STILL SPEECHLESS AFTER ALL THESE YEARS! Journalists run out of questions for Saint McCain! It helped make Lizza's profile a rerun: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008
THE AGE OF THE NOVEL: A golden age of novelization began in 1992. In todays Post, Michael Gerson begins his column with one of this eras earliest tales. Please enjoy the dramatic moment as we get to hear, once again, the dramatic tale in which the vile, imperious Bill Clinton humiliates a great good man:
Splendid enjoyment! As sad little Gerson weeps and shivers, we get to enjoy the drama again, complete with the requisite character profiles. As always, the petty, mean-spirited Clinton was solidifying his control on something or other. And Casey, a man of wonderful conscience, was humiliatedfor being pro-life. Gerson returns to this stirring humiliation in his closing paragraph.
For weak-minded fellows of Gersons class, this is one of the most pleasing stories of this sixteen-year, novelized age. And of course, hereas in all their dramasthe Gersons omit elementary facts to make their stirring tales parse. They leave out the facts which weaken the drama; in this case, Gerson forgets to say that Casey was refusing to endorse Clinton, his partys presidential nominee. For a short version of this matter, see this post by Media Matters. Heres a chunk of a longer take, offered in 1996, by Michael Crowley, in the New Republic (not available on-line):
Since were discussing the age of the novel, Crowleys key statement here is the following: But the story is not so simple. Such statements cant be allowed to stand in this heavily novelized era. As E. R. Shipp explained in March 2000: Elementary facts will be changed or discarded to make the press corps narratives function. Weeping babiesfools like Gersonare thus allowed to have their way with the facts, producing the type of child-like tales their fatuous cohort adores.
And these tales typically tilt one way. Last Friday, Gene Robinson enlivened his own Post column with another smoothly-polished character tale from the start of this era. What follows is pure political porn, from the age of the adult novel:
So familiarso perfectly memorized! Of course, Bill Clinton only got elected two times, in 1992 and 1996. Did he do what he had to do, apologizing later, if necessary in these elections? Were not sure what Robinson means. In 1992, Clinton won the Democratic nomination from Tsongas/Kerrey/Brown. In order to pretend that he did something wrong, you have to pretend he was unfair to Tsongas, as Chris Matthews, one of Robinsons handlers, did on Hardball not long ago (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/21/08). The case is laughably weak, of course, but its part of the novel which rules these weak mindsand no one has even really imagined a tale in which Clinton did what he had to do, apologizing later to Bush, Perot or Dole, his general election opponents. (Indeed, it was Bush who apologized later, for the romp through Clintons private passport papers. It was Bushs man who apologized later, as he neared death, for siccing Willie Horton on Dukakis.) But so what? In this addled age of the novel, people like Robinson simply recite their memorized, group-approved character homilies. And Democrats are still imperiled by their lingering power. This morning, Gerson moves ahead from his tears about Casey to trash the vile Obama. How dare he use the word punished!
Well note two things about this age, and about its leading purveyors:
First: Gerson was the top speech-writer for the man who took us into Iraq. Before that, Robinson worked quite hard, as Outlook editor, to craft ugly novels about Candidate Gore. These are the people whose bad judgment changed the worlds historyput us in the mess were now in. And as a result, of course, they have been given the keys to the kingdom! They now appear on the Posts op-ed page, where they keep driving their novels.
Second: During this age, novels were also written about major Republicansand these novels often stressed their high moral character. Such novels were endlessly written about McCain, who is now polling ahead of Obama. Our question: During these years, how hard did you see your liberal/progressive journals fight against these novelizations? How hard did they fight against the demonization of the Clintons and Gore? Against the sanctification of McCain? How often did they name the names of the media stars who kept pimping these novels?
Since the answer is fairly obvious, well ask you why they fought so little. And well ask you one last question: Did you happen to catch Salons Joan Walsh on MSNBC last night? Did you wonder if Salon will ever challenge the loathsome conduct of that nets biggest stars? Did you wonder if your liberal journals will ever stand and fight such mainstream entitiesin a world where they gain so much from their perpetual silence?
Saint McCain is a very good man! The Clintonsand Goreare really quite vile! Since the summer of 2002, weve explicitly asked them to fight these novels. But nothing on earth can make them do it. Simply put, they never will.
Its soooo much better to ride with McCain! Instead of with those stage-managed Dems! Of course, theres at least one obvious reason why McCain can gab so freely on his bus. And well guess that Lizza may know it.
Why can John McCain gab so freely as he rides around on his bus? Lets go back to Campaign 2000, when this glorious joy-ride began; lets recall what made it so easy for McCain to blab back then. Perhaps in the grip of the Stockholm Syndrome which Joe Klein attributed to McCains press corps, Nancy Gibbs blurted an embarrassing truth, right in the pages of Time:
Well hold McCains stripper-dating tales until a later point in the week. But why could McCain blather freely back then, as he rambled about on his bus? Oh! According to Times top political writer, the boys and girls who were munching his donuts had cooked up a strange bit of journo group culture. When McCain engaged in too much candor, they would sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they didn't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story! Lets translate that into simpler language: At the same time these inane gorillas were inventing wild statements and pretending Gore said them, they were providing an opposite service for McCain, the virile scourge of the broken screen door. Here goes: If McCain said stupid things, they would agree not to tell you about them! For the record, Gibbs and Dickerson werent alone in copping to this remarkable conduct; many pundits copped to this tale. For example, two days after the Gibbs piece hit the stands, Howard Kurtz quoted Jacob Weisberg:
The typical response is not to report it! Indeed, if you read back through the real-time posts we did about life on the bus during Campaign 2000, youll see that this appalling press conduct worked quite well for McCainuntil (in one example) a substitute New York Times scribe reported a few of his candid remarks, and the solon was forced to deal with public reaction to his wonderful candor. (To his use of the word gooks, for examplebut thats not the only example.) At any rate, it isnt hard to drop all the stage-managed stuff if you know that the journalists youre stuffing with donuts wont report the unfortunate things you might say. From that day to this, rising stars have pretended they dont understand this transactioneven though it blew up in the press corps faces several times during Campaign 2000. (To see Mara Liasson defend this general approach, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/15/99.)
Why didnt Gore freewheel like McCain? (By extension, why dont Clinton and Obama?) Could it be because of this: When Gore made a passing remark about Love Storya passing remark which was perfectly accuratethe slobbering goons for whom Lizza covers turned it into a three-year scandal? Surely, every scribe understands these dynamics (for historical context, see links below). They just dont want you understanding them.
At any rate, Gibbs and Dickerson were riding around, taking McCain off the record when he displayed too much candor. And other courtesies were extended to this greatest of known living men. During that same month, for example, McCain unveiled his comically bollixed health plan; he had to withdraw it the very next day, so ineptly had it been drawn (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/19/06). But so what? Everyone knew to downplay the embarrassmentand the bus-capade joy-ride continued apace. McCain gave them their donuts and said they were smartand they kept explaining how wondrous he was. More than anything, of course, he was a straight-talkerexcept when he made such straight remarks that they knew they mustnt report them.
This is the way these goons behavedwhile their colleagues invented a string of bogus tales about the vile candidate Gore.
But none of that is what we noticed in the passage we quoted from Lizza. Lets sift through that passage again, and remind ourselves that this is a rerun. In eight years, very little has changed:
What a man! McCain keeps talking and talking until the room is filled with the awkward silence of journalists with no more questions. This made a great narrative eight years ago, and Lizza chose to recycle the story element, giving his piece the feel of a rerun. So youll know, heres Howard Kurtz, in the Washington Post, reporting this same wondereight years ago:
Wow! And a week before that, Franklin Foer had marveled about this same phenomenon, on C-SPANs Washington Journal:
Foer had to spoil things a bit, going farther. And the other component of it is he's just incredibly funny, the goggle-eyed youngster confessed. And I think that explains to a certain extent why the media has such incredible fondness for the guy.
Recover from your embarrassment so we can explore what this seems to mean:
It seemed like a rerun when we read it: Now, as then, the journalists simply run out of questions, McCain is willing to answer so many. This is odd in one way, of course; when you think of all the obvious things youve never seen this candidate forced to discuss, you might be surprised to read this from Lizza. But uh-oh! Lizza gives a hint of a deeper, more comic reality in the following passage, which is also familiar. Minor point, thrown in for comic relief: Note the way the rising star now uses the McCain buss nick-name!
Huh! Most of the time, the scribes arent asking real questions at all! Instead, they engage in long stretches of banter! Do the journalists run out of questions? You cant know how foolish this whole construct is until you go back to the 2000 profiles and see the types of ludicrous questions these nincompoops actually ask.
McCain is willing to be fully candidwhen asked to name his favorite tree! No, we really arent making that upand yes, the questioning gets more insipid! Do these journalists run out of questions, so willing is McCain to speak? When you see the questions they actually ask, youll find this fact much less impressive.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: The pattern seemed to be there 48 years ago, in Teddy Whites The Making of the President 1960. The favored candidate can yak with the press all he likes; the disfavored candidate has to keep quiet (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/14/03). Nixon understood itand so did Gore. Everyone understands it, in factexcept the press corps readers.
We strongly recommend this post, about two famously close elections. You see strikingly similar patterns of conduct, separated by forty years. One thing has changed in those forty years, thoughthe direction of the corps bias.