News magazines are exceedingly frustrating in their coverage of politics. Certainly it is difficult to be totally objective in covering politics, however some publications don't even try to mask their allegiances. Time magazine for the seventh time has Barak Obama on its cover with the entire issue dedicated to every aspect of his life and candidacy. Time is to liberal politics what Pravda was to the old Soviet Union, it is clear and away a propaganda publication. This may seem a little blunt but in one striking example David Von Drehle makes a yeoman effort to dispel us of Mr. Obama's lack of experience: “...friends of Obama's like to point out that 12 years as a lawmaker is more experience than Abraham Lincoln.” Certainly we expect friends of Obama to think that he's qualified, why such attribution would bolster his article is a mystery. The obvious retort is Obama is certainly no Lincoln. If outrageous comparisons to Lincoln don't sway you Drehle makes an even more extraordinary claim:
Voters accustomed to evaluating governors and generals may have a hard time deciding what value to place on a stint of "organizing." But it was surely real work. Reading Obama's account of his efforts to organize the residents in a single Chicago neighborhood, with weeks of toil going into staging a single meeting, is like watching a man dig the Panama Canal with one Republicaa Swiss Army knife.
Paleeeze!
The whole problem with all this, of course, is the false notion that this is simply reporting the story as it is seen and not the viewpoint of the writer. When Mr. Drehle reports what is obvious in front of him, and us, he has to stretch and distort the idea of experience itself and then exaggerate what little experience Obama has. That Obama may or not have the experience necessary to become presidents is not a matter of opinion, so it seems, and if you ever had to argue the point, don't site someones opinion of the matter, just look at the news.
What is the world coming to?
Katie Couric the anchorperson of CBS news seems mystified that the Democrats would pick Obama, not because of what he stands for or what little experience he has but for what it is he departs from and that is the days of the Clinton white house or even for the missed opportunity of electing John Edwards. Couric in an interview during the Democratic convention asked "Do you think voters want to see a couple who are faithful to one another?" Huh?? Adjectives are difficult to find in describing this jaded mindset. Just who would not want to see a first couple not faithful to each other? Would this drive people to McCain?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Is The Party Finally Over?
With the advent of the Internet popular music has found itself in crisis. No longer would a listener have to shell dollars out to buy albums, now they could just download it for nothing. Online sites such as Napster threatened the industry of its revenue by simply giving the music away for nothing at all. With lawsuits and court battles the site was forced to shut down. As it stands consumers could download music on their ipods and MP3 players and pay per song. That stopped the bleeding somewhat however as Elizabeth Lee Wurtzel writes in the August 10th Wall Street Journal it's too little too late. She says “Today's music industry is either moribund or dead, depending on whom you ask. Downloading has destroyed it, and no one in the business is smart enough to figure out how to fix it.”.
Wurtzels thesis is two-fold. One is the end of an era. The second is cultural and economic. For the first thesis she begins with the story of Pete Yorn an artist who makes music writing for movies and has reached the billboard charts. Yorn makes a pretty good living however in the good old days of the 70's, Wurtzel writes, Yorn “would be a multiplatinum artist living in a Malibu mansion with mountains of cocaine on every horizontal surface, lithe, hippie-ish blonde groupies with names like Veruschka...” and this is a bad thing, she continues: “You may feel that this in no great loss. But these rock stars were fun, larger than life people with real talent-and bad habits. Now all we have left are the bad habits. All we've got left is Britney Spears.” There's a bit of an old fogy in Wurtzel here. Certainly Ms Spears may not have the kind of talent as a Jim Morrison but the same was probably said about Morrison not having the same talent as Frank Sinatra in the 60's. Aside from that to say that Mr Yorn is deprived of mountains of cocaine and a large following, and more disastrously, teens looking to emulate his lifestyle, is certainly nothing to get nostalgic about. If musicians had made a modest profit the likes of Yorn are making now, perhaps Janis Joplin, Morrison, and many others who lost their lives because of lavish living would still be with us.
As for her second thesis Wurtzel makes a compelling case that with consumers buying individual songs instead of albums, the genre of popular music is being taken over by one-hit wonders rather then “consummate musicians”. This is a development that is hardly new. Popular music by its nature is a departure from true musicianship. The songs that we have grown up are constructed with just a handful of cords repeated over and over again, the rest of an album is much of the same. This is not an indictment on popular music, it has a simple formula that works. But to say that the demise of the whole album format is akin to the loss of virtuosity doesn't hold much water. Technology is producing a change in music much the way AM radio or vinyl recordings had done in the past. Certainly artist will adapt as they had done before. The worst part of Wurtzels argument is a call to government action. Could there be a more wrongheaded prescription?
Popular culture is an export the United States has, as Wurtzel points out, conquered the world. Because of the the ability to download this industry is in trouble and along with that, of course, are jobs. Wurtzel cites impressive numbers to point out just how big and influential this industry is in economic and cultural terms but then again the demise of the horse and buggy was a shock to the system as well. Capitalism, its been said, is the process of creative destruction. The more successful economies don't improve on the light bulb they replace it. As for the cultural dimensions to her argument lets just say once and for all, for all its virtues, American pop culture is somewhat of an embarrassment. Instead of being a light form of true art it is America's art. America has yet to produce one Mozart. Of course Mozart is a hard act to follow but we could at least settle for a Berlioz. But these were serious musicians writing the sort of music that doesn't produce the kind of celebrity and fortune of pop music. For the few who cherish classical music and shun pop music, the notion that new technology will threaten the latter may feel that the chickens have come home to roost. Indeed with the prospect of diminishing influence of popular culture Wurlitzer's points out that the fine arts are making a resurgence and she cautions that “This is antithetical to the American mission. I have nothing against all the great fine artists this country has produced, but they are a carryover from Europe. They are Old World.” Well excuse me.
Art and culture, if we are to believe Wurtzel, are in a state of dramatic change and hopefully for the better. For all the good it has done no other genre of music has had a more destructive influence on the young as had popular music. True art may be “old world” to Wurtzel and because of mid-20th century technology and youth culture it has fallen by the wayside. Now that a newer form of technology threatens this all we could say to Wurtzel is simply get with the times baby.
Wurtzels thesis is two-fold. One is the end of an era. The second is cultural and economic. For the first thesis she begins with the story of Pete Yorn an artist who makes music writing for movies and has reached the billboard charts. Yorn makes a pretty good living however in the good old days of the 70's, Wurtzel writes, Yorn “would be a multiplatinum artist living in a Malibu mansion with mountains of cocaine on every horizontal surface, lithe, hippie-ish blonde groupies with names like Veruschka...” and this is a bad thing, she continues: “You may feel that this in no great loss. But these rock stars were fun, larger than life people with real talent-and bad habits. Now all we have left are the bad habits. All we've got left is Britney Spears.” There's a bit of an old fogy in Wurtzel here. Certainly Ms Spears may not have the kind of talent as a Jim Morrison but the same was probably said about Morrison not having the same talent as Frank Sinatra in the 60's. Aside from that to say that Mr Yorn is deprived of mountains of cocaine and a large following, and more disastrously, teens looking to emulate his lifestyle, is certainly nothing to get nostalgic about. If musicians had made a modest profit the likes of Yorn are making now, perhaps Janis Joplin, Morrison, and many others who lost their lives because of lavish living would still be with us.
As for her second thesis Wurtzel makes a compelling case that with consumers buying individual songs instead of albums, the genre of popular music is being taken over by one-hit wonders rather then “consummate musicians”. This is a development that is hardly new. Popular music by its nature is a departure from true musicianship. The songs that we have grown up are constructed with just a handful of cords repeated over and over again, the rest of an album is much of the same. This is not an indictment on popular music, it has a simple formula that works. But to say that the demise of the whole album format is akin to the loss of virtuosity doesn't hold much water. Technology is producing a change in music much the way AM radio or vinyl recordings had done in the past. Certainly artist will adapt as they had done before. The worst part of Wurtzels argument is a call to government action. Could there be a more wrongheaded prescription?
Popular culture is an export the United States has, as Wurtzel points out, conquered the world. Because of the the ability to download this industry is in trouble and along with that, of course, are jobs. Wurtzel cites impressive numbers to point out just how big and influential this industry is in economic and cultural terms but then again the demise of the horse and buggy was a shock to the system as well. Capitalism, its been said, is the process of creative destruction. The more successful economies don't improve on the light bulb they replace it. As for the cultural dimensions to her argument lets just say once and for all, for all its virtues, American pop culture is somewhat of an embarrassment. Instead of being a light form of true art it is America's art. America has yet to produce one Mozart. Of course Mozart is a hard act to follow but we could at least settle for a Berlioz. But these were serious musicians writing the sort of music that doesn't produce the kind of celebrity and fortune of pop music. For the few who cherish classical music and shun pop music, the notion that new technology will threaten the latter may feel that the chickens have come home to roost. Indeed with the prospect of diminishing influence of popular culture Wurlitzer's points out that the fine arts are making a resurgence and she cautions that “This is antithetical to the American mission. I have nothing against all the great fine artists this country has produced, but they are a carryover from Europe. They are Old World.” Well excuse me.
Art and culture, if we are to believe Wurtzel, are in a state of dramatic change and hopefully for the better. For all the good it has done no other genre of music has had a more destructive influence on the young as had popular music. True art may be “old world” to Wurtzel and because of mid-20th century technology and youth culture it has fallen by the wayside. Now that a newer form of technology threatens this all we could say to Wurtzel is simply get with the times baby.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
With Friends Like These
The Waterbury Observer and Friends mini-newspapers provide a useful forum for community news and cultural calendars. The Observer is the more popular of the two for its innovative “The Best Of” series where readers vote on the best businesses or politicians. Both publications contain articles about local events, profiles of politicians and helpful advice on day to day living. There are also opinion pieces which by nature not everyone will agree. In this space there has been criticism of one of the Observers columnist (Peace and Blame) whom, from the position of advocating peace and disarmament, blamed America as an international aggressor at the same time giving true belligerence the benefit of a doubt. It is not an uncommon mindset and diverse opinions are always welcome if anything so that it could be dissected and debated.
Friends on occasion takes it a step further in its criticisms and goes so far as to cross the line of decency. On two occasions where teenagers met tragic deaths Friends found it fitting to question the integrity of the parents which was utterly useless and just plain mean. Whether or not the parents were at fault it served no public interest other then to add public chastisement on top of horrific anguish.
In the June 08 issue of Friends a curiously anonymous article entitled “The best and worst of Greater Waterbury: People can be fine or waste our precious time” Friends informs us on two people who ought to be on the “worst of” list. Why a worst of list? Well first of all this is meant as a dig to the Observer citing that if your going to list the best of things it “smacks of discrimination to some...They argue, convincingly, that without the one there can’t be the other,…” Oh really? It doesn’t occur to the friends of Friends that by not balancing a best with the worst is not discriminatory but by doing so is just poor taste. Just to be clear lets just point out the obvious and note there isn’t any “they”. Mr. Anonymous should jettison the faux objectivity. Just come out and say there ought to be a worst list and take the credit. Whats to worry the article is anonymous.
For the first of Friends victims thankfully the lack of clarity gets in the way of any embarrassment they may have intended:
Without further suspense, herewith is the first installment of the Worst of Greater Waterbury,…The honor of the first person selected, after serious skull-searching, is Jacqueline “Jackie” Ford, one of the brightest stars in the constellation of the Department of Children and Families’ Brass City’s locale.
Daily, Ford ventures forth promoting the adoption of children neglected or abused, bringing them together with potential new parents.
Dealing with the media is not Ford’s forte. However. Reaching her via telephone can be nigh impossible, and her tune of yesterday could change, without notice, tomorrow.
But being a bureaucrat, the Fords of this world have naught to fret.
And? The writer gets so caught up in look-how-cute-I-can-write that whatever it is that makes Ford the worst is not mentioned. Why was she being contacted in the first place? What are we suppose to think, how dare she “naught to fret”? At some point matching neglected children with adopting parents has made poor Ms. Ford one of the worst people in the city. Couldn’t the writers skull contain a better (or worst-er) candidate?
For the next honoree is a pizza and deli owner who was once on the Observers Best list but not anymore. Who is the pizza deli owner and what is his establishment? We're not told: “The engaging, fairly young entrepreneur, intentionally, one must assume , has incited the passions of more than one lesser creature. There’s a rumor afoot that fists almost flew in his shop, twice.” Since the deli owners new designation as being the worst is based on rumors Friends thought it best to keep names out, presumably.
But there is more to the story: “An ongoing run around he subjected a salesman to for several years ended with shouts that featured a waitress hastening to her employer’s aid. She was bid to mind her own business, a command the winsome shrew instantly dismissed, to nobody’s shock.” Did a salesmen have an argument with the owner and a waitress helping her boss somehow? Why is the waitress a "winsome" shrew? The story goes on: “Unlike the tormentor in the above anecdote was a veritable bear of a person in the same neighborhood, but who did not consume the salesman’s time?” Same neighborhood, what happened to the shop? If the “veritable bear” wasted no ones time why does he fit in to the story? “He’d always come to the telephone, invariably politely and in a good mood, a greeting much appreciated.” Unlike the naught-to-frets of the world. “Although his invitation to get back to him boosted the salesman’s spirits as a seraphim might have, the predictable outcome over long period was a frustrating squandering of time. Finally, the solicitor tossed in the towel.” in an attempt at deciphering this a deli owner wasted the time of a salesmen, got into an argument where by his waitress (a shrew) tried to help. In the meantime some big guy in the neighborhood was nice and was polite on the phone. In the meantime the salesman just gave up. Right? Now does this sound like one of the worst people in town?
In short Friends two worst persons award goes to a bureaucrat for reasons we’re not told and to a person we don’t know whom, from a business we don't know where, for reasons we can’t understand. The best guess here is an attempt at vindictive pay back. The writer was rubbed the wrong way and by being so consumed in anger resorted to old fashion muckraking. Fortunately emotions got in the way of coherent writing. Stick to the calender guys.
Friends on occasion takes it a step further in its criticisms and goes so far as to cross the line of decency. On two occasions where teenagers met tragic deaths Friends found it fitting to question the integrity of the parents which was utterly useless and just plain mean. Whether or not the parents were at fault it served no public interest other then to add public chastisement on top of horrific anguish.
In the June 08 issue of Friends a curiously anonymous article entitled “The best and worst of Greater Waterbury: People can be fine or waste our precious time” Friends informs us on two people who ought to be on the “worst of” list. Why a worst of list? Well first of all this is meant as a dig to the Observer citing that if your going to list the best of things it “smacks of discrimination to some...They argue, convincingly, that without the one there can’t be the other,…” Oh really? It doesn’t occur to the friends of Friends that by not balancing a best with the worst is not discriminatory but by doing so is just poor taste. Just to be clear lets just point out the obvious and note there isn’t any “they”. Mr. Anonymous should jettison the faux objectivity. Just come out and say there ought to be a worst list and take the credit. Whats to worry the article is anonymous.
For the first of Friends victims thankfully the lack of clarity gets in the way of any embarrassment they may have intended:
Without further suspense, herewith is the first installment of the Worst of Greater Waterbury,…The honor of the first person selected, after serious skull-searching, is Jacqueline “Jackie” Ford, one of the brightest stars in the constellation of the Department of Children and Families’ Brass City’s locale.
Daily, Ford ventures forth promoting the adoption of children neglected or abused, bringing them together with potential new parents.
Dealing with the media is not Ford’s forte. However. Reaching her via telephone can be nigh impossible, and her tune of yesterday could change, without notice, tomorrow.
But being a bureaucrat, the Fords of this world have naught to fret.
And? The writer gets so caught up in look-how-cute-I-can-write that whatever it is that makes Ford the worst is not mentioned. Why was she being contacted in the first place? What are we suppose to think, how dare she “naught to fret”? At some point matching neglected children with adopting parents has made poor Ms. Ford one of the worst people in the city. Couldn’t the writers skull contain a better (or worst-er) candidate?
For the next honoree is a pizza and deli owner who was once on the Observers Best list but not anymore. Who is the pizza deli owner and what is his establishment? We're not told: “The engaging, fairly young entrepreneur, intentionally, one must assume , has incited the passions of more than one lesser creature. There’s a rumor afoot that fists almost flew in his shop, twice.” Since the deli owners new designation as being the worst is based on rumors Friends thought it best to keep names out, presumably.
But there is more to the story: “An ongoing run around he subjected a salesman to for several years ended with shouts that featured a waitress hastening to her employer’s aid. She was bid to mind her own business, a command the winsome shrew instantly dismissed, to nobody’s shock.” Did a salesmen have an argument with the owner and a waitress helping her boss somehow? Why is the waitress a "winsome" shrew? The story goes on: “Unlike the tormentor in the above anecdote was a veritable bear of a person in the same neighborhood, but who did not consume the salesman’s time?” Same neighborhood, what happened to the shop? If the “veritable bear” wasted no ones time why does he fit in to the story? “He’d always come to the telephone, invariably politely and in a good mood, a greeting much appreciated.” Unlike the naught-to-frets of the world. “Although his invitation to get back to him boosted the salesman’s spirits as a seraphim might have, the predictable outcome over long period was a frustrating squandering of time. Finally, the solicitor tossed in the towel.” in an attempt at deciphering this a deli owner wasted the time of a salesmen, got into an argument where by his waitress (a shrew) tried to help. In the meantime some big guy in the neighborhood was nice and was polite on the phone. In the meantime the salesman just gave up. Right? Now does this sound like one of the worst people in town?
In short Friends two worst persons award goes to a bureaucrat for reasons we’re not told and to a person we don’t know whom, from a business we don't know where, for reasons we can’t understand. The best guess here is an attempt at vindictive pay back. The writer was rubbed the wrong way and by being so consumed in anger resorted to old fashion muckraking. Fortunately emotions got in the way of coherent writing. Stick to the calender guys.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Hope For Inequality
The phenomenon of Barak Obama has to be met by minorities of all types with optimism. Obama's success has indeed given what it advertises and that is hope. Hope in the sense that no matter what race, or as his opponent has also demonstrated, gender, anyone can aspire to become president.
But what does the Obama campaign do to the industry of the politics of racial equality? This is the curious question posed by Melanye T. Price writing for the Hartford Courant (Sunday March 16, 08). Having attended a rally to hear Obama in the Hartford XL center (civic center), at first she is please to see that the attendees "represent every demographic imaginable'" and notes that this amalgamation of people have become "unlikely allies, holding places for bathroom breaks, scouting the best entrance and seats and discussing Obama's appeal." In spite of this Price sees a "danger" of Obama's success even if he becomes president:
While racial inequality remains a central feature of American life, black candidates who directly attack that inequality are sure to repel many white voters and candidates like Obama will be more successful. Likewise, protest-oriented (read "angry") black grass-roots advocates may find it difficult to gain political traction in post-Obama America. If Obama is the new prototype for black political activity-less focused on race, less angry, more hopeful, "clean and articulate" and so on-what will this mean for focused efforts to combat racial inequality?
Shouldn't it undermine the whole premise of racial inequality altogether? Is racial equality less important then being "angry" about racial inequality. This is akin to saying that the danger of ending the Vietnam war is that it will stop the "focused efforts" to "combat" for peace.
There are other dangers that price points out. If Obama loses then if "...African American candidates cannot crash the privileged gates of political power, who will? Put simply, I am not sure that blacks can take this kind of rejection...Blacks are told 'no' in myriad ways in life, and it would be especially painful to have Super Obama rejected as well."
Instead of the inspired Hope that Obama raises the specter of his candidacy seems to be a lose-lose situation. If he wins then he neutralises anger and the fight for equality (bad), if he wins then the rejections is more then blacks can bear. Price doesn't see that these dangers are at odds with each other, put it this way, if he loses then the anger industry is alive and well. Obama is on his way to be nominated by a major political party for president, that he has done so coming from humble beginnings and with little seniority in politics ought to be looked at as a good thing but Price is demonstrating that the politics of racial inequality is more important then racial equality itself.
But what does the Obama campaign do to the industry of the politics of racial equality? This is the curious question posed by Melanye T. Price writing for the Hartford Courant (Sunday March 16, 08). Having attended a rally to hear Obama in the Hartford XL center (civic center), at first she is please to see that the attendees "represent every demographic imaginable'" and notes that this amalgamation of people have become "unlikely allies, holding places for bathroom breaks, scouting the best entrance and seats and discussing Obama's appeal." In spite of this Price sees a "danger" of Obama's success even if he becomes president:
While racial inequality remains a central feature of American life, black candidates who directly attack that inequality are sure to repel many white voters and candidates like Obama will be more successful. Likewise, protest-oriented (read "angry") black grass-roots advocates may find it difficult to gain political traction in post-Obama America. If Obama is the new prototype for black political activity-less focused on race, less angry, more hopeful, "clean and articulate" and so on-what will this mean for focused efforts to combat racial inequality?
Shouldn't it undermine the whole premise of racial inequality altogether? Is racial equality less important then being "angry" about racial inequality. This is akin to saying that the danger of ending the Vietnam war is that it will stop the "focused efforts" to "combat" for peace.
There are other dangers that price points out. If Obama loses then if "...African American candidates cannot crash the privileged gates of political power, who will? Put simply, I am not sure that blacks can take this kind of rejection...Blacks are told 'no' in myriad ways in life, and it would be especially painful to have Super Obama rejected as well."
Instead of the inspired Hope that Obama raises the specter of his candidacy seems to be a lose-lose situation. If he wins then he neutralises anger and the fight for equality (bad), if he wins then the rejections is more then blacks can bear. Price doesn't see that these dangers are at odds with each other, put it this way, if he loses then the anger industry is alive and well. Obama is on his way to be nominated by a major political party for president, that he has done so coming from humble beginnings and with little seniority in politics ought to be looked at as a good thing but Price is demonstrating that the politics of racial inequality is more important then racial equality itself.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Time For Obama
Journalism ought to be objective in reporting the news. A task that is nearly impossible when it comes to politics. Take a liberal journalist and a conservative and have them report on an event of political importance and chances are two different stories will emerge. Now it could be that both stories will be "objective", that is to say they will disregard individual viewpoints and report what they saw. What will differ is the premise of the news story, they may not be the same. In short, since everyone has an opinion in politics total objectivity is impossible because the focus of attention in any given story will determine the political leanings of the journalist.
In looking at the Democratic primary there has been much ado about how the media favors Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. Having a bias may not be possible however the bias can be so acute that the news outlet can cross the line from reporting the news to outright advocacy under the guise of journalistic objectivity. This has been the charge by Hillary Clinton aimed at the media on its treatment of Obama. Aside from remarks made by a reporter and commentator on MSNBC during primary coverage one has to look at subtle nuances in news reporting on many outlets to agree with the charge.
In a March 10th issue of Time magazine, Clinton may have a case. Not only does she have a case but Time magazine ought to just give up the notion that it is a news magazine altogether and come out and say it is an opinion journal. To start the charge by Clinton during the campaign is that Obama is inexperience. It's been a charge that has garnered little traction. But just in case there may be some validity to it out comes Time with a image of Obama on the cover with the headline asking "How Much Does Experience Matter?". Certainly it matters to some degree. We generally elect governors because they actually have run governments or someone who at least is a politician. Now Obama has been in the Senate less than 1 term before that a state legislature so maybe he doesn't seem to have enough experience in national politics, in short a case can be made. So before you think experience does matter thereby giving credence to the charge and effectively sink Obama, Time comes to the rescue with an article on the cover with a question and a subtitle "Why Science says it may be overrated" emphasis added. Time wants us to know that experience doesn't matter, er, that is, not Time per se but absurdly the most objective people of them all, scientist. What scientist have to say in the article is that just because a person has been at a particular field for some time doesn't mean they are actually good at what they do. The article shws various tests and studies that presumably dispel the notion. The problem is we're not electing professional presidents. All presidents are new at the job on the first day which means the article with all that it has to say about professionals and performance is meaningless. Before the scientific "proof" debunking Clinton there is an article comparing past presidents and what experience they had. Presidents with little "experience" were Washington, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy a mixed bag of mediocrity and greatness that proves nothing in particular one way or another.
Okay they made their point. Don't worry about Obama's lack of experience he could be another Lincoln who had less, so there. To be sure the articles were objectively written but the premise of experience, the choosing of such a topic could only help Obama. And in a more extreme example of how much Obama is on the minds of the journalist in Time in an aside article noting the passing of William F Buckley they write that "His fixed star was the idea of human freedom. A sure applause line in presidential candidate Barack Obama's speeches..." please. Now where is the objectivity in that. Was it really necessary to interject Obama in a piece where he has no relevancy what so ever?
In looking at the Democratic primary there has been much ado about how the media favors Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. Having a bias may not be possible however the bias can be so acute that the news outlet can cross the line from reporting the news to outright advocacy under the guise of journalistic objectivity. This has been the charge by Hillary Clinton aimed at the media on its treatment of Obama. Aside from remarks made by a reporter and commentator on MSNBC during primary coverage one has to look at subtle nuances in news reporting on many outlets to agree with the charge.
In a March 10th issue of Time magazine, Clinton may have a case. Not only does she have a case but Time magazine ought to just give up the notion that it is a news magazine altogether and come out and say it is an opinion journal. To start the charge by Clinton during the campaign is that Obama is inexperience. It's been a charge that has garnered little traction. But just in case there may be some validity to it out comes Time with a image of Obama on the cover with the headline asking "How Much Does Experience Matter?". Certainly it matters to some degree. We generally elect governors because they actually have run governments or someone who at least is a politician. Now Obama has been in the Senate less than 1 term before that a state legislature so maybe he doesn't seem to have enough experience in national politics, in short a case can be made. So before you think experience does matter thereby giving credence to the charge and effectively sink Obama, Time comes to the rescue with an article on the cover with a question and a subtitle "Why Science says it may be overrated" emphasis added. Time wants us to know that experience doesn't matter, er, that is, not Time per se but absurdly the most objective people of them all, scientist. What scientist have to say in the article is that just because a person has been at a particular field for some time doesn't mean they are actually good at what they do. The article shws various tests and studies that presumably dispel the notion. The problem is we're not electing professional presidents. All presidents are new at the job on the first day which means the article with all that it has to say about professionals and performance is meaningless. Before the scientific "proof" debunking Clinton there is an article comparing past presidents and what experience they had. Presidents with little "experience" were Washington, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy a mixed bag of mediocrity and greatness that proves nothing in particular one way or another.
Okay they made their point. Don't worry about Obama's lack of experience he could be another Lincoln who had less, so there. To be sure the articles were objectively written but the premise of experience, the choosing of such a topic could only help Obama. And in a more extreme example of how much Obama is on the minds of the journalist in Time in an aside article noting the passing of William F Buckley they write that "His fixed star was the idea of human freedom. A sure applause line in presidential candidate Barack Obama's speeches..." please. Now where is the objectivity in that. Was it really necessary to interject Obama in a piece where he has no relevancy what so ever?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
It Was All About Her: Julia "Butterfly" Hill
Political people are of two types. The first being one who seeks political office or notoriety for the sake of individual gratification. The other type is the movement person who may run for office or become an activists for a particular issue they are passsionate about. The difference in the two is with the formenr its all about them and the latter its about the common good.
The Waterbury Observer just published an interview with Julia Butterfly Hill. "Butterfly" is a name given to her when, as she tells it, as a "7 and a half" year old while hiking a butterfly landed on her and stayed for "hours and hours" to which the interviewer reminded her that butterflies "come to the peaceful people, so that must mean you're very peaceful". It's doubtful that the story is true but if true the meaning to it is utterly ridiculous but this is the gist of the interview: A fawning puff piece on a narcissistic subject.
Julia Butterfly Hill is famous for climbing a tree, giving it a name (Luna) and live on it, tick-like. for two years in order to protect it from loggers. So the message seems to be that loggers ought to be curtailed from taking trees to make paper and building material. Certainly an extreme and harsh way to get the message out. Julia lets us know that she organized a concert once and the audiance were fed vegan hot dogs and hambergers and the entire affair was done with little to no disposable waste. Fair enough. The logical question here is shouldn't Ms Hill have insisted that her interview not be published on parchment made out of the carcas of Luna's siblings?
With all the concern of saving Luna there is no mention at all about the evils of paper or lumber just a passing reference to deforestation. Instead Julia throughout the interview rambles on and on about what she knows best, Julia. "Part of the reason why people resonate with me is because I'm honest and I just speak from my own experience. I use my own experience. My life experiences are a big part of who I am." and how do people "resonate" with her? "I have the people that love me. I have the people that hate me. I have the people that don't care. I have the poeple that think I should save the world and the people that think I'm the devil, I get all kinds of feedback." her impression of how people see her is either a saviour or a destroyer of the world. How she thinks of herself?: "..."I'm good at being with myself. I loved playing by myself since I was a little girl...I like my alone time." and when she climbed the tree to draw atttention to the horrors of the process of wood and paper products (yea right) it
challenged whom I am as a person. People don't know that because they only know me for celebrity and the story that they herad about... When the spotlight came then everybody's stuff came along with it. I literally got to a point where I was starting to feel schizophrenic becuase I was taking the fall for all this different stuff. The beauty of that is that it made me put myself under a microscope and be willing to be really authentic and really true and really honest. That's all. And it was also a courageous thing. So I put myself under the micoscope and I got really clear aand continued to make this an ongoing journey and got really clear on what is it I'm called to be. What does my spirit call me to be? What does my heart...
Julila is so wonderful and you know what, the more she looks at her favorite subject the more she thinks she is even more awesome and cool. "I know this sounds weird to you. Trust me sometimees I question even myself." no trust us Julia we know we know. "Because the reason we react to people is partly because we don't want to own the ways we question ourselves. It somebody questions us we get triggered part of the reason we are getting triggered is because we doubt ourselves." Can't have that, more important we shouldn't "own it" whatever that means. She was courageous about herself and honest about herself and put herself under a microscope and got clear about her journey "I" "me" "my"...what does any of this have to do with the lumber business and climbing Luna, was all this a cover for an elaborate exercise in self-aggrandizement?
Julia Hill may mean well and the interviewer, Chelsea Murray, who were told is contemplating a trip to Africa also has a heart to do well in a cause. To this there there is somehting to be commmended. Also at 19 Murray has done an impressive job as a journalist in running a publication Young Voices and in getting this insightful interview however the insight may not be the one intended.
Above one of the pages of the interview is an ad about a film being developed on Julia Hill. Really. Just what is it about a tree sitter does Hollywood think is particulary film worthy? Oh, just so we don't think this is a firvoulous project we're told it's with an "A-list cast." Without a doubt the lumber company will be portrayed as cigar smoking fat cat greedy figures up against poor B-fly Hill in a tree. Hill tells us in her own article that she was shot at by hunters and that loggers also tried to kill her (by what means were not told). A bit dramatic and extremely suspect. Surly crimminal charges could have been filed. Certainly with all the narcississm and self righteousness Hill and Hollywood are a perfect fit.
The Waterbury Observer just published an interview with Julia Butterfly Hill. "Butterfly" is a name given to her when, as she tells it, as a "7 and a half" year old while hiking a butterfly landed on her and stayed for "hours and hours" to which the interviewer reminded her that butterflies "come to the peaceful people, so that must mean you're very peaceful". It's doubtful that the story is true but if true the meaning to it is utterly ridiculous but this is the gist of the interview: A fawning puff piece on a narcissistic subject.
Julia Butterfly Hill is famous for climbing a tree, giving it a name (Luna) and live on it, tick-like. for two years in order to protect it from loggers. So the message seems to be that loggers ought to be curtailed from taking trees to make paper and building material. Certainly an extreme and harsh way to get the message out. Julia lets us know that she organized a concert once and the audiance were fed vegan hot dogs and hambergers and the entire affair was done with little to no disposable waste. Fair enough. The logical question here is shouldn't Ms Hill have insisted that her interview not be published on parchment made out of the carcas of Luna's siblings?
With all the concern of saving Luna there is no mention at all about the evils of paper or lumber just a passing reference to deforestation. Instead Julia throughout the interview rambles on and on about what she knows best, Julia. "Part of the reason why people resonate with me is because I'm honest and I just speak from my own experience. I use my own experience. My life experiences are a big part of who I am." and how do people "resonate" with her? "I have the people that love me. I have the people that hate me. I have the people that don't care. I have the poeple that think I should save the world and the people that think I'm the devil, I get all kinds of feedback." her impression of how people see her is either a saviour or a destroyer of the world. How she thinks of herself?: "..."I'm good at being with myself. I loved playing by myself since I was a little girl...I like my alone time." and when she climbed the tree to draw atttention to the horrors of the process of wood and paper products (yea right) it
challenged whom I am as a person. People don't know that because they only know me for celebrity and the story that they herad about... When the spotlight came then everybody's stuff came along with it. I literally got to a point where I was starting to feel schizophrenic becuase I was taking the fall for all this different stuff. The beauty of that is that it made me put myself under a microscope and be willing to be really authentic and really true and really honest. That's all. And it was also a courageous thing. So I put myself under the micoscope and I got really clear aand continued to make this an ongoing journey and got really clear on what is it I'm called to be. What does my spirit call me to be? What does my heart...
Julila is so wonderful and you know what, the more she looks at her favorite subject the more she thinks she is even more awesome and cool. "I know this sounds weird to you. Trust me sometimees I question even myself." no trust us Julia we know we know. "Because the reason we react to people is partly because we don't want to own the ways we question ourselves. It somebody questions us we get triggered part of the reason we are getting triggered is because we doubt ourselves." Can't have that, more important we shouldn't "own it" whatever that means. She was courageous about herself and honest about herself and put herself under a microscope and got clear about her journey "I" "me" "my"...what does any of this have to do with the lumber business and climbing Luna, was all this a cover for an elaborate exercise in self-aggrandizement?
Julia Hill may mean well and the interviewer, Chelsea Murray, who were told is contemplating a trip to Africa also has a heart to do well in a cause. To this there there is somehting to be commmended. Also at 19 Murray has done an impressive job as a journalist in running a publication Young Voices and in getting this insightful interview however the insight may not be the one intended.
Above one of the pages of the interview is an ad about a film being developed on Julia Hill. Really. Just what is it about a tree sitter does Hollywood think is particulary film worthy? Oh, just so we don't think this is a firvoulous project we're told it's with an "A-list cast." Without a doubt the lumber company will be portrayed as cigar smoking fat cat greedy figures up against poor B-fly Hill in a tree. Hill tells us in her own article that she was shot at by hunters and that loggers also tried to kill her (by what means were not told). A bit dramatic and extremely suspect. Surly crimminal charges could have been filed. Certainly with all the narcississm and self righteousness Hill and Hollywood are a perfect fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
