THE SMALL, INANE DETAIL! A farm-state pol was seen without socks! To Brokaw, this was a key detail: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2009
They cant stop loving her: To borrow from the Ray Charles hit, They cant stop loving her! Last night, Howard Fineman was Olbermanns very first guest. Fairly quickly, his ardor exploded:
For certain male pundits of Finemans daft class, all roads still lead to Miss Lewinsky! They keep choosing to live their lives in dreams of yesterday.
To Olbermanns credit, he expressed mild pique with Finemans drift. But when his next guest drifted off to the same place, he was too tired to bother:
Readers, can you see the way these people think? When Fineman was asked about Leon Panetta, it made him think of Miss Lewinsky. But then, when Alter was asked about Roland Burriss, he ended up there too.
Those happy hours that they once knew! Olbermann himself was egregious last night; well probably look at some topics tomorrow. But its been ten years since these fellows met Miss Lewinskyand they still cant quit her.
PART 2THE SMALL, INANE DETAIL: Wouldnt you know it? Another heartwarming-but-bogus, feel-good tale is debunked in todays New York Times! (Motoko Rich does the honors again. You know what to dojust click here.) This time, its a plagiarized Christmas talea heartwarming story which was published, then taken down, by Beliefnet.com. As we noted in yesterdays post: People love to tell Simple Storiesthe type of tale which is too good to check. And uh-oh! Such stories have dogged American journalism over the past many years.
In a rational world, journalists would be inclined to doubt Simple Storiesand theyd be inclined to fact-check. But in the past few decades, our public discourse has been fueled by a string of daft, inane tales. Consider the insulting nonsense penned by Tom Brokaw in the December 28 New York Times magazine. Dumb stories dont get much dumber than thisor more typical of the dreck which has shaped our political discourse.
Brokaw was penning a remembrance of the late Tim Russert, his long-time friend and colleague. As is required by Hard Pundit Law, he shaped his piece around an Approved Standard Notion: Russert was Everyday Man. After a bunch of silly blather comparing Russert to footballs John Madden, Brokaw got around to his story. It helps us appreciate the depth of the nonsense which still drives the multimillionaire, pseudo-journalist world:
We must rely on Brokaw for the truth of this story. But the tale is sadly typical of the way your discourse has been dragged down in the hands of these millionaire ciphers.
Alas! Tim believed the small, telling detail can say a great deal about the larger failings or vulnerabilities of a politician, Brokaw reports. Sadly, this belief has led us down the path to ruin in recent decades. In recent decades, public ciphers like Russert and Brokaw have persistently peddled Silly Group Stories built around small, telling detailssmall details said to help us see some Big Major Pols tragic failings. Often these details were patently ludicrous: John Kerry ordered the wrong kind of cheese for his cheesesteak! Often, these details were factually bogus: Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal! (The press corps repeated this crap for a month, although it was patently false.). But transparent losers like Brokaw and Russert have dined out on such silly stories for decades. Way back in 1972, Ed Muskie cried about his wife Jane until it turned out, twenty-four years later, that he quite probably hadnt. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/28/07.
By now, youd almost think that people like Brokaw would have been shamed, by public events, into dropping this practice of telling these stories. But there he was, in the Times magazine, recalling yet another take with a small, telling detail. Good God! Some politician spent part of every year on Nantucketand while he was there, he didnt wear socks! To people as foolish as Brokaw and Russert, this is the sort of telling detail which lets us peer into pols souls.
The sheer stupidity here is obvious. So too the apparent hypocrisy, if you know a fact Brokaw forgot to mentionif you know that Russert, the middle-brow king, spent part of every year on Nantucket too. In fact, he summered there, in a $6 million home; hed jet there to write his self-glorying books about his sad, working-class background. And it didnt take long for one savvy scribe to show the total hypocrisy involved in Brokaws silly new tale (just click here). At The New Republic, Jason Zengerle posted this photo of Russert on the island. The great man was wearing a pair of loafersand sadly enough, no socks:
Brokaws story was inane on its facebut people like Brokaw have ruined your lives with stories like this for at least several decades. Through some spreading mental defect, they seem to believe that their small, telling details actually show us the souls of Big Pols. Of course, the small, telling details they choose to spread tend to be aimed at Big Pols they disfavor. And uh-oh! When no such telling details exist, they have tended to dream details up. What kind of nation lets palace dwellers of this type keep changing the shape of world history?
One more photo, from Brokaws actual piece. This photo shows the great Average Joe at one of his sons high school football games:
If you understand the genre, you know what this photo is supposed to convey: Timothy Russert, great though he was, was just a regular sports fan and dad. This has been standard NBC cant ever since Russerts ascension to power. Russert was the working-class Buffalo fan; Brian Williams is the guy who adores all things NASCAR. In this way, NBC builds its audience, permitting the network to pay these ciphers their $10 million per year.
Russert was just like the other dads, as we can plainly see in that photo. Except the other dads sat up in the stands, while Russert went down and posed by the scoreboardposed there for a professional photographer who just happened to be nearby. The game was tiedand time was expiring. Why wasnt he up in the stands?
Yes, Brokaw and Russert have been deeply inanebut then too, theyve also been deeply dishonest. At any rate, they and their cohort have simply loved the stories with those small, telling detailsthe small, telling details behind the daft tales which have now changed all our lives.
By the way: Three cheers for Zengerle.
TOMORROWPART 3: Did Kristof fact-check?