[lbo-talk] CounterPunch 8/25/07: "The Great Financial Crisis...

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On 8/27/07, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/27/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the point of putting up ten articles a day? Not to sound like
> > > an old fart or anything, but do quantity and novelty totally trump
> > > quality?
> >
> > It's a cafeteria not a gourmet restaurant. The readers of the site make
> > the selection they need. The editors of the site have better things to
> > do than make fine, measured judgments of what to put on the site, what
> > not to.
> >
> > A classical principle of criticism and hermeneutics: a text is judged by
> > the purpose which generates the decorum of the given text. Texts range
> > from scribbled notes on bits of paper to (whatever high point you
> > choose). A note passed to a neighbor at a lecture is not to be judged as
> > one would an issue of PMLA or a volume of MECW.
> >
> > It would be destructive if all left publications (paper or electronic)
> > followed the same principles of selection and editing.
>
>
> This and your previous post illustrate, it looks like to me, an attitude I
> almost remarked on earlier, but I decided not to be inflammatory. There's
> this sort of sense that any left publication that looks professional is
> precisely already a sell-out. A waste of resources. And so, any such
> publication claiming to be "left" is always already not. It seems to me
> analogous to arguing that music with some production value is, well,
> sold-out.
>
> I am not sure, but I think this is mistaken. First, because part of the
> point is that there is credibility--outside purist circles--in having taken
> care in the presentation of your material. It demonstrates seriousness. But
> perhaps I overestimate this? Second, because--and I think this was evident
> in the thread you referenced--so much of what's valuable about the Economist
> and FT is precisely *not* "fine-grained economic analysis," but general news
> coverage.
>
> Not to be inflammatory, but I'm having a hard time here not getting my
> back up about demanding quality and attention to detail out of left
> publications (cf. bitch's comments on design), and good paper would be nice,
> too.
>
> j
>
>

Sorry. I'm mixing up two points, here. One on the editorial (and really
overall publication) quality question, and one on the content.

j