Open Thread #124

Don’t let me hijack this thread. Korean comedy (a subject of which I know nothing) is frankly more interesting than my topic.

But I must ask: several times now I’ve heard (or read) Koreans say that “their” IQ’s are the highest in the world. At first, I couldn’t believe they were serious. Needless to say, this is one of those things that causes foreigners’ jaws to drop in astonishment. Or my own jaw, anyway.

My question: does anyone know the factual basis (if any) for this strange (yet oft-repeated) assertion?

Thanks, Ledtim @21/22
That be it, I’s sure.

As for Yuna, further evidence that thee be NOT a Korean woman. Not to mention the fact that no Korean woman I’ve ever met would use the word “cockblock” – even if they KNEW what it meant.

Correction: ESPECIALLY if they knew what it meant.

dry @46

I’ve heard about Korean IQs being the highest in the world three times now in conversations with Korean students. Each time, it was said very matter-of-factly as in ‘everyone knows this’, like one of those Korea #1 accepted-wisdom things that is news to the rest of the world. Then last week I read it again on an expat blog, possibly The Hole, most likely in comments; and again it was said casually, “because we of course have the highest IQs, blah blah blah.”

Perhaps it begs the age-old question: Who is more out-of-touch with Korea? English teachers who are low quality but who are actually in Korea and freely converse with many actual Koreans, or gyopo? OR, perhaps my students are the equivalent of Faux News viewers who “know” that of course Saddam was behind 9/11 and had WMD in 2003; and the many Koreans who don’t get their news from the Korean equivalent to Faux haven’t yet heard about their amazing IQ supremacy.

What I said before about Faux News was the literal truth.

A study was done in the early 2000′s that found Faux News viewers, in shockingly high numbers, believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and Iraq had WMD at the time of the Anglo-American invasion in 2003.

Think about that. Think about the effect that has on our “democracy” (such as it is, notwithstanding the crimes of Florida 2000, etc.). And of course the partisan LIES of Faux News were NOT countered by the rest of the corporate media. Not by MSNBC, which fired its only liberal voice before the invasion of Iraq (though to their credit they did later support Keith Olbermann). Not by CNN, which seeks oblivion and whose international channel is now devoted solely to soccer coverage.

And of course the scariest part is people like our Solicitor Carr. Decent, seemingly intelligent people, who claim to trust the nonsense. Though lately I’m starting to wonder if Brendon is a conservative as Yuna is a Korean woman.

Robin Hedge @138 – Well of course that’s the central flaw in the U.S. system. The smallest state, Wyoming, has four times the per capita electoral power of the largest state, California. And there are a lot of little Wyomings, mostly rural, mostly conservative, each with two senators and two extra electoral votes — and only one California.

I’ve calculated there are something like eighteen states west of the Mississippi River whose total combined population is less than that of California. Yet collectively they have a ton more electoral votes than Claifornia. (I forget the actual numbers, but it clearly shows why the U.S. pursues unlimited war but has no universal health care, etc.)

Back to the news, I just don’t buy the news/opinion distinction. When Faux covers the news, it’s always about how Obama’s health care will bankrupt the nation and how anti-war protestors are loony morons. I also reject the notion that Keith Olbermann is the liberal equivalent of Faux. Keith was anti-Bush-Cheney, but I had no doubt he would be as critical of the next Dem president when he or she screws up. But Faux supports GOPs and savages Dems no matter what they do.

Also, it’s amusing that The Liberal Media can be summarized with just one name – Olbermann – versus the whole galaxy of frothing wingnuts and/or fame-seekers on NBC, CBS, ABC, Faux, CNN, and yes MSNBC who are so desperate to prove they have no liberal bias that they repeat GOP talking points and call it a career.

“You refuse to answer how a media that is consistently identified in academic research as overhwhelmingly Democrat and liberal would suddenly report with a conservative bias.”

I’m familiar with that right-wing argument. There was a survey in the 1950′s or 60′s that claimed most reporters personally vote Dem, prior to the corporate takeover and consolidation of U.S. media in the U.S. And corporate employees, alas, don’t vote on or otherwise determine policy. GE, Time Warner, Disney, and NewsCorp are not “liberal” entities; and the folks who work there and want to continue working there know it.

“Bill Moyers (PBS, hardly a bastion of conservatism) …” Bill Moyers is a righteous dude, and Frontline is one of the few truth-tellers; but is that the PBS whose money comes from Archer Exxon Ford?

“Chris Mathews (MSNBC)” Is that the same Chris Matthews who savaged Bill Clinton and Al Gore and John Kerry, while practically admitting a man-crush on Bush Jr.’s flight-suit codpiece and dreaming like a schoolgirl of having a beer with him? Get real.

“Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)” Yeah, I hear she’s good. I’ve never seen her, though, because she was only added to the MSNBC lineup long after it was obvious America hated Bush-Cheney; and of course MSNBC isn’t on foreign cable lineups. (Conservative CNBC, however, is.)

“Oprah” Yes, she’s the Queen of All Women.
“John Stewart” Now you’re getting somewhere.
“Larry King” Say what?
” Ben Wallace” Who?
“George Stephanopolous, Tim Russert ..” Stop right there. Do you mean Tim Russert, the flack who was so good at cross-examining Dems while giving GOPs a free pass that Cheney’s office (as it came out in testimony in the Scooter Libby perjury case) considered him their go-to guy for getting their message out? The Tim Russert whom Cheney told on the eve of the war that Iraq had a “reconstituted nuclear weapon” – and who had the good manners to never ask Cheney about that or any other lie on any of his several subsequent visits?

You had me, Jim_Kim. I thought you were being serious. But with a GOP flack like Tim Russert, Bush-Cheney stenographers like George Stephanopolous, and Faux News’ own faux liberals Alan Colmes and Geraldo (for chrissakes; really?), I know you’re putting me on.

Nice trolling.

“This is ridiculous.” You said it, bro.

Now ask yourself, if there is a liberal media, how Clinton could have been impeached; how the 2000 election could have been stolen; how Bush Jr could have lied to start a war; how Bush Jr, a deserter, could have been portrayed as a war hero while John Kerry, a war hero, was portrayed as a war criminal; how eight years have passed since 9/11 and still al-Qaeda and bin-Laden remain at large; etcetera, etcetera.

You mis-paraphrase Eric Alterman’s excellent reporting on The Conservative Media. (See: What Liberal Media?).

“I’m guessing what [WeikuBoy] really means, a la Eric Alterman, is that the media, while documentably liberal demonstrably conservative compared to the country as a whole, is not left enough for his preferences.”

No. What I mean is that a single survey several decades ago that showed journalists tended to vote for Kennedy over Nixon has nothing to do with the conservative institutional bias of today’s corporate media. The Walter Cronkites and Dan Rathers are history. They’ve been replaced by PR folk like Katie Couric and Brian Williams, both fans of Fat Limbaugh. CNN has a special dumbass named Chuck Roberts who once famously asked if a certain Dem was “the al-Qaida['s preferred] candidate.”

Helen Thomas, meet Wolf Blitzer.

On issue after issue – Iraq, the raids on the Treasury by Wall Street, the Clinton impeachment, the half-assed attempts to “reform” health care – the corporate media works hand in hand with the D.C. establishment and would never dream of rocking the boat. It is demonstrably more conservative than, and thereby out of touch with, the rest of the U.S.

TIME’s Joe Klein is a perfect example. No doubt you would consider him a liberal. And compared with his colleagues at TIME and at the nexus of the military-industrial-media complex, he probably is. Compared with the rest of America, the guy’s a center-right PR flack stenographer who (unsurprisingly) spends his career the 2000′s excoriating Dems for not being more conservative.

You were right about one thing: it is, indeed, all relative. Watch Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner a few years back to see what many Americans really think of today’s corporate media stars.

Gave. Past tense. The corporate media began turning against Bush-Cheney toward the end, when their approval levels fell south of 25%. Around the time Rachel Maddow was hired. When it was obvious the GOP was going to get blown out in ’08, and all the voter purges and electronic voting machines in the world couldn’t stop it.

Before that, however, those boys could do no wrong. Clinton was impeached over a blow job. Bush-Cheney lied to start a war that has killed 4000 Americans and god knows how many Iraqis so far, yet not one major media outlet called them liars. Much less called for their impeachment. Much less still called for their arrest and trial.

Go figure.

Meanwhile, I’m neither delusional nor partisan. And if my comments are so nonsensical, it’s odd that nobody seems able to counter any of them. Except to do what wingers have been doing for decades now: scream “liberal media!” and call anyone who disagrees delusional and partisan.