![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Vulgarity
I had an instructive day earlier this week, on the focus of media narratives.
Apparently in the last week or so, the narrative had developed that the President was not showing enough anger about the Gulf oil spill disaster. Driving in to work, I heard on the morning news that a recent interviewer (Matt Lauer from NBC) had actually told the President:
"This is not the time to meet with experts and advisers. This is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president -- but kick some butt."
I'm fascinated that interviewers don't ask questions anymore, they tell their subjects how they should be doing their jobs. But that aside, the President -- conscious, I suppose, of this narrative against him, and aware that strong sentiment trumps shrewd thought in American politics -- responded with this:
"I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
First off, kudos for his nice effort there to try to play the demanded "angry" role while still conveying a logical point. But what's interesting to me about the discussion surrounding this exchange is not so much just that we are being told to focus on the President's emotive abilities rather than on the actual corruption and incompetence of the industries and those tasked with regulating them. I mean, we've learned to take that for granted in our modern punditocracy.
No, what fascinated me was that by my drive home that afternoon, the narrative had moved on apace. The discussion by this point was now: had the president been too vulgar? Was this demeaning to the office?
Aha! I was wondering what I should be distracted by next.
Apparently in the last week or so, the narrative had developed that the President was not showing enough anger about the Gulf oil spill disaster. Driving in to work, I heard on the morning news that a recent interviewer (Matt Lauer from NBC) had actually told the President:
"This is not the time to meet with experts and advisers. This is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president -- but kick some butt."
I'm fascinated that interviewers don't ask questions anymore, they tell their subjects how they should be doing their jobs. But that aside, the President -- conscious, I suppose, of this narrative against him, and aware that strong sentiment trumps shrewd thought in American politics -- responded with this:
"I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
First off, kudos for his nice effort there to try to play the demanded "angry" role while still conveying a logical point. But what's interesting to me about the discussion surrounding this exchange is not so much just that we are being told to focus on the President's emotive abilities rather than on the actual corruption and incompetence of the industries and those tasked with regulating them. I mean, we've learned to take that for granted in our modern punditocracy.
No, what fascinated me was that by my drive home that afternoon, the narrative had moved on apace. The discussion by this point was now: had the president been too vulgar? Was this demeaning to the office?
Aha! I was wondering what I should be distracted by next.
no subject
Yeah, today's mainstream media seems to have become a tool of manipulation rather than elucidation. For the latter, I guess we have to do it ourselves, as best we can. At least we have more tools for it now, though.
I'm concerned about how "pundit" has become corrupted from what could be a respectable role. Speaking of punditry in the best sense, have you read any Chomsky? He has some interesting stuff to say about how expert opinion and conventional wisdom convey very little new information.
Do you think a shrewd expression of emotion could help draw attention to corruption and incompetence?
Chomsky
As for names, I guess we're well past a time when there was inherent deference for an office (this interview seems to be evidence enough of that!) I haven't thought the pros and cons of that, but it does get pretty ridiculous when everyone feels entitled to psychoanalyze the guy. My intent in choosing to refer to him here by his position was simply to highlight that gross contrast of attitudes between the man and his office.
As for the absurd narrative itself... I do think the President was pretty shrewd here. But no matter how shrewd he is, the narrative rules are set up beforehand so that he a) shows too little emotion, therefore b) any emotion he shows is "out of character," a "gafflet," and "embarrassing." (And that's just Joe Klein, who was trying to appear more balanced than many of his colleagues.)
Re: bloviating
So are you arguing that the media has made it impossible for the prez to communicate effectively? Do you think this is intentional? Or symptomatic of something else?
Re: bloviating
But since I don't really want to be a pundit telling people what they would do if they were only smarter, or discussing what exactly is wrong with the media today, I'll stop there.
nice...
Re: nice...
Obviously, I should correct myself to say this isn't new, and the business of news has always competed with the service it provided us. What Hearst knew was how to sell a paper; and I'm reminded too of Morrow's bosses in Good Night and Good Luck.
Re: obviously
BTW, I love the soundtrack to GN&GL.