Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1001

Everyone Wants to Interrupt the President's Golf Game Today

Hopefully one of his companions will grant a pardon for such poor manners. According to the White House pool report this morning, Obama hit the links with Pardon the Interruption hosts Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, and a mystery forth, at Fort Belvoir in Virginia on Saturday morning. Like the President, Wilbon is a Chicago native with allegiances to the city's south side sports teams. And everyone knows Obama is a well-documented fan of the show, as Awful Announcing's Matt Yoder pointed out. He recorded a special tribute message for PTI's tenth anniversary episode.

Now, normally the President's golf game doesn't garner this much excitement outside of the conservative internet's darker corners, but plenty of people seem excited about the President teeing off with ESPN hosts and longtime DC sports journalists Kornheiser and Wilbon. They're like the sports world's beloved old uncles who get into arguments at family dinner, except they do it five times a week, and on cable television. So it should come as no surprise that the game garnered all of this attention on Twitter: 

Will the President be able to get a comment in edgewise during this round of golf? http://t.co/JStdpD24kR

— Sam Litzinger (@SamLitzinger) July 13, 2013

President Obama is playing golf today with Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon. Not going to lie that's pretty cool. Good to be the King

— Patrick Howell (@pchowell01) July 13, 2013

Pardon the 125th day of interruptions RT @ZekeJMiller: Pool: Obama is golfing with Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser at Fort Belvoir today

— Anthony De Rosa (@AntDeRosa) July 13, 2013

So Obama is playing golf today with Wilbon and Kornheiser @pti Tony will be very humble about this.

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) July 13, 2013

White House says #Obama is playing golf w/ @RealMikeWilbon and Tony Kornheiser of @PTI. Oh to be a fly on the golf cart.

— Ken Thomas (@AP_Ken_Thomas) July 13, 2013

And it seems the President is doing some kind of ESPN host tour this week, and Wilbon and Kornheiser were never going to let their stats guy, Around the Horn host Anthony Reali, one up them with lunch at the White House: 

So of course they were going to play golf with him. Sorry, Reali. 

       

Why Time Warner Cable Still Wants In on Hulu

After the billion dollar bidding war for Hulu fizzled on Friday, it seemed like the streaming site's cabal of owners — Fox, NBC, and Disney — were ready to run with Hulu on their own, but a new report suggests a fourth partner might be joining the already crowded view from the top. Time Warner lost the Hulu auction like every other bidder, but they may not be done with Hulu just yet. Bloomberg's Alex Sherman and Andy Fixmer report the cable company is in talks to buy a stake in the premium streaming service. How much of a partner TWC will become is unclear, but Bloomberg says they were previously looking for a 25 percent stake in the company, and everything could be completed in the next two weeks. 

If you're wondering what this could mean for Hulu and what it might change, this not-very-popular cable company joining the fray, look no further than the pre-sale assessment of Hulu offers from The New York Times' Brian Stelter and Amy Chozik. The dynamic duo reported Time Warner wanted to use Hulu to "create an industrywide 'TV Everywhere' hub in which subscribers could have access to network and cable shows on-demand." Whether that means Hulu would have to restrict access to Time Warner subscribers only is unclear. It's also unclear if the other Hulu owners would approve a move like that. It should also be noted that this was Time Warner's plan when they were planning to acquire all of Hulu, and not a seat at the boardroom table. But, still, this was the original intention. 

But it's also hard not to see why Time Warner would want to get in on the Hulu game now. The existing owners turned down huge offers because they think the service will be worth considerably more a few years down the line. Hulu will be lucrative enough that its existing owners just injected $700 million into Hulu's funding. The site will eventually be expected to make that money back, of course. Any company with an opportunity to ride that wave, and cash out in the end, would be foolish not to take it.

       

Where Does Wendy Davis Go From Here?

Late last night, the restrictive abortion bill Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis fought so hard against finally passed the Senate, and now heads to Gov. Rick Perry's desk for signature, which is a mere formality. But Davis is not giving up -- not by a long shot. Just before midnight last night, after an emotional day of heated debate and tampon confiscations, the Texas state Senate passed House Bill 2 with a 19-11 vote, restricting abortion access across the state and banning abortions after 20 weeks. Opponents of the bill gathered, cheered and protested outside of the state Senate building all day and well after midnight, even though the bill was always expected to pass.

HB 2 requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital surgical centers, a move that is expected to financially cripple most of the clinics in Texas. Senate democrats tried to attach 20 different amendments to the bill that would have, among other things, allowed exceptions to the 20-week ban for rape and incest victims. They were all defeated on party line votes. 

The governor was pleased his special Senate session finally filled its desired goal. "Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life," he said last night. He applauded the lawmakers who "tirelessly defended our smallest and most vulnerable Texans and future Texans." He did not offer a new take on Wendy Davis, the woman who might be coming for his job when he vacates the Governor's office to (maybe) run for President. 

But Davis, who defeated the bill after her now-famous old school 11-hour filibuster the last time it was presented to the Senate, was looking to the future Saturday night. She tweeted this shortly after the bill passed: 

Some believe this fight is over with this vote tonight, but they're wrong. The fight for the future of Texas is just beginning.

— Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) July 13, 2013

She's now being urged in some corners to go ahead and run for governor. It's hard not to wonder if last night sealed the decision for her. 

       

Edward Snowden's Russian Asylum Application Is Late

It seems Edward Snowden, the international fugitive marooned in a Russian airport, is taking his time to fill out his Russian asylum application. He told reporters Friday morning his application would be filed that day, but senior Kremlin officials said they've received bupkis from the former National Security Agency contractor in interviews Saturday morning. 

So, Friday morning: the missing man of mystery surfaced for the first time since flying to Russia. He spoke with reporters from behind a desk, flanked by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch representatives, proving that he is, in fact, alive and in Russia. "I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future," he told the assembled reporters. There was some creeping doubt Snowden was already on a beach somewhere, drinking cocktails and mocking the reporters trying to find him. But here he was, in the flesh, and laying out his plan to hang out in Russia until he can grab a flight to Latin America's warmer weather and less complicated relationships with the U.S. 

"I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted," Snowden said. "I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably."

And that's where things could get messy. As our Phillip Bump explained, president Vladimir Putin has made it clear Snowden will be granted asylum only if he stops releasing information damaging to the U.S. Of course, Snowden argues what he's doing isn't damaging to the U.S. at all. "I want the U.S. to succeed," he said yesterday. 

So, his plan looks like this: 

Step 1: seek asylum in Russia Step 2: seek asylum somewhere in Latin America Step 3: hang out in Russia until he can figure out the complicated transportation arrangements required to legally travel to Latin America

But before any of that can even happen Snowden has to formally file his asylum application in Russia, something he hasn't done yet. On Saturday morning, Konstantin Romodanovsky, the head of Russia's Federal Migration Service, said he has not received an application from Snowden. "At the present time, there have been no applications from Snowden," Romodanovsky told Interfax. "If we receive an application, it will be considered in due process of law." And, weirdly, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia is "not in contact with Snowden," while attending a meeting in Kyrgyzstan on Saturday. This is a strange claim considering Russian government officials were present and helped organize his press conference yesterday. But, that's the big news: Snowden hasn't gotten around to filing his asylum application for one reason or another. There was no set deadline beyond his own self-imposed one, but still. This is where we are. 

One possible reason for the lateness: Edward Snowden is, among other things, a lollygagger. 

The other possible reason is an asylum application is long, complicated and takes time to carefully fill out. He has to dot the i's and cross the t's, and such. 

       

It Took Eliot Spitzer's Comeback Tour This Long to Get Sued

The comeback kid for comptroller hasn't even won yet and he's already taking right hooks to the jaw from Wall Street big wigs. Disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was sued on Friday evening by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, for defamation. 

From the perspective of this lawsuit filed in New York state Supreme Court in Putnam County, Spitzer has spent the last eight years "a long-standing malicious campaign ... to discredit Mr. Greenberg and damage Mr. Greenberg’s reputation and career, while attempting to bolster Mr. Spitzer’s own reputation and career," according to the New York Daily News.

But the lawsuit would also like to remind the court of Spitzer's personal shortcomings, because those are relevant, too. Like, the hooker scandal that caused Spitzer to resign as governor, which is one of Spitzer's "numerous acts of moral turpitude," according to Greenberg's suit, per the Wall Street Journal. "The suit also lists Mr. Greenberg's philanthropic contributions," the paper reports. 

"This lawsuit is frivolous," Spitzer said in a statement emailed to reporters Friday night. He also cited a recent New York court ruling as evidence this lawsuit has no merit. 

Greenberg resigned from AIG in 2005 over corruption charges led by Spitzer, who was the state attorney general at that time. The following year, AIG paid $1.64 billion to settle federal and state investigations into its businesses. 

But the former Wall Street fat cat's vendetta against Spitzer is only just getting started. One of Greenberg's senior advisers told the Journal that his boss "will get involved" in the campaign against Spitzer, "at the appropriate time." There's no indication what he means by this, exactly.

Spitzer's opponent for comptroller, Scott Stringer, has not commented on earning the possible support of a disgraced former Wall Street titan while running for the city position that's meant to police Wall Street titans. Seems like a great career move. The Spitzer campaign can't wait. 

But until then, the show must go on. And the Spitzer campaign really has been a show so far. While Spitzer's dutiful supporters were out getting the necessary amount of signatures to get on the ballot, he led a controversial media blitz all week, appearing on any and every show that asked.

Last night, Spitzer made a campaign stop on the other site of the country, in Burbank, California, to chat with Jay Leno on The Tonight Show. Speaking about pressure he faced from Wall Street guys who hated how tough Spitzer was during his previous political career, the candidate shared a new anecdote. It seems Spitzer and his wife were out recently when a former AIG executive "came up to me, started screaming at me in the middle of this public event," he told Leno, without naming names. Funny coincidence, that. 

       

Meet the Teach for America Resistance Movement That's Growing From Within

A network of Teach for America alumni and corps members is organizing in Chicago this weekend, as part of the national Free Minds, Free People conference organized by the Education for Liberation Network, but this summit is more than a wistful reunion gathering. The group's aim, as encapsulated in the roundtable's title, "Organizing Resistance to Teach for America and its Role in Privatization," is no less than overthrowing—or at least overhauling—the non-profit organization's dominant role in educational reform. And who best to challenge TFA than its graduates?

The summit is the subject of extensive coverage in The American Prospect, starting with a tremendously helpful cheat sheet of popular criticisms of the non-profit educational organization among education reform circles:

Twenty-four years running, the rap on Teach for America (TFA) is a sampled, re-sampled, burned-out record: The organization’s five-week training program is too short to prepare its recruits to teach, especially in chronically under-served urban and rural districts; corps members only have to commit to teach for two years, which destabilizes schools, undermines the teaching profession, and undercuts teachers unions; and TFA, with the help of its 501(c)4 spin-off, Leadership for Educational Equity, is a leading force in the movement to close “failing” schools, expand charter schools, and tie teachers’ job security to their students’ standardized test scores. Critics burn TFA in internet-effigy across the universe of teacher listservs and labor-friendly blogs.

Meet Beth Sondel, a former TFA member listed among the organizers of the anti-TFA gathering:

“The goal is to help attendees identify the resources they have as activists and educators to advocate for real, just reform in their communities,” says co-coordinator Beth Sondel, a 2004 TFA alum who is now a PhD student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin. Though the organizers don’t have pre-set goals, possible outcomes range from a push for school districts not to contract with TFA to counter-recruitment of potential corps members away from the program.

Indeed, in recent months there's been no shortage of public pushback against the organization, ranging from a widely circulated letter urging new recruits to resign, to Minnesota Governor Mark Dalton's May decision to veto a bill granting funding for the program. In April, activists successfully fought for the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing to increase its training requirements for teaching English learners. And only last week, University of Minnesota grad students fought to block a Teach for America partnership with the university, blasting the program in a "No TFA at the U of M" statement. Then there was last year's eviscerating point/counterpoint in The Onion, mocking recruits' paternalistic attitudes and self-absorption. 

But, as The Prospect's James Cersonsky points out, "no one has ever staged a coordinated, national effort to overhaul, or put the brakes on, TFA." That the movement is largely originating from the organization's own alumni base renders it all the more fascinating. 

"As a non-TFA person, I can point out some of the weaknesses in the program, but it's far more powerful when people who are in the program can speak to that," said Anthony Cody, an outspoken California-based educator who spent 18 years as an Oakland science teacher, during which, he estimates, he worked with about 30 TFA members in a mentoring program. "It's really heartening to see teachers who come from TFA that are thinking for themselves and drawing on their experiences in the classroom to realize that there's some real significant problems with the TFA approach."

To better the organization, Cody suggested extending the required teaching commitment and making the training process far more rigorous. Otherwise, "they're perpetuating the problems that they claim to be addressing—which is an absence of high-quality teachers."

Tara Kini, a civil rights attorney who fought successfully to challenge a U.S. Department of Education regulation that labeled TFA members "highly qualified teachers" in 2007, described the summit as evidence that "large numbers of TFA alumni disagree with the policy positions of the organization and want to push them to change."

But when reached for comment, a Teach for America spokesperson pointed out that the organization has thousands of alumni, most of whom, obviously, won't be attending the summit. Heather Harding, the organization's senior vice president for community partnerships, special initiatives, research, and engagement, then sent along a statement.

"We continue to believe that Teach for America provides an important entry point into the field of education for committed individuals who want to make a positive difference for children," the statement read in part. "Now over 32,000 and growing, our alumni represent a broad spectrum of perspectives and opinions on how best to serve students’ needs. We welcome a diversity of opinion and rely on feedback from alumni, corps members, parents, principals, and community leaders to help us continually strengthen on program and deepen our impact."

Meanwhile, some Teach For America alumni carry their own gripes about the organization, but don't view the summit—whose goals remain admittedly vague, or still pending—as an admirable solution. Among them is Clay Cleek, a former corps member who taught reading in the South Louisiana region and now works for the private sector in Santa Fe. Cleek described his region as "chronically underperforming," estimating that only 85 of 117 initial corps members completed the two-year commitment. 

"Having a summit sounds great, and pushing back against Teach for America gets your name in the news, but it's difficult to take anyone seriously whose sole stated goal is to criticize with no expectation of formulating positive recommendations," Cleek wrote in an email. "It's very easy to book a conference room, tell anecdotes about how awful TFA is, and bemoan the influence of private money. I might enjoy participating in something like that myself, but it only amounts to self-aggrandizement and does nothing to advance the goal of improving public education.

A more productive countermovement, Cleek argued, would seek pragmatic alternatives to Teach for America rather than trying to subvert the organization itself.

"Hopefully these people don't think our education system would be better off with fewer new teachers who graduated at the top of their class," Cleek wrote, "but this is the only certain outcome I see from discouraging potential TFA recruits."

But indeed, many of Teach for America's most vicious opponents point out that the high turnover of trainees being dispatched to many of the country's most challenging school districts—often without any long-term plans to be teachers—is precisely the problem. Anthony Cody's experiences in Oakland corroborated this critique. In a typical cycle, the school would lose about half of its corps members after their second year. By the third year, half of those remaining would be gone. The problem, he explained, is that many who join Teach for America don't actually want to be teachers in the first place, instead using the program as a prestigious stepping stone for policy work, law school, or business school. One study found that roughly 57 percent of corps members planned to teach for two years or less when they applied, while only 11 percent intended to make teaching a lifelong career. (TFA has claimed, however, that 36 percent remain in the classroom as teachers. But their recently announced partnership with Goldman Sachs, which provides TFA recruits with jobs at the banking firm after two years of service, doesn't entirely help their cause.)

"A big part of what we talked about [in graduate school] was schools being community hubs," said one Los Angeles-area teacher, who asked not to be identified by name. "In order to do that, you have to minimize 'churn'—the rotation of teachers and principals. And TFA contributes to churn. Their framework is about developing leaders, not teachers."

Certainly, nearly 25 years after its founding, Teach For America's decorated alumni pool is enough to invite graduates to network their way to success. ("They have graduates who are actually in significant places of power writing legislation that is working hand-in-hand to privatize education," the teacher said.) But are freshly minted TFA alumni, carrying only two years of experience in the field, qualified for leadership in education policy? The question stirs fierce debate in the education world.

"It’s troubling to me that TFA puts you in this pipeline to lead when you don’t really know a lot," the teacher said. "You could be effective, but you’re not necessarily wise."

Though never a corps member herself, the teacher has had her share of interactions with the program. When she moved to New York after graduate school, boasting high grades and a teaching award, she found the district closed to external applicants. "But they had a contract with TFA where they were still taking college graduates with no training besides doing TFA." The pattern is happening nationwide, she complained. "Meanwhile, they're laying off highly experienced teachers."

In the meantime, she worked as a private tutor for affluent students—including one who applied for Teach for America because he thought it would look good on his business-school application.

As for the summit? The irony, she said, is that many of the dissenting TFA alumni, or at least those quoted in The American Prospect piece, don't actually seem to be working as teachers themselves.

As one reader commenter remarked, "We need our best in the classrooms."

       

Oprah Gives Lindsay Lohan a Reality Show

There's no way this will end well, right? Oprah has booked Lindsay Lohan for a sit-down interview when she gets out of rehab, a big get for the struggling OWN network. And they're not stopping there. Lohan will also be featured in an eight-episode "docu-series" about getting her life back on track, reviving her career, and staying sober. So it's a reality show. Oprah Winfrey has decided that the best thing for Lindsay Lohan's recovery is her own reality show. Terrific. That's great, compassionate thinking right there. If there's one thing reality shows have shown over the past three thousand years, or however long reality shows have been around, it's that they are really healthy environments for people with mental health issues or substance abuse problems or both. Proven fact. So this is going to be great for Lindsay. Terrific thinking. Anyway, the series, which each and every one of us will of course be watching, will air sometime next year. [Entertainment Weekly]

Anne Heche has booked a guest starring gig on The Michael J. Fox Show, the upcoming sitcom that NBC has already ordered for an entire season. Heche is going to do several episodes, playing the anchor at NBC 4 news, where Fox is a reporter returning to his job after five years. Their characters have something of a contentious relationship it seems. Hey, sure, why not. Anne Heche is great. Really! Anne Heche is a very good actress who deserves more and better work. Did you see her on Hung? That show wasn't great, but she was great on it. She's great in all her things. I didn't watch the most recent show, the one about how she's talking to god or something, we've had enough of that in real life, but everything else. It's great. So, good for The Michael J. Fox Show. Well booked. [Entertainment Weekly]

Oh good grief. Has no one learned their lesson? The Lone Ranger was declared an epic bomb not even a week ago and Johnny Depp is already about to finalize his deal for Alice in Wonderland 2. I know, I know, that movie grossed like a billion dollars and has no real relation to Lone Ranger (other than star and studio), but still. I thought we could maybe take a break from Johnny Depp playing WaaAckKyyY characters for a while. I thought The Lone Ranger at least gave us that. But I guess not. He's doin' another Mad Hatter routine. And of course another Jack Sparrow. And I don't know, maybe for good measure he'll play Mary Poppins too. Why not! At this point, he might as well. Tim Burton's Mary Poppins, starring Johnny Depp. 2016 can't come fast enough! [Deadline]

Elijah Wood, Alison Pill, Rainn Wilson, Jack McBrayer, and Nasim Pedrad are all set to star in a horror-comedy called Cooties, about a group of teachers defending themselves against a horde of infected, zombie-like little kids. Which is kind of a cute concept until you ask one question: Are they going to be killing the little kid zombies? Because that seems awfully grim. But if they don't, then it's kind of lame. So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Anyway. Circle circle dot dot. Now I'm protected. [Deadline]

Here is a teaser trailer for Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, the biopic starring Idris Elba as South African hero Nelson Mandela and Naomie Harris as his wife, Winnie. This is not to be confused with the one starring Jennifer Hudson as Winnie. That's a completely different movie. This is the more prestigious of the two for sure. Elba sounds good, doesn't he? Duh.

       

Lionsgate Is Putting Distance Between Its 'Ender's Game' and Orson Scott Card

Following Orson Scott Card's plea for potential Ender's Game filmgoers to ignore his anti-gay activism, Lionsgate Studios released a statement that works hard to put further distance between the film, being marketed as the next Hunger Games-type Young Adult blockbuster, and the author of the book on which it's based. And here's one sign that the studio is, at the very least, seeing a potential boycott of the film as a threat to their project: the studio has pledged to host a "benefit premiere" of the film. Here's the statement, sent to The Atlantic Wire on Friday, in full: 

As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from Gods and Monsters to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and a company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of Ender's Game. The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message. Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes and, as part of this ongoing process, will host a benefit premiere for Ender's Game.

Lionsgate didn't immediately return a request for more specific information on the planned benefit. 

In a way, the studio is right to ask viewers to separate their work from its creator. Ender's Game is not an anti-gay screed. The book (and potentially, the film) no doubt has fans who consider themselves LGBT or LGBT allies. And that's OK. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf recently made an eloquent argument for the value of artistic, historical works by creators with horrible ideas: 

[We] would be wise to stay open to the possibility that inhabiting the art of someone whose aesthetics or personal moral beliefs we find abhorrent might nevertheless end in our gleaning something valuable from the experience. The opportunity to learn in that way won't survive, for most students, in a world where rejecting bigotry is thought to require rejecting everything produced by every dead bigot.

And while, unlike Walt Whitman, the figure on whom Friedersdorf based his essay, Orson Scott Card is still very much alive, that argument holds artistically here. But the studio's decision to hold a benefit in the wake of an impending boycott speaks to another element of the franchising of the book: where the money goes. Seeing Ender's Game does not imply an endorsement of its creator's worldview. It could, however, work to his financial benefit. For some, that might feel like donating a portion of the ticket price to the National Organization for Marriage. 

In handling the issue of Orson Scott Card, Lionsgate could learn from their previous experience with the Hunger Games. They ran into a bit of a problem when a lawyer for the studio last spring tried to shut down an anti-hunger campaign started by a group of fans, pegged to the release of the first film. That campaign came from a spin-off of the Harry Potter Alliance, a group of fans who have previously done "mission work" in the name of the Harry Potter books and films. After an outcry from fans, Lionsgate completely reversed course and expressed interest in getting involved with the project.  

While the idea of connecting a piece of popular culture to a wider social issue is certainly not a new one, studios are still learning how to handle the socio-political associations imbued upon their properties by the people who take them to heart, especially when those issues are as charged as same-sex marriage. Ender's Game, as the next big Young Adult hope, is simply the latest experiment in negotiating that tension. 

       

No, These Racist 'Asian' Names Aren't Really the Pilots of Asiana Flight 214

If someone came up and told you the name of the pilot flying Asiana Flight 214, which crash-landed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, was "Captain Sum Ting Wong" you'd call him out on an offensive joke, right? Unfortunately, that didn't happen during a KTVU-TV San Francisco broadcast this afternoon. KTVU, a local station serving Oakland and San Francisco, has been turning in some of the best coverage work of the crash—until one of its anchors began reading a list of pilots' "names" supposedly "confirmed" by the NTSB today:

In a painful segment, the anchor blindly reads the names out loud, not realizing that "Sum Ting Wong" sounds like "something wrong"—and is deeply offensive. Or that "We Tu Low" sounds like "we too low" and, well—ugh. A better glimpse of the "names" KTVU purportedly confirmed by the NTSB  is right here: 

[image error]

Someone thought this was all a "funny" joke—and KTVU got fooled bigtime In fact, the names of the pilot have not been released, and as the NTSB told Gawker, it is not in their policy to release names of individuals in these situations. KTVU has since apologized for airing the names, but still seems to be blaming the list on their purported source at the NTSB: 

 

    

Don't Hate the Hater

Earlier this week, the writer Joe Veix posted a listed on BuzzFeed, which the site allows users to do on its Community Post page. The list was called “The 10 DUMBEST BuzzFeed Lists You’re EMBARRASSED To Say You CLICKED,” poking fun at the site’s propensity for lists that combine pop culture trends with commentary on current events. The post might have disappeared, except that BuzzFeed, calling the list “mean-spirited,” removed it from the site. Veix had apparently violated BuzzFeed’s famous “no haters” policy.

Veix’s list, reposted on his own Tumblr, went viral shortly thereafter – partly because it was funny, but partly because of the controversy it engendered (and BuzzFeed was already in trouble for explaining the turmoil in Egypt through Jurassic Park GIFs). Eventually, BuzzFeed relented and reposted Veix’s list, with BuzzFeed editorial director Jack Shepherd explaining, “By the old rules of Community, you’d always remove someone who is toxic and only contributing negatively, but after some thought, we’ve updated our No Haters policy with an exception to allow people who want to hate on BuzzFeed itself.”

Though belated, the move was bold. And it brings to light the tenuous role of the hater in popular culture – an entertainer who is also reviled, the jester who sometimes plays the executioner and is then often executed himself.

Urban Dictionary defines the hater as “a person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success,” though a subsequent definition hates on the very notion of having to define a hater, which is its own odd form of meta-haterism:

The most non-insulting ‘insult’ in existence. It's a waste of breath to say it and a waste of energy to type it. This term is often used by pre-teen girls whenever someone insults their favorite teeny bopper singers. If you ever call someone a hater, find the nearest knife and use it pierce your lungs for polluting our air with that fucking stupid word

But is the hater of 2013 really so different from the critic of the past? In a more eloquent time, might not the hater have been a public intellectual of the skeptical bent, of the sort exemplified by Jacques Barzun? Isn’t haterism just a neologism for strident critical thought?

In defending haterism, I am in no way endorsing actual hatred. Criticism motivated by animus – racial, gender-based, whatever other kinds exist – is abhorrent, as are ad hominem attacks. And I have written elsewhere about my own desire not to publish criticism motivated by petty jealousies or rivalries.

At its finest, haterism is what Ralph Waldo Emerson called non-conformism in his essay “Self-Reliance.” His self-reliance refuses to take things at face-value; haterism goes further, exposing for others what the critic already knows to be self-promoting, false and ridiculous. Emerson approaches this when he writes, “Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times.” That reprimand made public is at the heart of haterism.

Besides, at least far as culture is concerned, haterism often serves as a necessary corrective to the stultifying echo chamber of adulation. In the book world, much of the current great-job-kiddo spirit can be traced back to a 2003 essay by the novelist Heidi Julavits in The Believer called “Rejoice! Believe! Be Strong and Read Hard!,” in which she suggested that book reviews had become too snarky and asked the literary community to “give people and books the benefit of the doubt."

[image error]It goes without saying that Julavits is not alone in stigmatizing haterism as incurious snark – she was merely an early bellwether of the “no haters” notion propagated by Buzzfeed, which holds that because the world is cruel, our discussions about that world should be nice.

So, for example, after William Giralidi eviscerated two books by Alix Ohlin in The New York Times, he was widely criticized for the same trait BuzzFeed accused Veix of harboring: mean-spiritedness. Gawker’s war on the writer Katie Roiphe has been waged with such vigor, that she actually took to Slate to respond (it didn’t work, of course).

I don’t necessarily agree with these attacks, but I do appreciate their vigor, their chastening earnestness. Haterism is a form of tough love, harsh cultural corrective – a note home from the teacher for the whole family to see. Is it possible that Veix posted his BuzzFeed list purely out of spite? It certainly is, though he doesn’t strike me as a spiteful guy (I judge him purely on his Tumblr). As such, his haterism – and that of others – is a call to do something better, not to cease doing it altogether.

It is strange, after all, to live in a world of only “like” buttons, which is why I suppose there’s an app called Hater. As the critic Jacob Silverman has pointed out, the “epidemic of niceness” has corroded our critical faculties. What the world of culture needs now is a measured does of haterism. 

Photos: Tumblr; Flickr, by Allan Ludwig.