Derek Thompson singles out Maureen Dowd, but he might also
have been thinking of Frank Rich.
After all, who better to epitomize a journalist who writes about
politics as though it were theatre? A theatre critic by trade-- previously having
reviewed shows for the New York Times-- Rich now offers commentary on the
political scene from his perch at New York Magazine.
We know how severely Maureen Dowd has chastised Hillary
Clinton, but here is Rich, a fervent liberal Democrat, on Hillary’s handling of
her email server problem:
That it
took Clinton as long as it did to respond to the rising chorus of these
questions, and that she did so as defensively and unconvincingly as she did, is
yet more evidence that she’s not ready for the brutality of a presidential
campaign. This hastily called, abruptly truncated press conference was
reminiscent of the mistakes she made last year in her ill-fated book tour. She
didn’t schedule yesterday’s appearance until after the most senior of
Democratic senators, Dianne
Feinstein, essentially demanded that she speak up.
Some of
what Clinton said didn’t pass the smell test. It reminded me of an episode in
the first season of Veep where
the vice-president announces she will release all her internal office
correspondence to quell a controversy and then instructs her staff to make sure
it’s “Modified Full Disclosure Lite.” That’s what we got here. Why, for
instance, would Clinton say that she “didn’t
see any reason to keep” her personal emails? Those are precisely the emails
that every American keeps.
If she
doesn’t become more forthright and less defensive when she’s under fire, this
is going to be a very long campaign for her. Though we keep being told that she
and those around her are determined not to repeat the mistakes of 2008, so far
there’s no evidence of that. And the much tougher questions — starting with
those about
the donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation — are
yet to come.
Rich is not going to convert to Republicanism, but his
analysis rings true. Having been written six weeks ago it feels prescient.
While Thompson is correct to say that journalists indulge in
too much theatre criticism and not enough policy analysis, one must also note
that theatre criticism attracts and holds the attention of far more readers
than does policy analysis.
Beyond the fact that a newspaper or magazine that does not
attract readers will not long survive, most citizens prefer entertainment to
rational debate. In many cases it’s the only way they can understand what is
going on.
Before we blame the writers, we should look at the audience
and the marketplace.
Then again, many journalists who are writing about political
theatre do not know enough to perform policy analysis.
Be that as it may, Thompson takes Maureen Dowd to task in
these paragraphs:
… Maureen
Dowd criticized Clinton for not adequately performing the following parts:
"Macho Man," "Humble Granny," "Tumblr Chick," and
a "clawing robot who has coveted the role as leader of the free world for
decades." This is the same writer who recently blasted President Obama for not
demonstrating sufficient joy in the Oval Office and who, 15 years ago,
wrote that
Democratic presidential candidate "Al Gore is so feminized ... he's
practically lactating."
This
guide to presidential etiquette is, at best, punctilious, and, at worst,
nonsensical: Disliking the presidency is a sin, and so is coveting it. A nerd
being himself is effeminate, trying to appeal to your audience is craven, but
changing your message in reaction to critics who call you out for cravenness?
Well, that's downright condemnable. These sort of writers have painted a
behavioral strike zone where a candidate can miss high by being too aware that
politics is performance art, or miss low by being too cool to play the part.
One accepts Thompson’s point, but the spectacle of a leading
New York Times columnist trash-talking Hillary Clinton and Al Gore does have
redeeming social value.
To allow Thompson his say, he defines the problem thusly:
A great
deal of political writing these days is indistinguishable from theater criticism:
Its chief concerns are storyline, costumes, and the quality of public
performances.
True enough, and yet the optics, as they now call it, do
matter. Until the American people decide to choose presidents on the basis of
competence and positive achievement, optics are the default position.
Thompson intimates, but does not quite say it, that
politicians who have not accomplished very much tend to promote themselves by
looking presidential. One can easily summon up the name of a current president
who is all show and no substance.
In a culture that is based on celebrity, how you look has
come to take the place of what you have achieved.
It might be that too
many people cannot tell the difference between confidence that comes
from achievement and simulated confidence that has been mastered
by politicians who have figured out how to act the part.
According to Thompson, they use what is called method
acting:
In the
early twentieth century, the famous acting coach Constantin Stanislavski
devised a theater method that called for "psycho-physical unity." The
central conceit is that when actors get a part, they ought to plumb their
emotional memories and their arsenal of physical gestures to fully render the
psychological life of the prescribed character….
In
Stanislavski's method, verisimilitude is inside-out. What the audience sees as
authenticity comes from the performer's authentic connection to her inner life.
The opposite can also be true: If the audience doesn't see it, the actor must
not feel it.
One believes, as one has occasionally said, that method
acting, the inside/out expression of deep feeling has been a ruinous influence
on the American theatre and the American movie business.
In the end, it does not matter what the actor is feeling. What
matters is how it looks to the audience. Being angry or jealous is not the same
thing as looking as though one is angry or jealous in order to sustain the telling of a story. Emotional authenticity is a ruse.
I assume that Thompson is getting at the fact that many political
journalists do not know the difference between a candidate who presents himself
as having achieved something and a candidate who can make himself look confident.
To use an example that by now is a cliché: David Brooks believed in the future
of Barack Obama because of the crease of his trousers.
In Thompson’s words:
This
sort of Stanislavski critique is weirdly common among journalists who assume
that when a candidate has trouble connecting
with audiences, it is not a sign that they are, say, uncomfortably shy or
naturally reserved. It is, rather, a deeper failure on the part of the
candidate's character—a failure to find psycho-physical unity with the part
we've all decided the candidate should play before the footlights of a national
campaign.
Since the American press, to a person, decided that neither competence
nor achievement mattered in the case of our current president, they systematically
failed to fulfill one of the basic functions of journalism: to inform the
public.
Not just about policy matters, but about resume. What
significant achievements does the candidate bring to his campaign? What makes
him competent to do the job of president?
While it is true enough that the marketplace prefers theatre
criticism, journalists are not innocent victims.
They have, in the past gone far beyond mere theatre
criticism by purveying biased coverage of candidates. They seem more interested
in telling people who to vote for than in reporting on campaigns.
And they are suffering the after-shocks of an educational
system that prefers to tell people what to think rather than to teach them how
to think.
4 comments:
We've been So Lucky. During every crisis since our Founding (and during it) we've had leaders who could pull us thru.
We've also had a citizenry that came together and did their patriotic best.
I wonder if either condition exists now. I don't know. -- Rich Lara
re: They have, in the past gone far beyond mere theatre criticism by purveying biased coverage of candidates. They seem more interested in telling people who to vote for than in reporting on campaigns.
It sounds like Carl Bernstein (Watergate reporter) would agree about much of this failure of Journalism. He spoke last week in Minnesota, with article below and audio for anyone interested.
Is it the responsibility of a reporter to be provocative (to get people to read further), or give unbiased contradictory facts from multiple sources without analysis or opinion?
Bernstein's answer is “The best obtainable version of the truth.” but there are yet 2-issues - how to identify such best truth, and how to communicate it without leading people into a nonthinking slumber.
http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/04/carl-bernstein-makes-case-best-obtainable-version-truth
54 minute audio:
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/04/20/mpr_news_presents
Rich,
You may be right. The education system has become a glorified day care center and academe is nothing more that an adult, I use the term adult loosely here, day care center generally operated by people who never succeeded in growing up.
Given the above is it any wonder that those who graduated, again advisedly, fail to meet the requirements to solve problems and take responsibility for their actions and lives.
How can one expect adult actions out of people who need "trigger warning" and "safe places" when someone may use words that might offend them in some way or manner?
My advise to ISIS, et al is not to use guns and bombs, but to use words that are guaranteed to have a significant number of people running to "safe places" to cower. That way only a few people will be left to fight back. The nation's military and civilian leadership is doing its best to demoralize them.
When there are no more people who consider themselves American then there will be no more America.
Post a Comment