Today, our local newspaper picked up a lengthy LA Times editorial, “Americans Seek Enertaining News”. David Shaw meanders through familiar territory—at least to those of his generation and profession. People, he says, who want unbiased reporting (a growing minority he believes) choose Fox because it is comfortable, it isn’t challenging. He quotes Todd Gitlin, “Most people want no-problem news, goes-down-easy news, Yahoo! Headlines, news that evokes feelings, even if those feelings are feelings of fear.” (Well I remember the SDS’s ability to aim at the head in our heady youths.) Today, I find the raw emotions no less the object of, say, 60 Minutes than O’Reilley. While repeatdly equating Fox with the Comedy Channel appears cute to the believers, I doubt it converts many pagans.
Ginny
Yet More on the Turnover
In the last hundred and fifty years, we have taken to heart Thoreau’s perspective: “In most books, the I, or first person, is omitted; in this it will be retained; that, in respect to egotism, is the main difference. We commonly do not remember that it is, after all, always the first person that is speaking.” And we learned much from Emerson and Thoreau. But, now our culture often seems limited to the subjective; ask Sokal, now even physics is “personal.” I wonder what Thoreau, who treasured the “fact” that cuts like a cimeter, would think of, say, the Washington Post.
The Washington Post reviews a novel excoriating the president and discussing assassination. Interesting? Perhaps. The novel’s spokesman contends it “is a portrait of an anguished protagonist pushed to extremes. Baker is using the framework and story structure as a narrative device to express the discontent many in America are feeling right now.” Anguish. Discontent. These “affections” are what’s important. The specific, the personal, the heart – how we feel. The deaths over the last twenty years, the muttered fatwas from bin Laden and threats from Saddam, these are facts. But the real “fact” – the important one – is how the author feels. Exactly how a superpower (indeed, a hyperpower) responds to provocations, uses its force in chaotic states – these are not the reason someone would write such a book. It is to express “the discontent” he feels – people like him feel.
I’ve begun (yes, quite belatedly) to read The Federalist Papers. I’m struck how in the introductory sections, Publius returns again and again to a definition of “human nature.” But these writers work with their heads, generalize, pursue what they consider truth. To reach that truth, the writers synthesize history, acknowledge experience, note traditions. Through history, they argue, this “works” and this does not. These writers understood that human emotions are powerful but their goal was to understand them, to become (and help us become) more conscious.
They say: We realize some interpret these events differently; here are their arguments; here are ours. We believe ours are better because we have found precedent, we have noticed truths, we have become more conscious of who we are.
Of course, these arguments came, as would any from wise adults, from soul-searching by these writers – this is what has been my experience, I feel, others feel. But the reasoning is always from the head, the acknowledgement of counter points is always gentlemanly, the respect for history, for facts is always real. They were writing to convince but it was with logic and not emotions they pled. The long view requires addresses to the head. They took the founding of our country very very seriously.
Europeans and Us
For those of you interested in the general topic – how Europeans see us – I’d like to suggest two articles. The first is Bruce Bawer’s “Hating America” in Hudson Review. We follow his mood swings, beginning as an amiable American abroad, moving into a more defensive mode, and then concluding with a thorough summary of current works on the topic. His last paragraph points not only to a major difference between Americans and Europeans, but also perhaps the greatest indicator of a divide between red and blue values—religion. Of course, as he notes, this is a good deal more complex than either the blue states or Europeans realize.
That some of America recognizes “human nature” and some of America (and much of Europe) does not is a theme we return to again and again (and will again and again). Of course, it is not that arguments are merely between Europeans and Americans, nor among each. We start from broadly differing definitions of what it means to be human.
In one of my earlier posts a comment was made (perceptive because it cut to what I meant better than I had), the comment addressed Sowell’s distinction between “constrained” and “unconstrained” thinking. [Yes, I apologize -thanks for fact checkers like Dr. Weevil] It seems to me that we might also describe that as between people who recognize human nature, with its frailties, and the tragic nature of our life versus those who see man as pure, unfettered will. The former has problems with abortion; the latter detests limits, even being tied to biology – arguing that sexuality is itself culturally defined. The former is going to see checks and balances as necessary; it is less likely to trust institutions defined by man. The latter finds utopian schemes attractive. Of course, the latter is idealistic, but it is also foolish and in the twentieth century such thinking has led to more than fragmented psyches, but also death camps. Well, you might say, that is painting with a broad brush. Yes, it is. We’ll leave the arguments for another day. Instead, I’ll give you the last paragraph of Bawer’s essay.
Comment on Andy B’s post
Reinforcing Andy B’s post: Instapundit links to a study using think tank references to measure media. The report showed a more dramatic left swing than the researchers expected. Reynolds also links to a Rocky Mountain Editorial . She points out to get a “fair and balanced” day, one would have to read the NYT once and watch Fox special report twice.
I am curious about another factor that might skew military reporting. Liberal arts schools have tended to downplay both military and diplomatic history for the last generation or two; I suspect all reporters (except those with military training) know less about tactics than is necessary to report well.
Also, right-leaning media seemed, even before 9/11. more likely to understand the unique language (let alone culture) of the career military. (This distinction became clear in covering the Florida absentee vote.) My gut, however, may be wrong– that is the thrust of the “chicken” hawk meme. I would like to see such a study.
The Big Story
Wednesday, my youngest and I picked up the middle daughter at the airport, home from her year abroad. We circled the city as I missed a series of turnoffs from the beltway. I enjoyed listening to the sisters talk and talking myself. Then, I started a monologue; it is hard to believe, I told them, what Americans say to one another, do. They let me speak. Then I realized their faces had changed. Their impatience was not because I was talking too much nor because they felt I was prying nor even their usual boredom with me. Instead, they were both appalled.
“Mommy,” the younger one said, “I don’t think Tessie wants to hear this. I don’t.”
Yes, the stories were not just ugly, they were unimportant. I’d been drawn to them because they demanded attention, raw with anger – theirs and mine. But they had gotten me off track as much as those missed exits kept me circling the city. Bush as a Satanic creature from Goya’s Spain, Michael Moore’s tiresome spiel, novels that wittily discuss assassination – these are not the story. Not really.