![[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.
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.