The folly of paradox . . . and yet another explanation for the decline of newspapers, this time based on cognitive psychology
I was in DC for a conference and picked up the Washington Post. When I got to the op-ed page, I noticed a column, The Folly of Hate-Crime Laws, by Richard Cohen, which reminded me of why I drastically cut back on my consumption of newspaper op-eds a couple of decades ago.
The column as a whole is reasonable enough, if commonplace—Cohen is making the argument that there’s no reason to specially punish hate crimes, it should be enough to punish the crime itself. I have no problem with this argument (and do not pretend to have the legal knowledge to evaluate it). But I do have a problem with Cohen’s conclusion, which is that charging James von Brunn (the guy who recently shot up somebody at the Holocaust Museum) with a hate crime “ghettoizes both its real and purported victims. It’s a consequence that von Brunn himself might applaud.”
Huh? Maybe it’s time for a jailhouse interview. Cohen is a reporter, right? Short of that, I’d say it’s safe to assume that, no, von Brunn would not “applaud” hate crimes laws. The burden of proof is on whoever would claim differently, no?
I think the problem with this sort of column is that the columnist typically has to choose between a few options: (a) moral indignation, (b) bemused detachment, © a delightfully paradoxical twist, . . . Cohen went for ©. But, as we all know, it’s easier to be counterintuitive and wrong than counterintuitive and right.
As Cohen puts it, “Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.”
Connection to loss aversion
I actually remember Richard Cohen’s name from when I was reading the Post thirty years ago. Maybe it’s time for him to retire. But I can see how this might not happen. If you yank Cohen and replace him with somebody new, you’ll make some readers happy and antagonize others. But, loss aversion being what it is, it’s likely that the negative reader reaction would outweigh the positive. So he stays in.
Comments
There’s another reason that might explain why Cohen stays. The people who run these papers just aren’t very good at their jobs, as in, hiring people who are good at their jobs and making sure they continue to do their jobs well.
I actually doubt they even make a decision concerning loss or gain when considering keeping Cohen on. They probably just think he’s good at what he does.
The question would be, then, why they would think that. There are 2 possibilities, I suspect. 1) They’re not very good thinkers. 2) They are bright and think what he’s doing is good for whatever agenda or outcome they want.
Occam’s razor suggests #1. But then…
Posted by: Eric | August 5, 2009 12:15 AM
That wasn’t very clear, I realize after hitting post and not preview.
Being good at their jobs has two meanings in my estimation.
1) They should be hiring and retaining clear-headed writers who positively add to the discourse; a sort-of idealized expectation on our part.
2) They should be hiring and retaining writers who help promote something not what we define as being good at their jobs; a different expectation altogether.
How the owners of the paper perceive their jobs determines whether or not they pick #1 or #2 and it helps us decide between my previous #1 and #2.
Posted by: Eric | August 5, 2009 12:21 AM
1. “Cohen is a reporter, right?” He’s a columnist, not a reporter. If he interviews anyone, it’s Important People, not people who are at ground level of some event.
2. “But, loss aversion being what it is, it’s likely that the negative reader reaction would outweigh the positive. So he stays in.” Loss aversion didn’t stop the Post from firing their best columnist, Dan Froomkin.
Posted by: Jay Livingston | August 5, 2009 09:15 AM
Jay:
1. I assume that Cohen has some reporting skills, with all his years of newspaper experience.
2. I agree that loss aversion is only one factor in the decision of whether to keep a columnist. But Cohen has been doing this for over thirty years, that’s why I was considering loss aversion as an explanation in his case.
Posted by: Andrew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 5, 2009 09:43 AM
In Cohen’s defence, he’s had some really excellent columns about Iran recently.
Posted by: Dylan Thurston | August 5, 2009 09:54 AM
I have not read the column; however, I’ll stress a parallel with the Fofana’s trial in France. Many said, and some in Le Monde (one of the two leading newspapers in France) that focusing on the jewish origin of the victim tends to give the impression of a distinct “jewish rule of law”; in addition, misunderstanding Finkielkraut, they advocate an useless “essentialization” of both the victim and the criminal.
Posted by: Louis-Alexandre | August 11, 2009 05:44 PM