in here than in the middle of a relevant topic somewhere else. I don't mind, really.

But could you try to make your flames at least a little clever, or interesting? Displaying your obsession with fecal matter, and your theories about others' activities with same, over and over again, is a protected form of speech here but it gets boring and doesn't persuade anyone else that the other guy/gal is a doo-doo head.

Lemma One: Name calling is also protected speech, but the level of protection I'll offer is very mood-dependent. If in this blog or anywhere else I've commented, you've called me three or more of the following names (or shown a tendency to hurl these epithets at others):

• Liar
• Coward
• Murderer
• Rapist
• Woman-beater

I'll probably delete you unless you have something to say that is worthwhile to everyone else. (The first two are misdemeanors, and if that's all you've got you'll probably skate).

So, with that in mind: Open thread. Bash away.

Bring it on.

You know the deal ... you start with good intentions on that comment thread, you really want to stay on topic, but as Rumsfeld said, stuff happens.

You get into an interesting sidebar that has no bearing on the topic, but you just can't let it go. That guy whose every utterance annoys you (even his handle gives you hives) finally crosses the line and you've just got to let him have it. You know, just as you're about to hit the 'publish' button, that you are about to make a complete ass of yourself. If only there was someplace else you could go, like a seedy brothel on the bad side of Blogistan, where you could release all those frustrations ...

I feel your pain.

This blog's for you.

Open thread, as always.