One thing I forgot: I would be delighted if someone could explain to me how opposing the bailouts (because they’re massive government handouts to businesses that were failing because of their own poor practices) is at all consistent with going against the market to protect flailing American auto companies.

Dude. Beatdown.

I never thought of NYU Local as actual journalism, but this post, especially under the label of “news,” is just outrageous to me. I’m not even going to go into the politics here; that’s beside the point.

You criticized someone’s opinion because it differed from your own, and then tried to market it as common sense “fact.” To post this as a reaction opinion piece might be acceptable, except you don’t even do it well. As I said, I don’t want to debate politics, but the way you dismiss Nelson’s arguments just because you aren’t informed about his points of reference is immature and unprofessional. I agree that sometimes his allusions aren’t clear, and a few statements were confusing or strange, but I think overall he made some good points that more Americans should pay attention to.

We live in a country that supposedly respects free speech, and I admire WSN for publishing these opinions. It terrifies me now, as it did during the election, to see my generation blindly following Obama as some sort of “messiah” and making excuses for his mistakes. It is the job of the media to inform citizens, not to defend the actions of the government. You consider it “news” that someone dared to criticize our president? Is this what “new media” means, that those with differing opinions are dismissed as lunatics? I never had any respect for your site as a news source, but now I’m actually scared that this is the kind of world my children will grow up in.

And since you failed to understand: The difference between bailouts and what Nelson proposes is that in the latter case, taxpayer money is not being handed out to private companies. Some of us don’t want our money being donated to large corporations who apparently don’t know how to spend it.

Is this guy a freshman? It sounds like a bunch of mumbojumbo that parents spout off at their children that the children then ingrain before they begin to think for themselves.

@Christine If you’re willing to put something out there in the public spectrum, you gotta be able to take the criticism and backlash that comes from it. That’s what free speech is all about. And it sounds like Ned is pretty well informed on Ian’s points, but it sounds like Ian is not very well informed on his own.

I’m all for criticism and backlash, but not under the guise of “news.” And I don’t think Ned is as well informed as you believe him to be. The fact that he apparently has not one criticism of the way Obama is running our country is enough to make me question his knowledge.

Hey Christine—how’s it going? The fact is that NYU Local is largely not a news organization. They’re a blog, and they trade in snark, the same as Gawker or Bwog or any other news digest service. They write about WSN not to correct the paper’s mistakes, but because it’s fun to mock the establishment. In this instance, I think they’ve got the better of the paper. That was a poorly reasoned and ill-informed opinion piece. They respond to it not to present their own opinion, but to point out that someone else explained his poorly. That may be childish, but in this case they’re right.

@Akers

You used to write for Bwog–calling it a news digest service that trades in snark as opposed to a news organization raises a lot of questions. It’s probably not even worth it to get into this discussion, but could you define what you mean by news organization?

@Christine

You’ve confirmed Sergio Hernandez’s post. http://cerealcommas.com/blog/?p=490

Now, i’m gonna do to you what you just did to Nelson. Can I get published too?

“Okay, this actually sounds reasonable at first. But really, what was Obama supposed to do? It’s expected that the leaders of the countries on the short list will personally lobby for the Olympics, and that’s what Japan, Spain and Brazil were doing. If Obama stayed home, then the news story would have been that he wasn’t patriotic enough, or even pro-Chicago enough, to put in the effort to make it happen.

Still, not an entirely unfair criticism. Too bad things go downhill so quickly from there.”

Hrm, should I stay at home and work on something that matters? Or should I run off to Europe to lobby for Chicago? (Let’s be honest, Chicago would NEVER have won. Ever.) Yes, he would’ve gotten criticized either way.. OH WAIT, maybe he wouldn’t have if he stayed here and did something viable with his time. Would they criticize him for figuring out the health care issue instead of supporting Chicago’s bid? Doubt it.

“I’ll concede that Democrats have been doing a terrible job at presenting their health care platform. But what does anyone, save FOX News and the Republican Party, have to gain from the White House legitimizing FOX News’s profligate mendacity with an exclusive interview?

For that matter, why complain about the health care bill being complicated? Maybe it’s complicated because health care reform is a complicated issue. And who are these governmental officials who can’t decipher the current bill? Maybe they shouldn’t be crafting national health care policy if they don’t understand it.

Speaking of which: Which current bill is Nelson referring to? The Senate finance committee bill has been making the most headlines recently, but he realizes that’s not the only legislation being proposed, right?”

Why complain about the health care bill being complicated? You realize that the people with the capacity to fully read that bill and understand it most likely already have health care anyway? College graduates don’t often find themselves waiting in line at free clinics wishing they could go to a real hospital to get treatment for an infection. The health care changes are a necessity to provide health care for those who historically haven’t been able to afford it and therefore it’s pretty important I think that they understand what exactly they’re getting themselves into.

And despite your typical liberal hatred for all things Fox News and the Republican party, you must realize by now that the vast majority of conservatives watch/listen to Fox news almost exclusively. Now, if I’m Obama and I have a lot of people criticizing my health care bill what would be the best way for me to reach out to them and explain why exactly this plan works? What’s that you say? Oh, go on the only news network they watch and appease their concerns? Why the hell would I do such a ridiculous thing? Don’t be naive.

“Here’s the thing: “Czar” is an imaginary title. Nobody at the White House actually has “czar” as an official job description. In fact, there’s pretty much nothing in common between the various “czars” except that they’ve been labeled as such because they wield a certain amount of influence over a particular policy field. It’s a goddamn nickname! If you think someone specific should be canned, name some names.”

Pretty sure he addressed the fact it was an imaginary title when he himself put the word “czar” in quotes in his article. Your whole argument here is a moot point and you’re just looking for things to pick on. Pathetic.

“As for not “butting in” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that may at first seem a little bit inconsistent with Nelson’s otherwise full-throated advocacy of antagonizing other countries for indeterminate reasons. Applying the lessons we’ve learned from how he would like to deal with Iran and Venezuela, shouldn’t we just blow a few things up in Palestinian territory and call it a day?

No, apparently that conflict isn’t worth our time at all. We need to prioritize our explosions, people! It’s not like we don’t have longstanding interests in the region, have an extremely close relationship with Israel (one which, consequently, frequently causes Islamic radicals to characterize any aggressive actions taken by Israel as having the implicit or explicit endorsement of the government of the United States), and give them billions of dollars in military aid. We’re knee-deep in this crisis, fellas, and it should be fairly obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about the long, convoluted history of national interests surrounding the conflict that “butting out” is virtually impossible.”

Nelson went a little extreme here, I agree. Bombing Iran could go either way. However, would you rather face the risk of a nuclear attack 5 years from now or just not have to worry about it regardless? Even the rest of the Islamic word basically abhors Ahmadinejad. He’s not someone we should put our faith in.. or do you disagree?As for Israel-Palestine – fairly certain our support of Israel so far has done NOTHING to mitigate this conflict. In fact, it just continues to worsen. Maybe our involvement is not beneficial to either party? Once again, it might not be the right thing to do but it is something different. This conflict continues to escalate and deflate constantly and this guy is just offering up another pot of something that’ll probably fail.. but it is something. Who are you to say that’s wrong? It’s not nearly as impossible as you think. “Hey, Israel, we don’t like all this fighting over there. Next time you launch an unprovoked attack, we’re going to stop sending you awesome toys. Deal?” All Israel then has to do is not kill people – unless they are provoked of course. At that point it’s basically on Palestine to not attack Israel. It’s obviously more complicated than this, but you get the point.

“I suppose it didn’t occur to Nelson that the billions of dollars a bullet train would cost might be part of the point. We’ve gone over this again: public works projects are good for a country in recession. They get people working, and they get money moving. Besides, transit and infrastructure are serious issues, not something that can just get dismissed out of hand as an excuse for “pet projects.” Better public transit, particularly by rail, is better for the environment. Unless you’d prefer to just keep burning jet fuel so people can make the same trip by air.”

First, you spend billions of tax payer dollars to build the trains and the tracks. Now, you have a govt owned system that somehow seems to be losing billions every year and start hiking up the prices consistently. Who pays those higher fares? Yes, the tax payers again. You’ve created a system that bleeds money even though it’s revenue base is really high because of the unions and other terrible management decisions made and the taxpayers continue to pay for it one way or another. Welcome to the MTA. If this process were privatized with government funding, I’d agree to what you’re saying. As a government project, I just see the MTA happening all over again.

“And what exactly is Nelson afraid of when it comes to long-term decriminalization, anyway? What can’t we handle? We’re not a nation of 14 year-old degenerates. Is he concerned that democracy will crumble when we’re only capable of getting off our baked asses long enough to amble to the voting booth and punch our ballot for President Cheech of the National Cheetos Party?”

We are a country of excesses. Go anywhere else in the world and the only binge drinkers you see are American tourists. We’re the fattest country in the world. We don’t know when to stop. While I’m all for legalizing marijuana, I question the capabilities of our nations younger generation to be able to limit themselves. Don’t get me wrong I’ve made a fool of myself plenty of times through excessive drinking.. but it doesn’t make it right.

Finally, Christine here said it best. This is not news. This is your response to someone else’s thoughts on the situation. How you can justify calling this news is mind boggling.

I could go on about this all day, but I’ll just focus on a couple of points.

In reference to the column, reading “put our bloated defense budget to some use and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities,” is enough to make my blood boil. There is no such thing as a “surgical strike” that would only destroy facilities without killing people. There is so much opposition to Ahmadinejad stirring in Iran, but if the US were to attack and martyr a few hundred Iranians that would be enough to unite the country against America. Most Iranians (correctly) believe they have a right to nuclear power, they just don’t believe the current government/ruling elite can be trusted with it.

So, Christine, if you can admire WSN for printing this opinion then I can regret that WSN brought to my attention the existence of “shoot from the hip” halfwits with whom I share this college.

Hey Will! Yeah I agree that it’s not the best piece (I said that in my first comment) and I’m familiar with what NYU Local tends to do… but just the fact that he starts off by saying he’s posting this because “it’s a slow news week” makes me cringe. And I get sick of everything on here being an attack on any opinions that differ from Ned’s. I wish WSN had posted a better-written article covering some of the same issues, or that NYU Local would showcase a wider variety of opinions.

And Cody, I’m sad to see that you simplify my concerns as a feud between two mediocre college publications. I mainly spoke out because I’m offended by this growing trend in biased media and mockery of legitimate concerns. I think the WSN piece should have been revised and edited a lot more before being published, but I support the attempt they made to present an alternative viewpoint.

QUOTE: Obama should also send a message to Venezuela by putting a 100 percent tax on every CITGO station in America

Genial idea! Especially considering that CITGO gas stations are privately-owned franchises which have absolutely nothing to do with Venezuela other than that CITGO delivers fuel which is itself bought from multiple oil company sources within the United States.

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!!!!!!! Right on!

I wasn’t going to comment but I literally cannot help myself.

I actually agree with Christine to the extent that I believe posting opinions that diverge from the mainstream NYU community is very valuable, and I commend WSN (and Ian Nelson) for doing so, knowing that pieces like this would probably attract some major flack. But I have to echo the sentiment that this article is just horribly, horribly written. I know that WSN has a very intense editing process; I’m wondering why this one didn’t get put through the wringer some more? It reads like a middle schooler’s position paper, which I think is one of the reasons it’s so easy for many to dismiss Nelson’s opinions.

I also think the fact that Ned said it was a “slow news week” was maybe taken a bit too literally. I didn’t read that statement as, “slow news week so here’s some news.” I read it as, “slow news week, so here’s something that’s NOT news (because it’s a slow news week).” I can’t speak for Ned (and Ned, please correct me if I’m wrong), but I doubt he ever intended for this to be taken as objective hard news. It’s a riff on an op-ed, an article that ALSO isn’t news. It’s clear that this is an opinion piece, as most of the pieces we put on Local are, even if it doesn’t have “OP-ED” obviously emblazoned above the title.

Also, I’m sure that Local would be very happy to bring on a conservative contributor. It just so happens that, much like the vast majority of NYU students, our political writers are incredibly liberal. And because we believe that authors should have a voice and personality here, many of the opinions expressed in political pieces are definitively “liberal.” We used to have a conservative contributor, but I think he got scared off– probably because his pieces inspired reactions similar to the ones Nelson’s did over at WSN.

Is it just me or do I have to run through the same blogger subjectivity spiel like every other week? There’s something vaguely Sisyphean about it. Nonetheless, once more with feeling:

@Christine: You’re right: this isn’t unbiased news, and I never presented it as such. As the National editor, I consider my job to be something like 10% presenting information and 90% analysis and commentary about that information, with this post decidedly falling all the way on the commentary side of the continuum. I’m not trying to hide the fact that this is all my opinion.

But opinion in the realm of politics is different from talking about your favorite ice cream flavor. If you’re going to propose a course of action that could effect the lives of millions, then you need an argument for it. And there are sound arguments and unsound arguments; I couldn’t find a single sound argument in this entire piece, but if someone wants to point it out for me I’d be happy to reconsider.

As for your ad hominem remark about my supposedly slavish devotion to Obama: I thought we were cool! Given that it doesn’t have any bearing on the strengths of either my argument or Nelson’s I probably shouldn’t bother responding. But it rankles me when people imply I’m not thinking for myself, so let me suggest that you go back through the archives and read some of my other posts. Like, say this one. Or that one.

A reminder, once again: If you want your comment published, you MUST INCLUDE A FULL NAME. Someone just left a 1500ish word comment (whoa) with a fake name and email. send me your real name and email at lily.q@nyulocal.com if you want it published.

@Christine: Also, believe it or not, I actually want more conservative voices in the National section. If you or someone you know wants to be one of them, let me know.

You’re going to have to do better than Nelson did in this column, though.

To Christine:

“You criticized someone’s opinion because it differed from your own, and then tried to market it as common sense “fact.” ”

Isn’t this what Ian Nelson did, as well? Criticizing the opinions of liberals/the president, and marketing his own opinion as something along the lines of common sense or even “fact”? Furthermore, isn’t this also what mainstream news columnists for publications like Time and Newsweek (and their more ideological counterparts such as The New Republic and The National Review) do as well?

We’re adults now, not middle-schoolers; when we state our opinions, we give the listener/reader enough intellectual credit that we don’t state “in my opinion” before every opinionated statement (particularly in written pieces). Imagine how annoying it’d be if, every time you read an opinion piece, “In my opinion” or “I think” preceded every single statement that was not a cut-and-dry,”World-War-II-Ended-in-1945″ style fact. Or how little credibility Roger Ebert would have if he ended every film review with “But then again, this is just my opinion guys. You might disagree, that’s cool, I’m just sayin’ what I think. Not trying to be offensive!”

“To post this as a reaction opinion piece might be acceptable, except you don’t even do it well. As I said, I don’t want to debate politics, but the way you dismiss Nelson’s arguments just because you aren’t informed about his points of reference is immature and unprofessional.”

I agree insofar that I think Ned didn’t go far enough in deconstructing Ian’s arguments. If anything, I think Ned could have marshalled far more facts in support of his viewpoints than he did. However, recall that NYU Local is a blog, and does not market itself as a serious journalistic outlet…the way WSN does.

“We live in a country that supposedly respects free speech, and I admire WSN for publishing these opinions.”

But apparently you don’t have similar respect for NYU Local’s publication of opinion. Recall your statement “I never had any respect for your site as a news source, but now I’m actually scared that this is the kind of world my children will grow up in.” This is revealing for two reasons:
1.) You admire WSN for publishing an opinion you agree with, and have no respect for NYU Local’s publication of an opinion you disagree with.
2.) You were expecting hard news from a blog? The entire purpose of a blog is to serve as a platform for one’s opinion. Taking such umbrage at a blog fulfilling its self-evident purpose seems is somewhat puzzling to me. Read the “About” for this website; the “happenings” they deliver are intended for “discussion” and the tone is intentionally “conversational.”

I don’t begrudge you your strong disagreement with the content, but to say you have no respect for NYU Local as a hard news source is like saying you have no respect for Country Music Television as a source for rap videos.

@Harjaap:
Don’t want to spend too much time on this since, believe it or not, I’m also a full-time student in addition to being a part-time flamewar-instigator. But a few things stand out to me in your rather lengthy response:

On the Olympics: I’m going to go ahead and call your argument the Linear Presidency Fallacy. You see it a lot when people say, “Obama should focus on this instead of this,” or “Obama is doing too much,” etc. The assumption seems to be that he can only do one thing at a time, when really it’s extremely important that the president be able to multitask. I’m not sure what you want him to do to “figure out health care,” but it’s probably safe to say it’s the kind of work that could be done on a plane to Copenhagen. He’s got an office with a phone on Air Force One, and a whole staff of people on the ground to delegate to.

On health care: Why is it so important that the lay man be able to understand legislation aimed at reforming incredibly complex policy? Hell, I’ll freely admit that I only grasp a little of what’s going on in the debate, but I’m more concerned with having a good bill than one that reads as easily as the latest Dan Brown novel.

On FOX News: If there were a major conservative TV channel that I trusted to engage with Obama and liberals in good faith, then I’d be the first person to urge Obama to book an interview. But any channel that continues to champion Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly is pretty clearly not interested in honest and open dialogue.

On Czars: The term “czar” is a media construction. It’s nowhere in the official titles, press statements, or job descriptions of any of the people labeled as such.

On Israel-Palestine: Well, good on you for conceding that the issue is way, way, waaaay more complicated than you initially characterize it. But to be clear, I didn’t advocate a continuation of our current policy towards Israel, I just pointed out why washing our hands of the whole conflict and disappearing stage left is effectively impossible.

By the way, a side note to all you “this proves that NYU Local isn’t serious about journalism” folks: Sure I make no pretense at being objective, and my tone’s a hell of a lot more informal than you’ll find on the Washington Square News op-ed page, but don’t take that to mean that I’m not serious about what I’m doing. The reason I went hard on Nelson is because I take this stuff seriously; sloppy, ill-reasoned pieces like his are toxic to intelligent conversation about the big issues this country is facing.

Sure, maybe I use a little bit more profanity, but at least I’m not casually advocating bombing campaigns just for the hell of it.

“You criticized someone’s opinion because it differed from your own, and then tried to market it as common sense “fact.””

No, he called out someone’s total batshit-crazy.

Let’s just be straight:

Ian Nelson’s piece had this coming.

Ned’s piece is clearly opinion.

Ned and I have both tried to find conservative writers. However, the important criterion is not that you are a conservative, but that you can write.

Also, enough of the idea that NYU Local only offers opinion. Just because we don’t present information “objectively” doesn’t mean we don’t also offer news.

@Charlie,

“Also, enough of the idea that NYU Local only offers opinion. Just because we don’t present information “objectively” doesn’t mean we don’t also offer news.”

I can’t account for everyone whom you’re addressing but to clarify where I was coming from:

No doubt, NYU Local is a news source; as the “About” states, it’s goal is to “deliver discussion-worthy happenings.” My issue was with those who claim to be shocked (absolutely shocked!) and disappointed when NYU Local
-doesn’t hew to the tenets of “hard news” (a term I used frequently in my earlier post)
-presents topics for discussion in a subjective manner.

To my knowledge, NYU Local has never claimed to be old-school, 100% cut-and-dry journalism (or “hard news”). So when folks get upset at the fact that it’s not traditional enough or not their grandpappy’s news outlet, I tend to call BS.

Thanks Ned! I saw this op-ed in WSN yesterday and was itching for someone to shoot down his batshit insane and logically inconsistent arguments, but I was too lazy, so nice work.

Look, anyone who advocates bombing Iran as the solution to all our problems there clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also, anyone who sees international relations and diplomacy as a cut-and-dried, black and white process instead of the ridiculously complicated dance that it is, should not be writing about issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, or our beef with Iran. Saying that the solution is simple – a few bombs here, an oil embargo there – is unbelievably naive.

I’m all for people expressing their opinions, but Nelson’s piece was just plain stupid.

“Finally, decriminalize marijuana, and tax the living daylights out of it — even if it’s temporary. In my opinion we’re not a country that can handle legalized marijuana long-term.”

Just my two cents: yes, decriminalization appeals to lots of people for obvious reasons. However, at least in terms of short term gains, taxation of marijuana will probably not be very cost effective. While there are pre-established agencies like ATF which could absorb certain amounts of the responsibility for regulation, to truly monitor an industry focused around such a widespread and popular cash crop will take huge funding, an initial fixed cost that presumably would be too high (pun?) for our economy to support at the moment. Yes, I think that marijuana has the potential to help increase government tax inflow, but it is very much a long-term project, not something that could give us an instant fiscal boost.
By the way, illegal goods cannot be taxed, so just decriminalizing marijuana wouldn’t do much for the economy. Well, maybe free up some funds from prisons, but legalization is the necessary first step for taxation.

Also, great post Ned, very entertaining to read.

Are the commenters going to do one of these a day? One of the, “You had no right to critique so-and-so’s post!” vs. “Oh stfu, he had every right to critique so-and-so’s post!”? It could be kind of fun. What’s up for tomorrow?

Lol… A future Glenn Beck in the making. Quick, someone contact FOX News.

and another good laugh at the conversation in the comment section. Someone wrote an opinion piece criticizing someone’s clearly unintelligible and uninformed views? Shocking!

How dare Ned think any of his opinions are worthy of your time!

[...] I wrote a post in which I ripped into a Washington Square News column that I believed (and still believe) was [...]

@Christine, Harjaap:

This should answer some questions

[...] got to hand it to Pratik Mehta: compared to some of the outright lunacy that often comes from the Washington Square News op-ed page, yesterday’s column was The [...]