View Full Version : De-Programming Students
De-Programming Students
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Letters from parents often complain of a sense of futility in trying to argue with their own children, who have been fed a steady diet of the politically correct vision of the world, from elementary school to the university.
Some ask for suggestions of particular books that might make a dent in the know-it-all attitude of some young people who have heard only one side of the story in classrooms all their lives.
That is one way of going about trying to de-program young people. There are, for example, some good books showing what is wrong with the "global warming" crusades or showing why male-female differences in income or occupations are not automatically discrimination.
Various authors have written a lot of good books that demolish what is currently believed-- and taught to students-- on a wide range of issues. Some of those books are listed as suggested readings on my website (www.tsowell.com).
Yet trying to undo the propaganda that passes for education at too many schools and colleges, one issue at a time, may not always be the best strategy. There are too many issues on which the politically correct party line is considered to be the only way to look at things.
Given the wide range of issues on which students are indoctrinated, instead of being educated, trying to undo all of that would require a whole shelf full of books-- and somehow getting the students to read them all.
Another approach might be to respond to the dogmatic certainty of some young person, perhaps your own offspring, by asking: "Have you ever read a single book on the other side of that issue?"
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/02/10/de-programming_students
greenberetTFS
02-11-2009, 10:14
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Sowell. Excellent post Richard........:D
GB TFS :munchin
Justice Sowell makes some good points. Thank you for the article.
Justice Sowell makes some good points. Thank you for the article.
Actually, it's Professor not Justice. But, it sounds good to me. ;)
Pat
I think we all need to be mindful of propaganda for each side of the aisle and corporate America.
USANick7
02-11-2009, 18:35
I think we all need to be mindful of propaganda for each side of the aisle and corporate America.
As well as "non-corporate" America.
I think we all need to be mindful of propaganda for each side of the aisle and corporate America.
Yep...I worry about both...especially any so-called "partnerships" between government and business as now occurring...or between government and any other organizations. When there is a partnership between an ant and an elephant, who do you suppose makes the decisions? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
USANick7
02-11-2009, 18:45
Yep...I worry about both...especially any so-called "partnerships" between government and business as now occurring...or between government and any other organizations. When there is a partnership between an ant and an elephant, who do you suppose makes the decisions? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Well said Richard
When there is a partnership between an ant and an elephant, who do you suppose makes the decisions? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You owe Dr. Sowell attribution. ;)
Pat
You owe Dr. Sowell attribution. ;)
Pat
Yep...his random thoughts are the best and fit so many situations. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Actually, it's Professor not Justice. But, it sounds good to me. ;)
Pat
Oops. Thank you for the correction.
I see this every day, in fact I confronted my Professor on the writing example he chose last Thursday; the following, now this is not the EXACT words, but they are close enough that I’d bet my left nut on them:
“The American people due to their experience with losing the war in Viet Nam are not willing to support the war in Iraq.”
I was astounded, it took me a second and then I question his choice of “subliminal left wing propaganda” to make a political statement in a writing class to influence uninformed young minds, what is your intent here, or was he required to do so by the institution.
He was not happy with my confronting his example, saying something to the effect that we all know we lost” I replied that by my body count it was something like two generations, or 2+ million good citizens of the RVN and that we withdrew, just like we almost did from Iraq because of media propaganda, not because we did not know how to pull the trigger…
I do not expect to do well in this required class.
Yep...his random thoughts are the best and fit so many situations. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
My wife uses his Summer reading list to buy me gifts for my birthday and his Christmas reading list to buy me gifts for..uh..well Christmas. :D
Pat
Gutes lesen! :lifter
FWIW...I thought of using the old mosquito and the elephant analogy...but thought better of it and felt Sowell's was more appropriate for a family-oriented forum such as this one. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I started working with my kids early. I still do.
I remember several years ago we discussed advertisements and how the purpose of the ads were to "sell" and ultimately make money for the company putting out the ad. I have always tried to get my boys to understand and identify the potential hidden agendas... Now they are quick to recognize that what they see/hear/read may be propaganda pushing a hidden agenda.
I made a special effort during this election cycle. My boys' elemetary classes held mock elections and they would come home and tell me abotu the results...thats when I would start to quiz them about the WHY's of how the other kids voted. Asked them WHAT factual information was their classmates votes based upon.... if nothing, why do you think that they voted that way? ... and so forth.
Just another facet of my message to them. BE YOUR OWN MAN. Make your own decisions then stand by them. Make your own luck. Take responsibility for your own actions.
I was astounded, it took me a second and then I question his choice of “subliminal left wing propaganda” to make a political statement in a writing class to influence uninformed young minds, what is your intent here, or was he required to do so by the institution.
I believe you will find three underlying reasons for their views. The first reason is that they accept certain core facts as unassailable truths, and do not apply critical thought to those beliefs. The second reason springs from the first; since they believe a set of facts are true, then they find themselves motivated to share these supposed truths with their students. Furthermore, as their beliefs are strong, they will tend to dismiss objections to their views as simply incorrect. Third, while the institution does not require any particular mindset, the realities of getting and keeping tenure in a university demand conformance with the group norms of the faculty within the academic department. Thus, any divergence from the central beliefs of the faculty can reduce the probability of getting tenure, or of promotion after tenure.
In dealing with such situations, I found considerable naughty pleasure in making cryptic comments while maintaining a slightly amused facial expression. For example, one of my favorites was "The vast majority of people fail to accomplish a visceral understanding of the realities of exponential growth." What I was really saying was that their ambitions for their version of social justice were wildly impractical and could never be achieved; however, they never did make that connection :D. Another opinion I expressed was that border issues were likely to gain increasing attention in the future. They thought that I agreed with their view of the developing multicultural society. They didn't realize I was hinting at the possibility of societal breakdown on our southern border.
Perhaps, in your case, you could come up with some equally ambiguous statements that would make your time within the class a bit more enjoyable. There is also the possibility that despite the instructor's political leanings they will still grade you fairly. A year ago, I took course in ethics - the professor was quite liberal, but pleasant. I wrote 25 pages arguing that enhanced interrogation techniques were ethically required. I still wound up with an A for the paper and the course. Writing for an audience that opposes your views is, if I may say so, a great way to hone writing skills. It is relatively easy to write something that others agree with; but dealing with those who have different beliefs is a more engaging challenge.
incarcerated
02-11-2009, 23:45
I always thought that Life did the de-programming. Once finished with the Ivory Tower, the liberal graduate finds himself out in the Real World. A Job. A Boss. A Wife. Kids. (Not necessarily in that order.) After a few painful years of awakening, global warming and saving the whales no longer seem so important. The onetime student starts going to church again, starts to vote Republican, has his car stereo stolen, and buys a gun. And cancels the Los Angeles Times, opting to get his news from AM talk radio.
I’ve seen this a million times.
Good luck, Penn.
3% of journalists are Republican. (The number among editors is smaller.) About the same numbers for university professors: 3% are GOPs.
When only 3% of a job classification is Democrat or an ethnic minority, it’s called ‘a pattern of discriminatory hiring practices,’ and is illegal....
Sowell has taught at a number of prominent American universities. In his industry, less than 3% of his colleagues are Republicans. If Sowell hopes to out-teach his opposition, he faces an up-hill fight. If he hopes to touch individual students with ideas that will dawn on them many years later, he’ll have a field day.
I always thought that Life did the de-programming. Once finished with the Ivory Tower, the liberal graduate finds himself out in the Real World. A Job. A Boss. A Wife. Kids. (Not necessarily in that order.) After a few painful years of awakening, global warming and saving the whales no longer seem so important. The onetime student starts going to church again, starts to vote Republican, has his car stereo stolen, and buys a gun. And cancels the Los Angeles Times, opting to get his news from AM talk radio.
I’ve seen this a million times....
....We had 400,000+ known gang members and associates in Greater Los Angeles in 1993. There’s a lot more to the problem than strict members. <<SNIP>>
Sir--
With respect, could you please provide the source or sources from which you draw the conclusion that 3% of professors and journalists are Republicans.
IIRC, a recent study, "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons available here (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf) came to a different conclusion for professors. For the fourth estate, the Pew Center Research Center found in a 2007 survey that a majority (53%) of responding journalists viewed themselves as moderates, 6% as conservatives, and 2% as very conservative. (The source is here (http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf), these numbers are on page 19 of the PDF.)
Also, it was my understanding of the LAPD's gang statistics for 1993 (here (http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/gang_stats/1993_97_gang_stats/93_12_sum.htm)) that the number of gang members was around 61,000 individuals. Could you provide details on how balance of the 400k were categorized as "associates"?
Richard,
Thanks for the article, I pushed it out to all my teacher friends.
I hope some reply,, probably not..
Such is the institution of HIGHER learning...
My $00.0002,, :mad:
pheepster
02-12-2009, 18:31
Well said nmap.
It's no surprise that there are liberally minded folks teaching in liberal arts departments. At least I'm assuming he's referring to the liberal arts and not math, science, or whatever else.
I've often thought about why universities are dominated by so called liberals. I don't see it as a matter of discrimination at the hiring level; from my experience there aren't equal numbers of conservatives and liberals submitting cv's and the liberals are the ones being hired. There seems to be something about so called liberals that inspires them to dedicate their time to becoming qualified... especially in the liberal arts.
All teachers have their ideologies. They should be aware of their own while choosing materials and take that into consideration when there's a student that challenges the material presented. More importantly, they should encourage the students to consider the potential opposition's perspective. Penn: as long as your arguments are thoughtful (as I'm sure they are) there should be no issue with your grade, but I have had professors that have dinged my grade for not seeing things their way... annoying.
With that said, this last semester I recommended to my writing students that they strengthen their argument by considering and subsequently discounting their opposition; I'm pretty sure I freaked them out. That was extra work. Research both sides of an issue? I was lucky if they bothered to research the side of the issue they were taking.
His example issue is amusing to me. Teaching in Montana is nearly opposite to his relationship between global warming and "education".
But it's not just kids; my parents do the same things he's talking about.
Roguish Lawyer
02-12-2009, 18:58
Actually, it's Professor not Justice. But, it sounds good to me. ;)
Pat
On campus, his name is Uncle Tom.
Roguish Lawyer
02-12-2009, 19:00
I do not expect to do well in this required class.
No, you probably won't. But at least you have your integrity.
Well put, pheepster.
In the case of professional academic history, I believe that the crusading scholar may be an issue of generation as much as of political ideology. A well-worn shibboleth among feminists who came of age during the 1960s is "the personal is political." This concept has spread to many other groups of historians who belong to the Generation of 1968. Broadly, this group was part of an international movement to 'recover lost voices' through the use of new methods and (allegedly) neglected sources.*
With this mindset, I can understand how some academics believe that they're morally obligated to privilege their views when teaching undergraduates.
(I am of the view that this practice is both unprofessional and unnecessary. Unprofessional because it diminishes what I feel should be the central mission of educators and history teachers. I believe that the former should focus on giving students the tools and skills they need to make their own decisions and the latter should demonstrate that a historian's skill set provides a superior vantage point for critical thinking and inquiry. Unnecessary because a professor is already playing with a stacked deck when she designs the course and selects the course materials.)
_______________________________________________
* A detailed discussion of this movement can be found in Geoff Eley, A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005).
USANick7
02-14-2009, 00:05
Sir--
With respect, could you please provide the source or sources from which you draw the conclusion that 3% of professors and journalists are Republicans.
IIRC, a recent study, "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons available here (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf) came to a different conclusion for professors. For the fourth estate, the Pew Center Research Center found in a 2007 survey that a majority (53%) of responding journalists viewed themselves as moderates, 6% as conservatives, and 2% as very conservative. (The source is here (http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf), these numbers are on page 19 of the PDF.)
Also, it was my understanding of the LAPD's gang statistics for 1993 (here (http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/gang_stats/1993_97_gang_stats/93_12_sum.htm)) that the number of gang members was around 61,000 individuals. Could you provide details on how balance of the 400k were categorized as "associates"?
Full marks for doing your homework Sigba, but I do have to challenge the idea of allowing journalists to "self style" themselves as "moderates", and then taking it seriously.
My judgment concerning journalists is done through a slightly different process. I gauge their influence by their viewer ship, then I take a look at how they report issues.
I only count journalists who work in an arena where they are expected to be objective reporters.
What I find is an overwhelming majority are leftist. Having directly engaged some, I find it interesting how an "objective journalist" who holds such blatantly left wing views still does not posses the intellectual honesty, or at least basic intellectual introspection, to honestly state their political leanings. Instead they allow it to come out in what is supposed to be an objective report and just assume that since they see themselves as "moderate" then the way in which they are reporting must be moderate.
Reporting on the Iraq war presents and excellent example. Ever notice how any story which ostensibly covers a "good" or "positive" event must at some point during the story feature a "bad" or "negative" event or assessed side effect in the name of "objectivity"?
Now tell me, do you seem the same "objectivity" on display when the event is originally negative?
It always seems to be "we captured Baghdad with only a fraction of the templated casualties but...", "US forces captured the highest ranking member of Al Qadea in Iraq today but..."
Do you see that with Abu Ghraib? Do you see that with any reporting of actual or even seemingly negative incidents for our side?
"incarcerated" may be off on his stats, then again, maybe he isn't, but I don't think I can take seriously a report which attempts to convince me that the majority of journalists are "moderate".
But according to what you wrote, they even did that in a sly manner by stating that they "describe themselves" as moderate. Lets be thankful they didn't describe themselves as Unicorns, think of how confused we would be then.
just my 2 cents...
Take care
On campus, his name is Uncle Tom.
What's that say about the campus? :mad: More importantly, is said it by students or professors?
Pat
Full marks for doing your homework Sigba, but I do have to challenge the idea of allowing journalists to "self style" themselves as "moderates", and then taking it seriously.
My judgment concerning journalists is done through a slightly different process. I gauge their influence by their viewer ship, then I take a look at how they report issues.
I only count journalists who work in an arena where they are expected to be objective reporters.
What I find is an overwhelming majority are leftist. Having directly engaged some, I find it interesting how an "objective journalist" who holds such blatantly left wing views still does not posses the intellectual honesty, or at least basic intellectual introspection, to honestly state their political leanings. Instead they allow it to come out in what is supposed to be an objective report and just assume that since they see themselves as "moderate" then the way in which they are reporting must be moderate.
Reporting on the Iraq war presents and excellent example. Ever notice how any story which ostensibly covers a "good" or "positive" event must at some point during the story feature a "bad" or "negative" event or assessed side effect in the name of "objectivity"?
Now tell me, do you seem the same "objectivity" on display when the event is originally negative?
It always seems to be "we captured Baghdad with only a fraction of the templated casualties but...", "US forces captured the highest ranking member of Al Qadea in Iraq today but..."
Do you see that with Abu Ghraib? Do you see that with any reporting of actual or even seemingly negative incidents for our side?
"incarcerated" may be off on his stats, then again, maybe he isn't, but I don't think I can take seriously a report which attempts to convince me that the majority of journalists are "moderate".
But according to what you wrote, they even did that in a sly manner by stating that they "describe themselves" as moderate. Lets be thankful they didn't describe themselves as Unicorns, think of how confused we would be then.
just my 2 cents...
Take care
Sir--
To be clear, I have a slightly unfavorable view of journalism as a profession. I find professional wrestlers more credible. I have more confidence in the wailing cadence of a carny. I believe that the difference between the average journalist and a paparazzo is about the same as the difference between a lappet-faced vulture and a bearded vulture.
I believe that the concept of 'journalistic objectivity' is little more than a self-serving construct that the fourth estate uses to rationalize its misplaced sense of entitlement and to bolster the tired myth that it is the guardian of the First Amendment and champion of the public good.
These minor reservations aside, I do not know if the sloppy reported Americans have to suffer is a consequence of journalists' political views (real or imagined). Yes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but if start questioning the reliability of polls of journalists, where do we stop?
In my view, the problem with journalists is not their political views but their professionalism. The website angryjournalist dot com provides snapshots of people who are less intelligent, less skilled, and less trained than they think complaining endlessly about their lives, their colleagues, their bosses, their profession, but most of all, their readers (i.e. their customers). The self-destructive contempt they have for their readers is as frightening as it is offensive. They display an elitism that is more frequently found in hospital parking lots where doctors park where they please--patients be damned. Pimps speak more respectfully of their whores than journalists do of their readers.
In my view, this elitism reflects a profession that has lost sight of its ethics (to say nothing of inherent value of good customer service). It is what allows reporters to present their story for the story. It is what allows them to present editorials (matters of opinion) as news (matters of fact). It is what allows them to spin information that doesn't agree with their story into their narrative (the 'but'). It allows them to sling acidic stories to settle personal scores as opposed to grind a political axe. (When they realize that the incumbent president holds the same view of them that they do of their readers, the knives will come out.)
FWIW, I agree with your analysis of the reporting on Iraq. A close friend of mine would point to these reports as 'proof' of President Bush's 'failure' there. I would ask him "What are the other 20+ million Iraqis doing?" Another would point to reports on the planning and execution of the war and the set backs in reconstruction as examples of American 'incompetence'. I would questions such as: " When did the reconstruction of Germany end after World War II?" When some would point to protests as proof of American going against "world public opinion," I would ask "How do we know what foreign governments are doing and not doing in support of American policy?" When they'd mock President Bush's claim that Iraq sponsored terrorism, I'd ask them about the training facilities discovered by the Marines and army intelligence and described in open source materials. In all cases, the answer was silence because journalists, in their zeal to break their story, decided not to tell the story.
Sigaba, minor reservations aside, I absolutely love your restrained sarcasm and poetic examples. My favorite: Pimps speak more respectfully of their whores than journalist’s do of their readers. Your statement below is the essence of all network news and the foundation upon which CNN is built.
In my view, this elitism reflects a profession that has lost sight of its ethics (to say nothing of inherent value of good customer service). It is what allows reporters to present their story for the story. It is what allows them to present editorials (matters of opinion) as news (matters of fact). It is what allows them to spin information that doesn't agree with their story into their narrative (the 'but'). It allows them to sling acidic stories to settle personal scores as opposed to grind a political axe. (When they realize that the incumbent president holds the same view of them that they do of their readers, the knives will come out.)
USANick7
02-14-2009, 14:36
Sir--
To be clear, I have a slightly unfavorable view of journalism as a profession. I find professional wrestlers more credible. I have more confidence in the wailing cadence of a carny. I believe that the difference between the average journalist and a paparazzo is about the same as the difference between a lappet-faced vulture and a bearded vulture.
I believe that the concept of 'journalistic objectivity' is little more than a self-serving construct that the fourth estate uses to rationalize its misplaced sense of entitlement and to bolster the tired myth that it is the guardian of the First Amendment and champion of the public good.
These minor reservations aside, I do not know if the sloppy reported Americans have to suffer is a consequence of journalists' political views (real or imagined). Yes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but if start questioning the reliability of polls of journalists, where do we stop?
In my view, the problem with journalists is not their political views but their professionalism. The website angryjournalist dot com provides snapshots of people who are less intelligent, less skilled, and less trained than they think complaining endlessly about their lives, their colleagues, their bosses, their profession, but most of all, their readers (i.e. their customers). The self-destructive contempt they have for their readers is as frightening as it is offensive. They display an elitism that is more frequently found in hospital parking lots where doctors park where they please--patients be damned. Pimps speak more respectfully of their whores than journalists do of their readers.
In my view, this elitism reflects a profession that has lost sight of its ethics (to say nothing of inherent value of good customer service). It is what allows reporters to present their story for the story. It is what allows them to present editorials (matters of opinion) as news (matters of fact). It is what allows them to spin information that doesn't agree with their story into their narrative (the 'but'). It allows them to sling acidic stories to settle personal scores as opposed to grind a political axe. (When they realize that the incumbent president holds the same view of them that they do of their readers, the knives will come out.)
FWIW, I agree with your analysis of the reporting on Iraq. A close friend of mine would point to these reports as 'proof' of President Bush's 'failure' there. I would ask him "What are the other 20+ million Iraqis doing?" Another would point to reports on the planning and execution of the war and the set backs in reconstruction as examples of American 'incompetence'. I would questions such as: " When did the reconstruction of Germany end after World War II?" When some would point to protests as proof of American going against "world public opinion," I would ask "How do we know what foreign governments are doing and not doing in support of American policy?" When they'd mock President Bush's claim that Iraq sponsored terrorism, I'd ask them about the training facilities discovered by the Marines and army intelligence and described in open source materials. In all cases, the answer was silence because journalists, in their zeal to break their story, decided not to tell the story.
You seem to be a very intellectually honest person Sigba. That's why I enjoy it when we see things a little differently. It makes for very good and informative discussion, and even if we walk away disagreeing I am forced to research and refine my arguments.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that it is their professionalism rather than their political views which are the foundational problem. I would say the same thing about justices, or any occupation which requires strict objectivity.
The fact that it is so difficult to separate ones passions from ones reporting is definitely something to consider when forming ones opinion based off of someones analysis.
I assume that to some degree people have become frustrated at not only a lack of objectivity but a willingness to "sell" rank partisanship as "objective" reporting.
It is also important to understand that never in our nations history did we ever enjoy a time when reporters simply reported facts and events without injecting their own opinions and passions into the equation. But at least when papers were incredibly partisan, we understood what we were getting and processed it with a little more disclosure than today.
Pointing out the political leanings of reporters or professors is, I believe, relevant because it explains the products produced in press rooms and class rooms respectively.
As far as determining where to stop when determining the accuracy or objectivity of polls, journalists, etc, I think the answer is somewhat simple, if a little bit tiresome and labor intensive.
One must examine how a poll was taken or how a story was reported, put it into as much context as possible, apply the law of non-contradiction, determine the leanings of the person reporting or administering the poll, and come to a conclusion based off how well the report or poll reflects reality.
There is no perfect answer of course, but applying common sense and critical thinking takes one pretty close I think.
Either way it can be a very frustrating business!
Penn and USANick7--
Thank you both for your comments. To paraphrase Tolkien, a compliment "from the praiseworthy is beyond all reward." However, I must point out that my posts benefit from being in the slipstream of a given thread, generous amounts of caffeine, and from my having a serviceable laptop with a good web browser, four search engines, and what once qualified as a massive hard drive.;)
USANick7--
Sir, I agree that one is better served by taking into account a person's passions when reading that person's work. I do wish that journalists and their editors spent just a bit more time considering their own passions when they prepared their pieces. I don't fully understand the constraints under which they operate but as an end-user I think they could do much better.
I have no idea how (or if) journalists can rediscover their professionalism. I think they seek relevance by trying to shape how the public views issues without realizing there's plenty of honor, respect, and money to be earned by providing us with reliable information so that we can form our own opinions.
I agree with Penn that CNN is a big culprit. When that service succumbed to the 24 hour news cycle it set a standard for trading quality for quantity in broadcast journalism. CBS News's capitulation to Black Rock over coverage of the tobacco industry (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/smoke/) was, in my mind, the last straw for mainstream broadcast news. The New York Times / Jayson Blair scandal (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html?ex=1367985600&en=d6f511319c259463&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND) was, in my opinion, a mortal wound to print journalism. As for the dependability of entirely web based outlets, two words: Arianna Huffington.
(What does it say about a woman when her husband seeks to escape her embrace by switching teams? The woman missed her true calling as the producer, writer, director, and star of a one-woman show that gets optioned into a 'dramedy' on Lifetime. For goodness sake, woman, you received 0.55% of the vote in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. Call 'foul' all you want but the fact remains that you're even less relevant than the Green Party.)
To generalize, I think an issue may be a widespread sense of crisis of authority faced by professions that are unable to regulate their skills when those skills are not especially technical. IMHO, the pattern seems to be that professions in crisis shy from distinguishing themselves by doing what they do best. Instead, they try to beat perceived interlopers at their own game. Journalists (what they do best is anyone's guess) try to out blog the bloggers, to out pap the paparazzi, and to out talk the talk-shows, while at the same time trying to de-legitimatize blogging and gossiping. So far, not so good.