THIS JUST INFROM 1986! Jay Rosen defines the sphere of devianceand leaves some key things out: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, JANUARY 19, 2009
Pete and Woodyand Dr. King: Its a little hard to believe, but Pete Seeger started out at Harvard, in the same freshman class as Jack Kennedy. But Pete left Harvard, then traveled with Woody. Yesterday, he was spotted in public singing the gentlemans most famous song.
The song became anthemized long ago, and so can be hard to hear.
But what a transplendent song it is! In our view, it contains the most brilliant short definition of one part of the American experience. (I roamed and I rambled/I followed my footsteps...) But as the singer roams and rambles, helike prophets of the Old Testamenthears voices calling all around him. He hangs between heaven and earth:
The song records ecstatic (secular American) experience. Good luck, then, to President Obama! And by the way: Pete can sometimes seem mildly annoying; our taste runs more to his half-brother, Mike Seeger, our favorite performer of any kind of all time. But last years American Masters profile (The Power of Song) may be the most insightful profile weve ever seen of any performer (just click here). Has anyone ever understood his brief any better than Pete Seeger has? Dr. King would be one such person, of course. He shows up in that profile too, transcending one more of his origins.
This week, many people hear voices calling. Woody wrote it down, way back when. Some things are just worth singin about, Pete said in another film, years ago.
This just infrom 1986: We were a bit surprised when Glenn Greenwald gushed about this PressThink post by Jay Rosen. (For Glenns post, just click here.) We were surprised because Glenn is very smart. In our view, Jays piece simply isnt, not this timealthough its perfectly accurate.
In our view, Jay presents a highly jargonized account of a numbingly familiar ideaan idea which surely must be old-hat to anyone on the liberal web. But Jays piece comes complete with a graphicand with some catchy language, drawn from a 23-year-old book. In fairness, a catchy phrase will sometimes stick in the mind, hastening the spread of a basic idea and thereby increasing its power. On the other hand, academized accounts of simple ideas will often distract us from real understanding. We find ourselves in pointless debates about the jargon, and perhaps about the graphic. (Is it better or worse than the Overton Window?) In the process, the spread of real understanding takes a backseat to pseudo-debates.
What did Jay claim in his post? He refers us to a book by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin (just click here); the book appeared in 1986, when its basic ideas may well have been fresh and thought-provoking. You can read Jays piece for yourselves. But basically, Hallin argued that journalists of the 1960s and 1970s (!) tended to divide the world of ideas into three separate-but-unequal regions:
Fight for consciousness as we continue, working our way from the bottom!
According to Hallin (and now Rosen), the sphere of deviance represented the realm of ideas mainstream journalists wouldnt even discuss, so far were they thought to be from the mainstream. (In Hallins language, these were political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.) In an excellent example, Jay notes that todays mainstream press simply wont debate the merits of single-payer health care. Single-payer aint worth discussing; it lies beyond the pale. (We all saw this in 2007when Sanjay Gupta played some unfortunate games with Michael Moores documentary, Sicko.)
You can probably take it from there. The sphere of legitimate debate represents those ideas which the press is willing to discuss. The sphere of consensus represents those ideas which are taken to be so bleedingly obvious that everyone agrees theyre correctthe things on which everyone is thought to agree, in Jays formulation.
In short, the press corps takes some ideas to be obvious; is willing to debate some ideas; and refuses to discuss certain others. At this late date, its hard to know how anyone could find such notions intriguingalthough they may have been thought-provoking when Hallin presented them, 23 years in the past. In Rosens treatment, these ideas are about as fresh as an essay declaring that grass is green. Indeed, the most straightforward reaction Jay got, out of many, was this semi-contradictory post at a semi-eponymous web site:
We agree with the part of the passage weve highlightedwhich makes us wonder why Markos began as he did, with all that oleaginous kissing of keister. Duh! The modern mainstream press corps routinely pimps its conventional wisdom! In all candor, thats all Jay has managed to say in his highly-jargonized post. But then, everyone on the web already knew thatlearned it eons ago. Can you even remember a time when that notion seemed new or informative?
Well say it again: We think Jays post is a jargonized version of something everyone already knows. But even as Jay burns valuable time academizing a simple idea, he drops some key ideas by the wayside. He reduces the things we should know by now as he goes back to the future. Two examples:
These practices take us well beyond the problem Hallin identified back in the dim, distant past. In fact, Jays presentation drags us back to the futurereturns us to a simpler critique, a critique which no longer captures the depth of the actual problem. But then, as we reach the (probable) end of an era with tomorrows inauguration, Jays treatment of Hallins framework skips over another significant practicea practice which has helped defined the journalism of the Clinton/Bush era. For sixteen years, Big Dems have been trashed by the mainstream pressand the liberal press has agreed not to notice! Alas! Even today, the career liberal press agrees not to discuss some of the most fundamental journalistic practices of the past sixteen years.
As of tomorrow, that erathe era of Big Dem-bashinghas most likely come to an end. But what sphere of deviance informs the world in which this era still cant be discussed? As we near the end of an era, why do its history-changing practices still escape Jays critique? Why are we discussing Hallins critique of the 1960s instead? What will it take before we stop fleeing whats recent for what is long past?
Tomorrow: Direct from the liberal worlds sphere of deviance, the shape of a 16-year age.