Quote of the day/week:
“Apparently, along with market capitalism and the one-man-one-vote principle, the Administration intends to export to Iraq America’s delicious sense of irony.”
– James Poniewozik, “All the News that Fits Your Reality,” Time Essay for 11/24/03
He’s making one of my favorite points with the essay as a whole – “There is no subject about which people are less objective than objectivity.” He says (of various Bush and Gore media-manipulation-type behaviors): “What the Bush-TV and Gore-TV ideas have most in common is not politics. It is this American combination of idealism and arrogance: the conviction that if everyone had pure, unfiltered information–if, indeed, there were such a thing–the scales would fall from their eyes, and they would join the side of the right.”
I emphasize the idea that there is no objectivity because I almost completely believe there is not, and I find debatable (truly, I can see it argued either way) the idea that striving for balance is always the best way to report stories. I don’t think it is – it can be, but I think as a rule, a good deal of “objective” reporting robs people of the information they’re actually seeking. Then again, how can people make up their own minds when they’re handed biased information, right? Sigh. Let me reference for the 1,000th time my friend Hunter S. Thompson and his wicked obit for Nixon:
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.
I am on record as having said I think the so-called “attack” method of campaigning now-a-days is actually helpful and somewhat constructive to the process (see: any previous entry on the book Smashmouth. I love the fact that candidates have to surrender their entire lives to the race and to the public. I wish we were more demanding, as I feel G.W.Bush definitely got off the hook far too easily during his campaign. Maybe I accept this more easily because I have no desire to see a perfect person in office – I’m willing and in fact desious of a flawed man or woman as President. The idea that good behavior could somehow win you the White House makes me ill, but I think it’s the end result of totally objective (media) consideration of candidates.
Eh. Just thinking. Back to Pride and Prejudice.