Listening to Glenn Beck yesterday, I was informed that one of the new White House inner circle was found to be nothing more than a blogger. A BLOGGER? Are kidding me? What are these knuckle-headed knuckle-draggers in Washington doing adding a blogger in a position of authority to their midst. What, after all, could a blogger possibly offer to the inside-the-beltway experts of politics (except maybe some clear thinking and fresh air), let alone to a White House that has begun to take on airs of its own (like those of a monarch that all Administrations inevitably do during a second term)?
Don't get me wrong here. Glenn and his cohorts may be right that this new addition to the Administration may be an over-the-top partisan ideologue. (Which has probably never happened before, right?) He may also be little more than a amateur political hack (which actually seems SOP for White House appointments from both parties). He may even be, as accused, sitting around his house in his underwear writing sniping comments about the political opposition (which wouldn't be a bad gig if it were you could actually make a living at it).
On the other hand, at least he wouldn't be a someone who had never had a job that didn't involve feeding at the political trough, someone who might not have spent half of their life running for office and the other half desperately trying to keep it, or someone who was so inbred in the corruption of DC culture that using the inside information provided to members of the national legislature to accrue a personal fortune seemed a reasonable thing to do. Neither would he be a failed news reader, corporate mouthpiece, or failed ESPN sportscaster turned political pundit. (Yes, I mean you Keith Olbermann.) Contrary to popular belief, there are a number of intelligent, savvy, and creative people that are writing blogs; and the rest of us are making a heroic effort to drag ourselves out of the shallow end of the gene pool in order to be worthy of their efforts.
Now of course, in the midst of my pseudo-rant, I couldn't help but be notice that the nom de plume currently under attack was one that fit me like the cheap suit I sometimes wear. Bloggers are after all, are still a rather curious group coming of age in this era of new media. How you feel about them as a group is likely to have as much to do with whether you agree with what they say, how well they say it, and how much competition they've become for more traditional sources of media than what they're actually writing.
As a blogger, I've been known to do a fair job of pointing out the obvious naked condition of the emperor in my own tawdry efforts. Certainly among the more elite of the milieu there must be far wiser and better examples in both local and national venues. Some, I know for a fact have journalistic credentials, others have personal or professional experience that lends greater insight to their efforts, and some have terrific contacts and sources of information. Most of them quite frankly, are far more capable of expressing themselves coherently than your average Congressman or Senator (regardless of whether its at the state or national level).
This is not to say that you'll find me claiming in line for a top-flight job as a Presidential adviser (at least in this administration), though one might come to believe that the White House could use someone out of this New Media with a sense of humor that was willing to tell truth to power. It might even seem like somebody close to the Commander-in-Chief could use a bit more expertise in stringing words together (without the constant use of a teleprompter), as well the ability to give the man at the top the appearance of a less atrophied sense of humor.
Interestingly, as all of this rather subject 'inside baseball' information played itself out during the last week, one of one of my favorite Danny Kaye movies "The Court Jester" was shown. It's the title song written by Sammy Cahn and Sylvia Fine, "The Mal-Adjusted Jester" seemed to fit such the situation perfectly:
Your majesty, I have a confession
My secret I must now betray
I was not a born fool
It took work to get this way
When I was a lad I was gloomy and sad
And I was from the day I was born
When other lads giggled and gurgled and wiggled
I proudly was loudly forlorn
My friends and my family looked at me clammily
Thought there was something amiss
When others found various antics hilarious
All I could manage was this –hoo hoo
Or this – hoo waahhh
My father he shouted he needs to be clouted
His teeth on a wreath I’ll hand him
My mother she cried as she rushed to my side
You’re a brute and you don’t understand him
So they send for a witch with a terrible twitch
To ask how my future impressed her
She took one look at me and cried hehehehehe, he?
What else could he be but a jester?
A jester a jester, a funny idea a jester
No butcher no baker no candlestick maker
And me with the look of a fine undertaker
Impressed her as a jester?
Now where could I learn any comical turn
That was not in a book on the shelf
No teacher to take me and mold me and make me
A merryman fool or an elf
But I’m proud to recall that in no time at all
With no other recourses but my own resources
With firm application and determination
I made a fool of myself!
I started to travel to try to unravel
My mind and to find a new chance
When I got to Spain it was suddenly plain
That the field that appealed was the dance
The Spanish were clannish but I wouldn’t vanish
I learned every step they had planned
The first step of all isn’t hard to recall
Cause the first step of all is to stand
And stand
And stand, and stand, and stand, and stand...
After all of my practice the terrible fact is
I made a fool of myself
I sadly decided that dancing as I did
To sing was a thing that was sure
I found me a teacher a crotchety creature
Who used to sing coloratura
She twisted my chin pushed my diaphragm in
With a poker she vocalized me
When she said it was best that I threw out my chest
You may gather that rather surprised me
I was on solid ground till I suddenly found
That in Venice I was to appear
The gala locale was a choppy canal
And me, a high sea gondolier
I nervously perched as the gondola lurched
Before the King’s palazzo
As I started my song my voice it was strong
But my stomach I fear was not so
Oh solo mio, ooohhhhhhhh
Oh solo ooohhhhhhhh Help!
When I fell overboard how his majesty roared
And before a siesta he made me his jester
And I found out soon that to be a buffoon
Was a serious thing as a rule
For a jester’s chief employment
Is to kill himself for your enjoyment
And a jester unemployed is nobody’s fool.
There has been a lot of talk in recent years about the tone of discourse and punditry in the media today. Many rightly feel that there is a distinct media bias in the coverage of news these days, and that this is in some way a dramatic change from the past.
I would argue however that the plethora of news sources out there has simply made the playing field so diverse that the ability of one organization to point out the failings others only highlights the slant and selective coverage of both. I would further point out that the number of bloggers out there serving as an alternative 'amateur' news source also serves to point out the glaringly apparent shortcomings where both print and broadcast media are concerned.
Information shows have seen a change however, and not necessarily for the better where the interview and news-talk shows are concerned. This began perhaps with the descent of weekly news shows like '60 Minutes'. This show at some point went down the dark path not only in the choice of the stories that it covered, but in the editing of the interviews in order to drive home the particular point of view of the segment producer. Good guys and bad guys were decided by camera angles, lighting, and the careful cutting of even more carefully worded questions and responses. A predisposed bias was subtly and effectively promulgated in what was sold to us as hard-hitting investigative journalism; but in fact was a careful blending of ambush and editorializing.
Next came the the plethora of news shows with live interviews, where both hosts and guests quickly discovered that in order to play the game effectively, one had to be 'prepped' by increasingly more professional handlers. Being visible on such shows was important, but more important was having the required clever lines and talking points memorized. It didn't matter if the questions were hard-hitting, or the answers had anything to do with them, as long as those answers were part of a biased message that the guest was trying to deliver.
Hosts of these shows became frustrated, since they attempted to play by the rules while not antagonizing guests; and the guests refused to follow their lead. The visiting team had a distinct advantage by playing the game it wanted the way it wanted to, while the home team looked mostly irrelevant. There was no longer information being sought and explored, but instead a disjointed and fractious competition where the winner had already been decided.
The level of discourse and interviewing used today has become little more than a meandering diatribe followed by non sequitur.
Nowhere is this more personified than on one of the more popular of the purported news commentary shows, 'The O'Reilly Factor'. Now for those who don't or haven't watched this show, Bill O'Reilly is someone who has been part of journalism for some time. As well as spending time as a legitimate reporter, he also spent some time on the tabloid side while hosting shows like 'Hard Copy'.
Since 1996, he has hosted a show on the Fox News Channel (perhaps its most popular) in which he combines the worst of both of those worlds.
This has nothing to do with Mr O'Reilly's opinions, which I may or may not agree with, but with the level that such discourse has sunk to in the process. Mr O'Reilly seems to personify the current concept of political punditry, which has become little more than hosts saying 'look at me'.
Interviews normally begin with him expressing an opinion and then asking the guest to tell him where he's wrong. If the guest agrees, he get 20 seconds to do so before being interrupted to confirm the host is right and move on to the next host opinion/question. If he disagrees, he gets half of that time before being called out as foolish or misinformed.
In fact while I haven't timed it, I think a comparative analysis of microphone 'time of possession' would find Mr O'Reilly holding the field of play better than 75% of the time. This begs the question that if you are not going to let a guest answer the questions posed, why bring them on at all.
Bill O'Reilly is not alone however. Rush Limbaugh forgoes interviews on his 3 hour syndicated show 5 days a week, but finds a different path to the same goal. While saying that he doesn't want to talk about himself, he instead spends much of each hour sharing with us what others have said about him, as if that's all that's going on.
Sean Hannity spends probably more of his time on his radio and TV show telling us about the personal appearances, book signings, and things that he will be talking about later than he does telling us anything else. Glenn Beck is equally busy promoting books, personal appearances, movie theater broadcasts of personal appearances; and less so in informing us of information that he claims is vital that we hear and understand.
Media stores and subscription websites can do little but prove to us that such labors are exercises in capitalism rather than information.
(And for those of you who believe that I am attacking those on the right without due consideration to the panderers on the left, let me state that my failure to comment on Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow is only because their efforts so nauseate me that I cannot stand to subject myself to such punishment long enough to properly critique them.)
Unfortunately, lost in all this self-promotion is any legitimate news or insight that any of these pundits might offer. Picking the nuggets of truth and information from the overwhelming barrage of self-serving nonsense is difficult at best. Even when one concedes that these are potentially intelligent and well-read individuals, the constant self-promotion leaves one too tired to retain the carefully winnowed rewards.
The few legitimate news and opinion offerings out there are drowned out by egotistic tabloid punditry. And while everyone has a right to try and make a buck, it's unfortunate that we've turned news and opinion into little more than a traveling medicine show. It's likewise unfortunate that at a time when so many are looking for unbiased facts and answers to vital questions in society, all we are offered is the equivalent of entertainment at the intellectual level of the WWE. It's sad to me especially that at a time when this country would be well-served by reasoned Conservative voices, all we are offered is little more than hucksters and little better than the O'Reilly factor.
While I did not attend, like many other people in this country (and perhaps around the world) I watched a good bit of the C-Span coverage of the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC. I was curious about a number of things having to do with this gathering and hoped that such coverage would provide answers.
In most cases it did.
I wondered if the crowd would be as big as I expected it to be, and I think that it was (despite the disparate counts reported). I wondered if those attending would honor Mr Beck's wishes to refrain from bringing signs and attempting to make this a political event, and they did. I wondered if those attending the competing events held by Mr Beck and the Rev Al Sharpton could avoid less than exemplary behavior , and they did. I wondered if this crowd would, as requested, leave the site better than they found it, and they did. I wondered if the speeches would both touching and inspiring; and for the most part I think that they were, though some of those with the podium could have used the services of a good speech writer (sorry, but the the writer in me can't help but nitpick).
I found myself later with my thoughts drifting however, and found a question nagging at me in the days since that had not, and seemingly could not be answered simply, either then or now.
Why is it that the clarion call to return to the principles of the Founding Fathers could not be sounded without religious overtones?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that those Founding Fathers called upon the Divine Spirit in creating both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I understand that Divine Providence was often credited for the language used by these incredible men as they explained their thinking and was used to justify their motives and the success of their objectives. I will even grant that the fundamental principles of this country were laid upon a foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic (though some of the Fathers considered themselves Deists rather than Christians).
It is this last word however (ethic), that remained a sticking point for me.
You see, while I consider myself a spiritual person and one who believes in a higher power, I fail to understand why this Deity must be called on in order for a man to show proper moral character and behavior amongst his fellows. Why is it not enough to do good, to yourself and to others, for good's own sake? Why are not self-sufficiency on one hand and charity to ones fellows on the other not valuable in and of themselves, without calling on the forces of heaven for guidance, regulation, and oversight?
Forgive me Father (in the spiritual sense, of course), but requiring such behavior only as homage or obedience to a Supreme Being is making the very cop out that of principles that we are hoping to escape by the return of such thinking. These principles should not be adhered to out of a desire to worship, nor should this moral code be enforced out of a fear of Divine Retribution; but in fact should be embraced as the core of the very humanity that we possess.
The concept of adherence to this morality because "Father is watching" is the kind of thinking that leads to the justification of red-light cameras and Patriot Act surveillance. Freedom cannot come in blind obedience, nor can truly good behavior be elicited under threat of punishment.
I believe that men of good conscience must step forward to lead the way, and that this rally was a good faith attempt to do so. (A curious choice of words, don't you agree?) I applaud the spirit of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally last weekend, and likewise applaud the example that was shown by the many gathered in attendance. I remain troubled however by this rally's apparent requirement of Divine guidance to elicit something that should by definition be part of the human condition; and therefore remain caught up in the midst of an ethical dilemma.
Those of you who listen to the Glenn Beck syndicated radio show or the FoxNews television show have no doubt noticed Mr. Beck's investigations of the political leaning of some of those advising our current president.
Without going into the specifics of those accused or the proof uncovered by him of the principles espoused by these government officials and presidential friends , I must say that it has become a regular part of both shows.
Now in the spirit of full disclosure, I freely admit to regularly listening to Glenn's radio program on 1370 WSPD here in Toledo. I am unable to get the television program however, as the level of cable that I choose to subscribe to does not carry the FoxNews cable station. I enjoy the program for its information, its entertainment, and its humor.
It occurred to me however that some may in turn question Glenn's possible Communist ties. Shocking as it may seem, Glenn may have laid himself open to such an accusation based on the publication of his best seller from last year "The Christmas Sweater", which I myself wrote about in a column for the Toledo Free Press.
Knowing that many pundits like to ignore the content of books by conservative authors in favor of demagoguery base on appearance, I fear that such a charge may have some basis in fact.
After all, considering this piece of literature strictly on the size of the tome and the pigment of its cover, this work by Mr. Beck could be considered a: "Little Red Book".
I'm just sayin ...
