bark, bugs, leaves, & lizards

don't eat that stuff
Previous Post:  

Rage This

Here’s the lead story at Politico right now:

My question:  Why is Shirley Sherrod’s picture so large and centered amidst such an array of esteemed rage artists?  Certainly she would be justified if she felt rage these days, but she’s not hardly a rager like Joe Wilson and Andrew Breitbart.  I’m not sure I’d even characterize Alan Grayson as a rager, but I get why he’s included–he says mean or exceedingly uncharitable things about Republicans and Politico had to include at least one Democrat.  Likewise, Tucker Carlson is more a dick than a rager.  The article’s authors present Politico as an unwitting witness to right/left wing rage:

as a nonpartisan news site, we face relentless attacks from the right and left, all looking for signs of bias.

I’m not accusing Politico of bias. I just think Politico is frequently lame and superficial. Who benefits from such lame superficiality? Politico, mostly. But I also think bamboozlers benefit because Politico is a leader in creating false equivalences (as well as draining policy questions of their content through an obsession on process), which helps bamboozlers like Breitbart have so much currency. Why does Politico do it?  At heart, Politico writers are party planners.

Tags: ,

Posted in hackery .


2 comments

2 Replies

  1. Pistolette Jul 23rd 2010

    There was a great (what I call a) zen slap to the face in this article about the irrational rage in both major political parties. Sobering: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062903841.html

  2. dsb nola Jul 24th 2010

    I think Michael Gerson trades in the same false equivalence and process obsession as Politico. Consider this:

    The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party — less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-Up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute — presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne Jr. and David Brooks — on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

    Let me get this straight: An example of the creative adult debate Mr. Gerson so earnestly desires is “the electoral implications of the energy debate.” Hey, wouldn’t it be something if we instead had an actual “energy debate”? How about that for a Zen slap to the head? All Gerson and his ilk care about is process. Do we really need people to game out the political game for us? What about actual policy?

    Another thing. Gerson paints a sorry picture of both major political parties as being equally stricken by rage artists. I’m sure he would say Truthers are essentially the same as Birthers, for example. And it’s true that any national political party is sure to have its nuts. But what really matters is how the leaders of the respective parties react to such nuttery–and how many party members actually believe the crazy stuff. Our own Senator Vitter just last week did a wink and a nod to Birthers. Polling consistently shows that many, many Republicans actually puzzle over Obama’s citizenship. You just don’t see the same (read: equivalent) thing with Democrats.

    (Don’t get me wrong, I have my beefs with the Democrats. I’m no donkey collector).

    As far as name calling and personal attacks go, sure, that’s unseemly. Calling Tucker Carlson a dick is probably the only time I’ve ever said something like that on my blog, and I was referencing Jon Stewart. Occasionally I’ll trot out “bark eater” but that’s a pretty idiosyncratic and obscure insult. So I share Gerson’s dislike of all that.

    Thanks for the comment and link.


Leave a Reply