COLLINS KNOWS TRIVIA! On the day that Edwards spoke, Collins typed typical trivia: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007
DIAGNOSING THE MALADY: Well admit it; before we spotted the syndrome in our upper-end press corps, Antonioni described it among Euro-elites. In yesterdays New York Times, Stephen Holden describes this fascinating malady. Antonioni spied it among the mid-60s Euro-fops. But see if it doesnt sound current and local:
HOLDEN (8/1/07): Decades before it was given a name, Michelangelo Antonioni recognized the malady we now call attention deficit disorder. In his great 1960s films, ''L'Avventura,''''La Notte,''''Eclipse'' and ''Red Desert,'' but especially in ''L'Avventura,'' his masterpiece, it wasn't diagnosed as a chemical imbalance, but as a communicable social disease.Holden said this of the masters films: Their melancholy poetry transmuted an overriding mood of self-pity into something deeper and closer to tragedy.
Yes, Antonionis films were a bit prophetic; they prefigured the way the aristocrats and climbers of our upper-end press corps mope through their empty lives, seeking release in silly sex tales and endless, distracting trivia. Meanwhile, the tragedies theyve produced are all too clear; they spread through our lives more each day.
Omigod! An ADD-style boredom and decadence? A psychological petri dish in which idleness, boredom and dissatisfaction with the material rewards of life combined to create and spread a chronic, generalized, mild depression? Go ahead—dont think of the elephant now in the room. Dont think Dowd/Collins/Nagourney.
NEW DATA FOR RUSSERT: Here at THE HOWLER, the analysts love their uncle Chuck Todd; hes one of the nicest guys around—always has been. That much said, were happy for Chuck, because the new NBC/Wall Street Journal new poll will let him correct the accidental mistake Tim Russert absent-mindedly made on last Sundays Meet the Press (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/30/07).
The new polling was conducted from July 27-30. In it, Hillary Clinton is leading Rudy Giuliani, 47-41. This means that Clinton has beaten Giuliani in 11 of 13 major head-to-head polls, dating back to mid-June. She leads Giuliani in the most recent pair of polls, by Fox News and now by NBC.
And thats where the chance for redemption comes in! Completely by accident, Russert grossly misled NBC viewers on Sundays Meet the Press. At the time, Clinton had defeated Giuliani in 10 of 12 polls, including the most recent (Fox). But wouldnt you know it? Absent-mindedly, Russert discussed only two of these polls—the two polls which had Giuliani ahead! Without thinking about it for even an instant, he forgot to mention the other ten polls, the ones in which Clinton was leading!
Admittedly, its strange when Russert makes these inadvertent mistakes, because he boasts, in Big Russ & Me, that hes always prepared for Meet the Press. Why, its one of the things Big Russ taught him! But this was the second time in the past five weeks when Russert presented grossly misleading data—baldly misleading polling data which (completely by accident) poisoned the pool against Clinton. Now, his very own NBC poll shows Clinton ahead of Rudy! But uh-oh! Clinton had also beaten Giuliani the last time NBC polled, on June 8-11 (48-43). Apparently, due to egregious work by his staff, no one had bothered telling Tim.
If we know Russert, hes been kicking himself ever since he misled us the first time, on his July 1 program. Last Sunday, it never so much as crossed his mind that he was, completely by accident, picking those cherries again! And so, were happy that Chuck has new data for Russert—data which will surely produce an on-air clarification.
In the old days, of course, it would have been different. Mr. Russert, some underling would have said. Mr. Russert, we have some bothersome data—new data to run by Boss Welch.
Completing the record: In the new poll, Obama beats Giuliani, 45-40. (Those seem to be the only two match-ups which were polled.) Meanwhile, none of these differences mean much at this stage; if we were running a Sunday news program, we wouldnt waste much time on them. On the other hand, we wouldnt cherry-pick polls to keep enacting our Clinton-Gore hatred.
Not that Russert did that, of course. Such a thought is absurd.
Special report: Edwards speaks!
PART 2—GAIL COLLINS KNOWS TRIVIA: In one way, its a shame that Edwards spoke; its dangerous when the candidate feels that he has to do it himself. Instantly, outraged journalists go to work assailing the candidates press-baiting ways; silly lads, like the Times Nagourney, even compare him to bloggers (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/1/07). And this is what these sad lads do when the candidate doesnt even mention the press corps! No, it wasnt clear, when Edwards spoke, that he was talking about the press. But those who pretend to report your news are pretty much self-absorbed and miserable, just as Antonioni (through Holden) once said. It you even seem to criticize them, you will be marked for life-long reprisal. When Edwards spoke, he put a bulls-eye on his back. Just like that, Nagourney began firing.
But land o goshen! Whatever his intention, Edwards does describe the press corps work on that now-famous tape. Lets distract from the things that matter, he has his antagonists saying, three times. Let's talk about this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff. Did Edwards have the press in mind when he painted that damning portrait? We dont have the slightest idea. But he spoke in Iowa on July 26—and that very morning, Gail Collins had been talking about this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff in her New York Times column.
Change on the Cheap, her headline said—and in her column, she talked tangerines. Hours later, when Edwards spoke, he might have had Collins in mind. (If you google, you can find her full text.)
Indeed, Collins column was such an instant classic that weve struggled to figure out how to treat it. Its hard to do justice to such a piece in one posting; its such a masterwork of bad faith that it ought to go straight to the Smithsonian. In the future, young journalists should spend weeks on this column, learning the things that they must never do. That said, lets give Collins piece a foreshortened treatment. But it was a perfect piece to kick off that day—the day when Edwards spoke.
What was the essence of Collins column? As usual, she was snidely showing her readers what big phony fakers these Big Hopefuls are. And you know Collins! To prove that this was true of Edwards, she avoided citing the major things he has already done in this race.
Should Edwards be the Dem nominee? That, of course, is a matter of judgment. But every political writer knows that he has taken some major risks—the type of risks Big Hopefuls would (sensibly) prefer to avoid. In particular, he has done a naughty thing; he has laid out a detailed health plan, and he has said how hell pay for it! This matter has been widely described—by the New York Times Robert Pear, for example (March 25): John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, offered the most detailed plan for universal coverage, saying he would raise taxes to help pay the cost, which he estimated at $90 billion to $120 billion a year. More specifically, Edwards has said he will roll back tax cuts on households earning more than $200,000 per year, and he has proposed other tax adjustments.
Politically, this involves major risk.
Edwards has said that he will raise taxes! Typically, hopefuls prefer not to do this. But last Thursday, Collins was struggling to prove to her readers that Edwards Just Wont Tell It Straight. So she simply deep-sixed these big, basic facts. Instead, she discussed tangerines.
Thats right, readers; she talked tangerines! Something trivial! In South Carolina, Elizabeth Edwards apparently made an offhand comment about the way her husbands plan for global warming might raise the price of citrus fruit (due to transportation costs). When John Edwards (apparently) said he wasnt sure if his plan would make tangerines cost more, Collins—she loves the smell of trivia in the morning!—began to move in for the kill. Soon, the fakest person on the face of the earth was typing the following perfect blather—about an integrity litmus test! Darlings, it was simply delish! And needless to say, she didnt miss the chance to mention That Haircut:
COLLINS (7/26/07): Was Mr. Edwards prepared to admit that the public might have to give up tangerines in order to keep the polar bears from drowning in the Arctic?Omigod! Gail Collins was testing intellectual honesty! (More below.) Our analysts all jumped up and howled!
Collins managed to maintain this nonsense all through the course of the column. No news reporter anywhere in the country mentioned the day-long dispute about tangerine prices which Collins seemed to think shed observed. But Collins, huffing and blowing as always, kept snarkily letting her readers know what a Big Phony and Fake Edwards is. Later, she persisted with her integrity test. Because she had a point to make, she wouldnt take yes for an answer:
COLLINS: Which brings us back to the question of whether John Edwards is capable of admitting that his plan to end global warming—to save the planet—might require some American sacrifice on, say, the tangerine front.We would have taken that as a yes. But Collins, as always, was all about snark, as will shortly see.
First, lets review the chronology here. Elizabeth Edwards had brought up this point, apparently without any prompting. Later, John Edwards had said that there was a cost impact of some kind. (Its hard to know what was actually said, and in what tone. The best interviews for spinners like Collins are always the ones without transcripts or tapes.) But Collins had a treasured narrative, one she was desperately trying to type. Even after getting her yes, she couldnt help snaking about it:
COLLINS (continuing directly): Elizabeth Edwards joined in, pointing out that if produce that was shipped and trucked from far away got more expensive it would create incentives for people to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables. ''I think that's a good thing,'' she said.Sneering snidely, Collins snarked about the fact that Edwards had finally said something candid. And nowhere in this whole corrupt mess were readers ever told the obvious—that Edwards has said a lot of things that are (dangerously) candid in the course of this race. Readers were kept from hearing such facts so a darling could type up her narrative.
Collins, of course, did the same thing to Gore, in ways that were sometimes just ugly. Her sneering reference to Corey Martin (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/27/07) has always struck us as the meanest, least human moment from all of the Campaign 2000 coverage. Back then, the darlings simply didnt like Gore, just as, today, they dont like Edwards. Result? When Gore dared to ask about a sick child, Collins found a slick way to slime him.
Yes, its hard to be faker than that—but Collins is always willing to try. Last week, she found a new way to play her readers, sneering and snarking about tangerines.
But this has gone on for a very long time. Last week, on the day Edwards spoke, Collins produced a new classic.
THE TRAGEDY: The tragedy in Collins endless faking is found in the following part of her column. The sneering darling described one aspect of what she called tangerine day:
COLLINS: On tangerine day, the first stop of the Edwards campaign had been Kitty's Soul Food in Charleston, where some people waited two or more hours just to see the candidate and shake his hand. The early arrivals included P. J. Veber, whose husband dropped her off on his way to work at 8:30, and Katharine Bloder, a teacher who just wanted to ''ask him to get us out of Iraq.'' Mitch and Mandy Norrell drove 176 miles from the small town of Lancaster where they have a joint law practice. The Norrells, like Edwards, were the products of striving families of textile workers. Mandy specializes in bankruptcy law, and ''about a third of my filings are people who have to choose between mortgage and medical bills. That's why I love John Edwards. He gets it.''Does Edwards deserve the trust of those supporters? That, of course, is a matter of judgment. But Collins simply laughed in their faces, wondering if Edwards was honest enough to offer a price tag—while failing to say that hes already done so, in a wide range of ways.
John Edwards gets it, that supporter said. He cares about people who cant pay their medical bills. For years, it has been abundantly clear that these darlings do not. They mock them, each and every day, with their snide, sneering column.
SPEAKING OF INTEGRITY TESTS: Want to see Collins take some integrity tests? To see her play dumb about Fools for Scandal, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/27/99. To see her flip-flop mere days after trashing Gore, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/3/99. But mainly, just reread that tangerine day column, where she refuses to tell her readers that Edwards has already laid out some big price tags. But darlings, he wont talk straight about tangerines! What a sweet break from the boredom!
JOE CHEERED, WE GROANED: When Collins resumed her column on July 21, Joe Klein enthused, Welcome Back, Gail, and praised her for the way she zings. But we had already groaned that morning. We had already read the full, snarky passage from which Joe had taken his zinger:
COLLINS (7/21/07): The presidential debates have come to resemble a police lineup with all the wrong suspects. The main action involves a moderator telling people that their 90 seconds are up. On Monday, the Democrats will be at it again on CNN—all eight of them.Darlings, it was delectable! For the record, John Kerry never seems to go away because the people of Massachusetts elected him to represent them. But in the world of these simpering darlings, those people exist to be played.
In fact, Collins column that morning was empty and stupid. But then, her columns quite commonly are. Her latest piece, in todays New York Times, is her latest insult to the discourse—her latest tribute to upper-class anomie. Darlings, Collins is all about trivia—this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff.
Well start with todays nonsense-column tomorrow. But: To see a transaction these darlings so typically make, we strongly suggest that you read it. And as you do so, try to remember the things Stephen Holden said.
TOMORROW—EDWARDS SPEAKS, PART 3: No one (but Krugman) knows health care.