Hello and welcome to Back Alley Media.

When Interns* Write Op-eds

You get crap (yes, even by typical National Review standards) written by folks like Eli Lehrer offering up gem after gem in a piece entitled “Why the Madoff Sentence is Too Long.” Starting off with the premise that “Bernard Madoff is an evil con man,” Lehrer naturally postulates:

  • He harmed people through the bloodless act of stealing their money.
  • So long as he doesn’t start an investment firm — something that’s not going to happen — he’s no threat to society.
  • His life expectancy is 13 years and the rigors of prison life — particularly for a man used to living at the height of luxury — hardly seem likely to extend that. [The rules are presumably different for men and women not used to living at the height of luxury…]
  • He had strong ties to his community, a previously clean criminal record, and an apparently strong family life.

Ergo… “something close to 12-year sentence his defense attorney recommended is pretty reasonable.” Thankfully, the judge deciding the matter disagreed and gave him 150 years.  Madoff is still likely to spend his remaining years in something closer to a minimum security facility, whereas I think he should spend some time with the rest of the law-breaking riff-raff. That white, er, i mean white-collar criminals get such disparate treatment compared to petty drug thieves and burglars sounds to me quite discriminatory, but something tells me that John Roberts would disagree with me.

*or interns masquerading as Senior Fellows at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Posted on 29 June '09 by Sebastian, under Uncategorized.

One Comment to “When Interns* Write Op-eds”

#1 Posted by vshawnt (30.06.09 at 11:59 )

I’m not familiar with Eli Lehrer, but this type of political “analysis” is rampant in contemporary media circles. Our media culture seems to have devolved to a point where contrary opinions automatically gain relevance, merely by being contrary. It’s an offshoot of sensationalism. It’s why Coulter and Hitchens get so much clout these days.

It seems to be related to the tendency of ‘news” outlets to bring on two guests with extremely disparate opinions on any given topic in an attempt to give a “balanced” perspective. This practice fails on multiple levels, including:
1. It conveys an equivalency that may or may not exist.
2. It perpetuates the culture of competition in our politics which presumes that whoever can prevail in any given argument is automatically “right”.
3. It ignores two key roles that the media should play - to educate the populace and to help discern truth from confusion.
4. It relegates finding solutions that work to a secondary concern at best, and inconsequential at worst.