Educating Americans About the World

The salty new publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Sam Zell, turned up for questions and answers at a museum in LA on Thursday, and Kevin Roderick at LA Observed got some answers about how the Times might change under new ownership. They discussed the world-news racket, which is almost the whole point of Spiegel Online, even though (or because?) it’s harder and harder to place European stories in American papers. Roderick found out why:

[Zell] rejected in one word — “no” — the LAT’s aspirations to national stature, saying newspapers are essentially local beasts. He questioned the business rationale for any national paper now and predicted trouble ahead for the NYT. He also all but ridiculed foreign news as something “journalists like to cover,” but that fails to engage readers. When he wants to know what’s going on in the world, Zell said, he looks online. By that he means the Bloomberg terminal on his desk. because when asked which websites he reads, he replied: “None.”

“He didn’t address how he thinks foreign news reaches the Internet,” writes Roderick.

UPDATE: That Zell post is called “Anybody But Clinton,” after a position he took at the talk. What a bonehead. I should take this opportunity to say I agree with James Walcott that all the anti-Hillary animus is obnoxious. She’d make a fine president. I just like Obama better. He has a better chance to win. His lack of experience is no worse than Kennedy’s in 1960, [see comments below] and what counts for a president, anyway, is the deal-making talent to sway Congress over certain bills and good judgment in choosing advisors. Right now Zbigniew Brzezinski is advising Obama. The unflappable William Pfaff, who was never impressed with Obama before (because he didn’t seem serious about leaving Iraq), pointed out a few weeks ago:

Of the currently available major foreign policy thinkers on the Democratic side, the most intellectually and morally serious figure I know is Zbigniew Brzezinski … Obama apparently takes him seriously. If so, the two will get my vote.

... In case anyone thought my enthusiasm for the man had no substance.

     posted 23 February 2008 by Michael Scott Moore

  1. Well, that Nazi clothing shop over in Rosa should make the U.S. news, anyway. It plays into one of their stereotypes. But you’re right: more original stuff…not real welcome.

    — Ed Ward    Feb 23, 03:27 pm    #

  2. My friend, to say Obama and JFK were about the same in experience at this point is a bit of a stretch. JFK had already been a war hero, served more than one term in Congress and won a Pulitzer Prize for history writing with Profiles. He had also already shown the balls on a national stage to turn down the 1956 nomination for VP. On top of that, he had Bobby…which trumps a bunch of things as well.

    I am right now a Clinton delegate to the state convention, as is my wife. But I admit, the more Obama’s camp works on me, the more I might switch that vote to him. (In Washington, we do not have to swear allegiance to any one candidate after our county conventions…we become 400-something free agents who actually choose the delegates to the national convention. I give the Obama camp credit, they are working the Clinton delegates pretty hard to switch if he wins either Texas or Ohio on Tuesday and it is a compelling argument).

    e

    — e    Feb 25, 09:09 pm    #

  3. That’s true; Kennedy had spent something like 8 years in the Senate. But he wasn’t a brilliant senator. My point is that people worried about his experience before the election in a way that’s surprising to hear about now.

    — Mike    Feb 26, 02:45 am    #

  4. Mike:

    I keep going through vintage political books and almanacs from various sources from 1958-1962 and I can’t see where lack of experience was the case in real time against Kennedy. I can find it in post-mortem, but I just don’t see it during the election against Nixon in 1960.

    I only argue this sharply because that seems to be the defacto case for Obama and his lack of experience being a Kennedy-esque moment. It’s just not.

    I also heard the best argument ever about experience from a regular-Joe voter today: “You try being married to the President of the United States for eight years, and then tell me that wasn’t gaining experience.” I thought that was funny from some guy in Warrenton, Ohio.

    Cheers!

    e

    — e    Mar 3, 04:53 am    #

  5. I can’t remember what my source was for saying people worried about Kennedy’s experience — I thought it was a column by William Rees-Mogg, but it’s not cooperating with me now. It seems hard to believe Nixon didn’t take that line against the whippersnapper during his campaign. But let me rephrase the sentence: ”[Obama’s] lack of experience is no worse than Lincoln’s in 1860, and what counts for a president, anyway, is the deal-making talent to sway Congress over certain bills and good judgment in choosing advisors.”

    Lincoln had served a total of 8 years in the Illinois state legislature and less than 18 months in Congress when Americans elected him pesident — two years after his rhetorical performance in a debate against Stephen Douglas made him a national figure.

    — Mike    Mar 3, 10:41 am    #