"Tampon rock"
Barack Obama: Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
Quoting directly from Bob Somerby:
LOST BOYS OF THE LIBERAL PRESS CORPS: We’ll admit it! We’re the ones who e-mailed those articles to Digby, the ones she discussed in Wednesday’s post. Since some of her commenters didn’t seem to “get” why the reports were worth discussing, we thought we’d suggest a few points.
One of the reports in question appears on-line at The New Republic. Headline: “Jenna vs. Chelsea/Who's the least virtuous first daughter?” The other report appears on-line at Newsweek. Headline: “Who’s the next Jenna Bush?” In the latter, a half-witted fellow named Andrew Romano sniffs his way through the underwear drawers of nine female relatives of politicians (including one who is 6 years old). He is trying to judge who wins the right to serve as the slut of his latest thigh-rubbing confection.
Comments:
Brainless: Do you have any idea how dumb you have to be, as a male, to write panty-sniffing garbage like this in the year 2007? How mindless a magazine has to be to put this rot-gut in print? According to Newsweek, Romano “graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University in 2004 with an A.B. in English and a certificate in American Studies.” Simply put, that’s a tragic admission.
Endless: Alas! Though culture is always part of the mix, the sense of male privilege driving these pieces (“droit de sophomore”) seems to be bred quite deep in the bone. Omigod! Absent appropriate guidance, each generation of young, callow males turns out just as dumb as the last one. Almost surely, many progressives thought this type of churlishness had been snuffed out by the early 70s, at least among “liberal” men. But these attitudes return with each generation. We gentlemen are just more resentful—therefore, dumber—each and every time.
Consequences: Do you trust a magazine which would print such a piece to cover the White House campaign of the first viable female candidate? In the past few weeks, Clinton has been trashed by Chris Matthews in astonishing ways; his lunatic conduct continued last night. (Tucker Carlson is little better—although he’s less influential.) Few “liberals” have found the heart to complain—or even to notice what’s happening. But then, our liberal leaders have long ignored Matthews’ woman-trashing, going all the way back to the late 1990s (more on these topics next week). This is A-OK with our tribe. Absent the unusual person like Digby, our tribe doesn’t even notice.
Speaking more specifically, the ugly sexual trashing handed to Naomi Wolf during Campaign 2000 did tremendous damage to Candidate Gore. Needless to say, the high-minded boys at your “liberal journals” didn’t say a word about it; it was left to several major conservatives (William Kristol, William Safire) to speak up on her behalf. You have already paid a gigantic price for the empty hearts of these weak, empty boys. The sexual trashing dished to Wolf was astounding. It did tremendous damage to Gore—and it passed without liberal comment.
A final note about consequences. When you see a collection of liberal scribes who think it’s OK to trash young women this way (down to age 6), do you think they will ever defend you against the wider values of their plutocrat bosses? Over the course of the past fifteen years, your interests have been shipped down the river at “liberal” journals as the plutocrat press corps’ major fixers have trashed a succession of Major Dems, including (for two years) Candidate Gore. Do you think a bunch of boys who sniff their way through underwear drawers will ever stand up to the Russerts and the Matthewses? To the powerful interests which hired them—which stand behind them? Their empty hearts and outstretched hands are perfectly clear as they publish this swill. They’re letting you know who and what they are—a lesson we liberals have had a hard time absorbing in the past dozen years.
Go ahead—sniff your way through that pair of reports. Good grief—you’re gazing on the souls of the lads who are supposed to be defending your interests! Then, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/3/03, which conveys a small sense of the sexual trashing handed to Wolf in November 1999. After scanning this pair of new reports, perhaps we all understand why “liberal” journals said nothing about this in real time—and perhaps we finally see how Bush ended up in the White House.
P.S. Audio from that Josh Ritter show is available over at Solitary Show Goer.
P.P.S. Contra Digby in the post linked by Bob, I believe Jonathan Chait is one of the most astute political journalists working today. I also think it's silly and idiotic to use one stupid thing published by a magazine or website to somehow supposedly contradict the work of another person who writes for that magazine or website. By doing this, Digby is proving Chait's point: Apparently, Digby isn't serious about ideas, only about winning an argument by whatever demagogic means necessary. Average bloggers in not understanding the difference between what they do and what a guy like Chait does shocka. To be sure, plenty of professional journalists are equally non-reality-based. But just because every asshole has an opinion, it doesn't follow that every asshole with an opinion takes care to back it up logically and with thorough research of the facts at hand. Chait typically does; he is a pro in every sense. If we try to turn the internet into a medium for tendentious propaganda, the geezers with the most money to sponsor such propaganda will always win; see talk radio, FOX News, Maureen "Al Gore is so feminized he's practically lactating" Dowd, or Tim "There Once was a Man from Nantucket, I mean, Buffalo" Russert. Ultimately, democracy would be better served by having more Jonathan Chaits-- people who will make articulate, reasoned arguments about the issues based on careful reportage (even when we may disagree with his conclusions)-- than by more DailyKoses or RedStates.
P.P.P.S. Matthew Yglesias, another political writer I'd consider worth emulating to an extent, has more on Tim Russert and why it's difficult for us whippersnappers to respect any journalist who considers this pathetic social climber (a man who, with his wife, has succeeded so well at said climbing that he's now BFF with his Nantucket neighbor, Jack Welch -- even while writing books asserting his blue collar-ness and work ethic) worthy of their respect. In short: "It's true that Tim Russert is a tough questioner... But while I wouldn't want to say that 'tough questioning' is a bad thing, making toughness the goal is perverse. The goal should be to inform the audience." Matt overlooks here (as, Bob Somerby would argue, most young liberal journalists do, perhaps because it increases their future employability among millionaire pundits who really do respect Russert) that Russert's questions are inevitably tougher for politicians with whom Jack Welch disagrees, and that Russert is a serial liar about Social Security, but still.
And with that, enough procrastinating.
OK, P.P.P.P.S. The Quick and the Ed quotes a Washington Post piece opining that "peer review" is the ideal way to get rid of crappy teachers: "Since teachers are harder on each other than any principal, he says, having them review each other's teaching practice, assignments, exams and lesson plans would result in evaluations that 'weed out the incompetent while preserving the basic idea of tenure.'" When this Quick and the Ed post was read aloud here on the sprawling offnotes campuses, the low-income-school teacher in our life LOLed, adding, "That's terrible!" So there you have it-- the WaPo columnist has been teacher-reviewed.
P.P.P.P.P.S. Digby, save your mockery for that self-impressed simpleton Michael Crowley, who apparently still doesn't have offnotes in his Google Reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment