FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2003
IN WHICH WE AGREE WITH A MAILER: Yesterday, we received a critical e-mail with whose views we sympathize. Heres what the e-mailer said:
E-MAILER: The HowlerI used to enjoy it, because of its general acerbity. But all you do now is to make accusations of base corruption against people for holding opinions with which you disagree. It is unseemly, and a turnoff.Careful readers will roar in protest. We beat this e-mailer to it, theyll note, with our incomparable recent remarks, in which we threatened to deep-six THE HOWLER. Why, we came down hard on our own ugly tone! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/10/03.
Yes, as a matter of taste, we agree with the e-mailers sentiments. For years, TDH was aggressively polite, and we argued aggressively against motive journalism. But long years passed, and we finally learned better, even if our e-mailer did not.
Lets start with the topic at hand, Russell Bakers recent post in the New York Review. Now tell us truly: Does the mailer believe, for even a minute, that only Paul Krugman understood the matters he discussed in the past three years? That only Paul Krugman understood these matters, even after Paul Krugman explained them? Sorrywe find that claim so completely absurd that it can only be taken as insult. And after reading such fake, phony postings over the course of the past six years, weve lost our ability to chuckle slyly and honor the fakers and phonies who post them. As weve said, we wish it had been someone other than Baker, but at some point you must stand with Don Corleone. I refused to be a fool, the mumbling don memorably said.
Why do we tend to jump on such nonsense? Perhaps because weve seen it so much. Baker offers an absurd explanation of why his colleagues stood quietly by. But weve seen such performances down through the years. Book it: No oneno oneis more disingenuous than Americas professional press corps. Back in the fall of 1999, for example, we praised Howard Kurtz for his efforts on Reliable Sourcesfor his fine efforts, on two separate shows, to get fellow scribes to offer their thoughts about the trashing being handed to Gore. And what happened? Both his panels scratched their heads, completely unable to figure out why their colleagues were trashing the hopeful. To state the obvious, those pundits were faking. Your interests were grossly insulted that day, just as in Bakers absurd piece this week. Here at THE HOWLER, weve lost the will to pretend this is all A-OK.
We were raised to be polite, to trust the policeman down at the corner. But, as weve tried to tell you all week, the cop at the corner has walked off his post! He served you garbage during Campaign 2000pure steaming garbage, which decided that raceand he offers you more heaps of garbage today, telling you that his colleagues stood silent because only Krugman understood. Can Baker possibly believe such twaddle? Here at THE HOWLER, we dont have a clue. But last week, his editors served you pure pornpolitical porn from the pen of McMurtry. This week, they give you ludicrous tales about why their fine colleagues sat silent. Does there ever come a time when Americans refuse to accept such rank clowning? Sorry: For reasons we dont fully understand, we just cant read this crap any more without observing what is so obvious. The best lack conviction, just as Yeats said. And they spend large chunks of their time trying to obscure that plain fact.
Three timesbeginning, middle and endBaker said they just didnt know. But as we noted on Tuesday, at one point Baker did suggest the root of the actual problem:
BAKER: The healthy income of top Washington-based political writers may also have an effect. For those with a foot or two in television, the income is very healthy indeed. Six-figure incomes are the rule, and those seen frequently as TV performers may be millionaires. We are talking of people who may well be in that top bracket so generously favored by the Bush tax cuts. Self-interest almost always begets a little prudence.Self-interest begets a little prudence, Baker says. In short: Your celebrity pundits are now millionaires, and they read the papers accordingly. But millionaire status also begets the feckless attitudes of your actual press. It begets the actual attitudes driving their silence, the actual attitudes Margaret Carlson described during Campaign 2000. Why were pundits focused on trivial fabrications by Gore? Why were they ignoring larger fabrications by Bushfabrications (Carlsons word) about major policy matters? Carlson didnt insult your intelligence by saying that only Krugman understood. Instead, she told you something resembling the truthit was just more fun to trash Gore, she told Imus! You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas, she said. But its really easy, and its fun, to disprove Gore. Why were her colleagues ignoring big policy questions? Carlson explained that part too:
CARLSON (10/10/00): I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we cant disprove these other things.Almost surely, Carlson was being disingenuous too, failing to mention the corps obvious hostility to Clinton and Gore. But at least she didnt insult your intelligence by saying that only Paul Krugman understood. Carlson was a bit more frank. We just dont give a shit, the scribe said.
And because they dontmillionaires can be like thatyour press corps keeps wandering off from its post. Yes, its much more politeit feels much betterto pretend they still perform in good faith. But at what point does our e-mailer tire of being insulted, right to his face? We do share the e-mailers sensibility: We dont like the gruesome tone that now pervades THE HOWLER, either. But weve grown tired of playing the fool. Only Krugman knew, Baker said. To us, thats so dumb its an insult.
Alas! Like powdered elites from the dawn of time, this elite wont change until forced. Polite corrections will have no effect, as we proved during Campaign 2000. So in closing, lets repeat an assignment. Maybe youll accept the way these lords and ladies mock your own interests. If so, read Ivins and Duboses chapter 4; see if you can feel repulsed at the way your high pundits sell off Sherry Durst. They could spend their time on stuff like thaton the way high elites, like Eugene Scalia, sell the interests of people like Durst. But as sport, its much more fun not to do so. By the way: Are you prepared to be told, in three years time, that only Molly Ivins understood?
CHRIS MATTHEWS IS FULL OF INTENSITY: The best lack all conviction, Yeats groused, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. With those gloomy musings in mind, we turn our gaze to the New York Observer, where a mercifully unnamed editorial writer praises Chris Matthews, Cables Brilliant Bulldog. What happens when the best walk away from their post? This sort of thing starts to happen:
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER: From being parodied on Saturday Night Live for his loud, staccato delivery, Mr. Matthews is now being taken seriously as a reliable journalist. The September viewership of his weekday 7 p.m. show on MSNBC, Hardball, jumped 35 percent over last year. In New York, his Sunday-morning NBC program, The Chris Matthews Show, has beaten CBSs Face the Nation and ABCs This Week with Mr. Stephanopoulos. His book, American, is a New York Times best-sellerIncrediblesimply incredible. In fact, no one made a bigger joke of your last election than Matthews did, with his loud, incessant dissembling. We know its more polite not to notice, but Matthews sells your interests for sport. For a taste of his work during Campaign 2000, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/02. (Scroll down to How to spin the Buddhist temple.) Warning: This is only a tiny taste of the way Matthews trashed your election.
By the way, why didnt you ever hear about this from the corps lords and ladies? We suggest you write Bakerand his fake, phony editorsand ask them why they kept so quiet. Or perhaps we can guess at the answer theyll give: Even after THE HOWLER explained it, none of our crowd understood.
IMMINENT BULLROAR: In our view, there would be no dishonor in saying this: We sincerely believed that Saddam Husein posed a serious threat to America. After all, thats what President Bush kept saying. Heres one part of his seminal speech on October 7, 2002:
BUSH: Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.On any given day, Iraq could give its WMDs to terrorists. In so doing, Iraq could attack Americaon any given day. This portrait was drawn for months on end. Yes, it meant that Iraq posed a threat. Quite explicitly, the threat was immediate.
In the State of the Unionalmost four months laterBush said there was no imminent threat. Scripted flunkies now spin the point hard. But plainly, Bush had described an immediate threat. He ought to stop all the cutting and pasting and say this: We believed in the threat.
Of course, lords and ladies wont get in this mess. They really dont know what Bush said.