Like many of you, I'm disgusted by the expressions of disgust at Michelle Wolf's stand-up comedy routine at the latest White House Correspondents' Dinner. You'd expect Republicans to complain, but even some Democrats didn't get it. Like Chris Matthews. My God, does he ever not get it! Michelle wasn't making fun of Sarah Huckabee's appearance, the way Trump makes fun of women's appearance. Michelle was complaining about how Ms Huckabee lies non-stop, something which journalists like Matthews should do much more often, since Ms Huckabee is the spokesperson for the head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the US, and since Matthews hosts an hour-long show every day whose supposed purpose is to inform the public about what's going on in American politics.
It'd be one thing if Matthews lectured others about decorum and was decorous himself. But nooooo. One night he ends his show by calling Ms Wolf a disgrace, and the very next night he plays a game with his guests, saying something like "idiot" or "moron" or "dumb as shit" and seeing which guest can guess which Trump staffer called Trump that. I guess he'll claim that HE wasn't saying those things about Trump. HE was only QUOTING other people. Michelle Wolf and Chris Matthews both criticize the Trump administration very harshly; some differences are that Michelle is much funnier while doing so, and Matthews doesn't admit that he's doing it, in the name of that insane, utterly counter-productive game known as "objective journalism." Objectivity doesn't exist. Werner Heisenberg PROVED that 80 years ago. "Objective journalism" is just one giant step away from journalists being as clear and informative as they could be. Such clarity about politics is extremely important right now, and, as usual, we're getting it from comedians, plus a very few journalists.
When will Matthews finally retire so he can devote all of his time and energy to his favorite cause: plugging the latest book he wrote about the Kennedys? (To be clear: I'm not saying that people shouldn't read about the Kennedys, or that there was/is no greatness in them. I'm not saying that at all. I am, however, snarkily suggesting that that there may be better sources of information about the Kennedys than fatuous old bores like Chris Matthews.)
Showing posts with label objectivity doesn't exist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objectivity doesn't exist. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Thursday, November 10, 2016
I Give The Press A Lot Of The Blame
If they had spent much less time and energy trying to understand and empathize with Trump's voters and much more time and energy trying to warn them that Trump is an exceptionally dishonest liar who has no intention of helping them at all, then we might not be in this mess.
A house catches fire. "Objective journalism" is careful not to let any opinion show about whether the fire is good or bad. A helpful person, on the other hand, screams: "THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!" and calls 911.
Chris Matthews was especially unhelpful about Trump. Yes, Matthews has always thought that Trump would be a disaster as President. But for every moment he's spent on the air saying so, he's spent minutes marveling at what a good politician Trump is. If you tend to just channel-surf past "Hardball," Matthews' program on MSNBC, you might well think that Matthews was a Trump supporter. Matthews is an especially bad offender, but most of the other people on his show and similar shows have spent much too much time trying to understand the Trump phenomenon and much too little time trying to warn people about Trump.
And the news intake of most voters is much closer to channel-surfing than attentively watching an entire news program from start to finish, much less reading entire op-eds. And if anyone should know that, it's journalists.
And the news programs which are most watched start to finish in the US, the broadcast network news half-hours, are probably the most careful of all to be "objective," and to avoid screaming that the house is on fire. A few journalists in the US may have been sufficiently shaken by the disaster of this election to wake up from the illusion of "objective journalism." I'm afraid, however, that most of them are patting themselves on the back and telling each other that they "presented the facts" and did all they could do and oh well.
I call bullshit. A typical headline in this campaign has been: "Trump has connected with millions of people who feel frustrated" about this or that. A much more factual, much more true headline would have been "Trump is lying non-stop to millions of people who are frustrated, conning them into thinking he'll help them. That's what he does, he lies and cons people and uses them and abuses them and rips them off."
This huge mistake which is called "objective journalism" is hurting us very badly. We can do so much better than this so-called "objective journalism."
A house catches fire. "Objective journalism" is careful not to let any opinion show about whether the fire is good or bad. A helpful person, on the other hand, screams: "THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!" and calls 911.
Chris Matthews was especially unhelpful about Trump. Yes, Matthews has always thought that Trump would be a disaster as President. But for every moment he's spent on the air saying so, he's spent minutes marveling at what a good politician Trump is. If you tend to just channel-surf past "Hardball," Matthews' program on MSNBC, you might well think that Matthews was a Trump supporter. Matthews is an especially bad offender, but most of the other people on his show and similar shows have spent much too much time trying to understand the Trump phenomenon and much too little time trying to warn people about Trump.
And the news intake of most voters is much closer to channel-surfing than attentively watching an entire news program from start to finish, much less reading entire op-eds. And if anyone should know that, it's journalists.
And the news programs which are most watched start to finish in the US, the broadcast network news half-hours, are probably the most careful of all to be "objective," and to avoid screaming that the house is on fire. A few journalists in the US may have been sufficiently shaken by the disaster of this election to wake up from the illusion of "objective journalism." I'm afraid, however, that most of them are patting themselves on the back and telling each other that they "presented the facts" and did all they could do and oh well.
I call bullshit. A typical headline in this campaign has been: "Trump has connected with millions of people who feel frustrated" about this or that. A much more factual, much more true headline would have been "Trump is lying non-stop to millions of people who are frustrated, conning them into thinking he'll help them. That's what he does, he lies and cons people and uses them and abuses them and rips them off."
This huge mistake which is called "objective journalism" is hurting us very badly. We can do so much better than this so-called "objective journalism."
Sunday, May 17, 2015
The Battle Of Lepanto And The Sinking Of The Spanish Armada
I wonder how many of you have heard of one of the events mentioned in this post's title and not the other. In 1571 the combined naval forces of Spain, the Pope and Venice scored a great and unexpected victory over the navy of the Ottoman Empire in the Gulf of Patras in the Ionian Sea. 17 years later, in 1588, the same Spanish navy, the dreaded Spanish Armada, suffered a great and unexpected defeat at the hands of the English navy when they attempted to invade England.
Both events have been written about at great length, but what strikes me is that, to the best of my recollection, I have never heard them mentioned in the same breath, as I am doing now. Garrett Mattingly's The Armada, an above-average book about the 1588 battle,
has 3 entries in its index under "Lepanto, battle of," but 2 of those references merely mention that Don Juan of Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz had been at Lepanto, and that Sultan Selim II had spoken disparagingly of the battle's significance. Mattingly actually says nothing at all himself about the battle.
The I Tatti Renaissance Library recently published an entire volume of poems in Latin written shortly after the battle of Lepanto and celebrating the Christian victory,
and nowhere in the poems, the index or introduction or well over 100 pages of notes about the battle and its background and significance is any English man or woman mentioned, let alone Elizabeth I, let alone the sinking of the Armada.
I thought that surely HG Wells, in his great 1-volume history of Earth, The Outline of History,
would prove an exception and discuss both battles. But no. And more surprisingly still, the battle he mentions is Lepanto. Maybe he was deliberately thumbing his nose at those of his countrymen who in his estimation went on and on at entirely too much length about the supposed significance for world history of the sinking of the Armada.
Which brings me meandering roundabout to my point: some historians have written at great length about either Lepanto or the sinking of the Armada, either because they felt that it was of great significance in world history, or that its significance had been greatly exaggerated by historians. Either one battle or the other -- and the other was barely worth a mention.
Surely many Spanish sailors and soldiers must have been in both battles, just 17 years apart. Surely they, if no-one else, often thought of both battles at the same time, and considered them to have some connection to each other. Such sailors and soldiers were themselves an obvious connection.
But individual historians have rarely -- if ever -- felt that both battles were worth writing about. Which is my point: the great subjectivity of decisions about what is "historically significant." Surely the treatment by historians of these 2 battles shines a very great light on the fact that objectivity is an illusion. Historians write about what is significant from the point of view of the entire world? No, they cultivate myths of significance. If they are especially sympathetic to Catholicism and/or Spain, they nurture the myth of the significance of Lepanto, they talk up the glorious nature of the Catholic, or Spanish (or Venetian, or Papal) victory, and don't mention the Spanish defeat in 1588. But if they happen to think that England is particularly glorious, they support that preconception by dwelling on the sinking of the Armada, and by making it seem as glorious as they can.
Objectivity, schmobjetivity. There is no such thing. Research these 2 battles and you will be shown objectivity's nonexistence in a particularly striking way.
Both events have been written about at great length, but what strikes me is that, to the best of my recollection, I have never heard them mentioned in the same breath, as I am doing now. Garrett Mattingly's The Armada, an above-average book about the 1588 battle,
has 3 entries in its index under "Lepanto, battle of," but 2 of those references merely mention that Don Juan of Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz had been at Lepanto, and that Sultan Selim II had spoken disparagingly of the battle's significance. Mattingly actually says nothing at all himself about the battle.
The I Tatti Renaissance Library recently published an entire volume of poems in Latin written shortly after the battle of Lepanto and celebrating the Christian victory,
and nowhere in the poems, the index or introduction or well over 100 pages of notes about the battle and its background and significance is any English man or woman mentioned, let alone Elizabeth I, let alone the sinking of the Armada.
I thought that surely HG Wells, in his great 1-volume history of Earth, The Outline of History,
would prove an exception and discuss both battles. But no. And more surprisingly still, the battle he mentions is Lepanto. Maybe he was deliberately thumbing his nose at those of his countrymen who in his estimation went on and on at entirely too much length about the supposed significance for world history of the sinking of the Armada.
Which brings me meandering roundabout to my point: some historians have written at great length about either Lepanto or the sinking of the Armada, either because they felt that it was of great significance in world history, or that its significance had been greatly exaggerated by historians. Either one battle or the other -- and the other was barely worth a mention.
Surely many Spanish sailors and soldiers must have been in both battles, just 17 years apart. Surely they, if no-one else, often thought of both battles at the same time, and considered them to have some connection to each other. Such sailors and soldiers were themselves an obvious connection.
But individual historians have rarely -- if ever -- felt that both battles were worth writing about. Which is my point: the great subjectivity of decisions about what is "historically significant." Surely the treatment by historians of these 2 battles shines a very great light on the fact that objectivity is an illusion. Historians write about what is significant from the point of view of the entire world? No, they cultivate myths of significance. If they are especially sympathetic to Catholicism and/or Spain, they nurture the myth of the significance of Lepanto, they talk up the glorious nature of the Catholic, or Spanish (or Venetian, or Papal) victory, and don't mention the Spanish defeat in 1588. But if they happen to think that England is particularly glorious, they support that preconception by dwelling on the sinking of the Armada, and by making it seem as glorious as they can.
Objectivity, schmobjetivity. There is no such thing. Research these 2 battles and you will be shown objectivity's nonexistence in a particularly striking way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)