Once again, pre-election polls were full of it. The gubernatorial race in New Jersey was supposed to be close. It was anything but.
Posts about News
In PC France, a pol got in trouble for calling rioters who burned cars scum — for calling criminals criminals. Turns out, something was gained in the translation. The Guardian blog says:
Much has been made of Nicolas Sarkozy’s description of the French rioters as “racaille”, a derogatory term held to have fuelled the nationwide spread of the violent disturbances over the past week. The term, widely translated in the British media as “scum”, actually equates more closely to “rabble”. (The Guardian, which has also used “scum” on a number of occasions, will be using “rabble” from now on.)
Laurent Greilsamer in Le Monde investigates the etymology and changing meaning of the word, which has taken on a totemic significance since its utterance by Mr Sarkozy. The word came from ProvenÃ§al, was introduced into French in the 15th century, and was, he says, in common parlance until 10 days ago. It had even been appropriated by disaffected young people to describe themselves, he says – a view supported by the vivelesracailles site, which starts with the line “After all, it’s not a crime to live in your pyjamas”.
There’s so much irony in The Times of London’s coverage of the French riots.
America was supposed to be the melting pot — when I was raised, color-blindness was a would-be national virtue — but instead we’ve become a multicultural chunky chicken pot pie, where everyone except for ethnically indeterminate products of the cultural crockpot (like me) maintains some measure of ethnic identity.
France, meanwhile, was supposed to be protecting its culture, so it tried to be a melting pot by having immigrants assimilate.
Now The Times says France’s “colour-blind policy has fed Muslim radicalism.” The implication is that melting pots are bad but a culture bouillabaisse is good. File that under failed policies with separate-but-equal and racial quotas. And add in France’s policy of not allowing religious headgear, which many of us in America took to be a sign of intolerance (and French critics criticized us for that at the time). Even The Times ends up confused in this house of cultural mirrors:
Under the ethnically colour-blind “French model”, the immigrant workers who came in the 1950s and 1960s from the former colonies in North and black Africa were to be regarded as equal citizens. They and their descendants would take advantage of the education system and generous welfare state to assimilate with “white” France. To promote the idea of assimilation, neither the State nor any other body publishes statistics on ethnic or national origin.
In practice, France turned its back on the minorities, shunting them into suburban citÃ©s denying access to the so-called ascenseur social (social elevator) that was supposed to lift immigrants into the mainstream. Unemployment on the estates is up to three times the 10 per cent national average. Laws supposed to promote integration and oppose multiculturalism, such as the ban on Muslim headwear in schools, have often heightened resentment and the feeling of exclusion. This has in turn fed the rise of Muslim radicalism, which has now become the dominant creed of the young in the French ghettos.
France has always deemed its model superior to the Anglo-Saxon approach of diversity, which has enabled ethnic minorities to retain strong bonds in cultural and religious communities. France calls this “comunitarism” and says that it promotes ghettos, exclusion, poverty, race riots and religious extremism that can ultimately lead to actions such as the London bombings.
Three decades on from the big inflow of immigrants, everyone now agrees that the French model has not worked, although almost no one says that the American and British approach has produced better results.
And as I heard on Brian Lehrer’s show last week (I think), a caller said it’s not right to call the rioters “immigrants” since many are second- and third-generation. They are now French. But they are, indeed, unassimilated and unwelcome. Could it just be that the French are snobs? Well, yes, and that’s not as snobbish of me as it sounds. I’ve known Americans who’ve lived in France for decades who were seen as outsiders. That’s the way France has always been, no? But prejudice is prejudice and poverty is poverty, no matter. So perhaps we’re seeing a condensed and delayed version of America’s ethnic strife: minorities are mistreated and then there are ineffective or insincere efforts at assimilation and then the minorities revolt. Is France facing its ’60s? Is Paris burning? Will Europe? And why is America still being painted as the only bad guy in the Muslim worldview? Let’s also not forget France’s own problems with 19th-century globalism and Europe’s own problems with 20-th century ethnic tolerance. In none of this am I nya-nyaing France for its problems; they are too serious. And they, like our problems, are far from simple.
Two quotables on this thing we call a newspaper. This one from ArtDodger in the comments on my post below on imploding newspaper circulation:
This business of pureeing trees and wringing cuttlefish to make the day’s transient news permanent seems positively archaic, doesn’t it?
It’s a product you have to go and get in the rain, snow or wind and pull out of the hedge, the leaves or a coin-eating box on a dirty street corner. It’s heavy. It’s big. You’re not interested in 90% of its content. And when you’re done with it, you — literally — have to wash your hands and figure out how to properly dispose of the thing.
Half the American population no longer reads newspapers: plainly, they are the clever half. — Gore Vidal
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news. — A.J. Liebling
It’s amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper. — Jerry Seinfeld
The Audit Bureau of Circulations is coming out with its report on newspaper popularity (what else should we call sales) and it’s going to be bad. The Wall Street Journal (free link) sums up the numbers:
: Gannett down 2.5 percent
: Knight Ridder down 2.9 percent
: Tribune Company down 4 percent (not including scandal-scarred Newsday)
More numbers from E&P:
: “McClatchy is breaking its 20-year winning streak this period. Daily circulation dropped around 1% while there was a “steeper decline” on Sunday.”
: Knight Ridder’s breakdown: down 2 percent daily, 3.5 percent Sunday.
: Belo’s Dallas Morning News: down 7 percent.
: Providence Journal down 2 percent.
: Riverside Press-Enterprise down 3 percent daily, 4 percent Sunday.
: Boston Globe down 7.7 percent daily, 7 percent Sunday.
: NYTimes up 0.4 percent daily, 0.1 percent Sunday. “The increases came mostly from the paper’s national effort. Circulation for the New York City area declined.
: Notable quotes above.
Well, the good news is that NBC is going to stream its nightly news online. The bad news is that they’re going to do it three and a half hours after the show airs in the east…. for the obvious reason that they don’t want to piss off west-coast affiliates. Still, can’t they all see the absurdity of this, on its face: Old news is not news, it’s just old. Why didn’t they give the affiliates all the right to show the news on their own sites? Why didn’t they all say that if they can get anyone under the age of 60 to watch their news anywhere anytime, they should thank their lucky news stars. This is why the future of news cannot come from the past of news: It is weighed down with deals and issues and precedents and contracts like Marley’s ghost.
I will fully confess that I have been remiss in not linking to reports of the Iraqi constitutional vote. My fault.
These are a people who are dying to build a democracy. And we continue to have an obligation to help them. How we got there is not an excuse to abandon them and their quest to secure their freedom.