Boehlert has long done superlative work. Thats why were troubled when he seems to fall for a fad—a fad that is currently spooking the web. And thats why we answer his question from Friday: Why has the mainstream media ignored the [Jeff Gannon] scandal?
Of course, we cant say why news orgs have behaved as they have. But why might the press have ignored this story? Could it be because its hopelessly trivial? In our view, the fascination with this story is another sign of the liberal webs imperfect judgment—its tendency to confuse the wheat with the chaff, its inability to get a read on what sort of stories really matter.
Readers, why would a mainstream news org spend its time on this trivial story? Until last month, no one had ever heard of Jeff Gannon. At the time, he worked for Talon News—and no one had ever heard of them either! And except for one stupid question he posed to George Bush, Gannon-Guckerts terrible sin was asking dumb questions of Scott McClennan, another person no one has heard of! Meanwhile, Gannon is hardly the only conservative kook asking dumb questions at McClellans daily sessions. For example, kooky talk host Les Kinsolving asks stupid questions in this forum every day—and no one has ever said Boo about that. Its not clear why readers of any big paper would gives a rats *ss about Gannons behavior. Why did news orgs ignore this story? Perhaps because it simply aint news! Perhaps because no one in the fifty states gives a rats *ss about Gannons questions. (Note to readers: Insert brief passage in which we pretend that were really concerned about White House security.)
In short, Gannons conduct just isnt real news—which may be why news orgs have ignored it. What matters to us, though, is a troubling fact: The liberal web thinks that its news.
How much odd judgment goes into the webs interest in the Gannon matter? To show the lack of perspective involved, heres part of a recent post on the subject from Jeffrey Dubner at Tapped:
DUBNER: [T]he mainstream media may be overlooking Gannongate because the established segment of the left-wing echo chamber is as well. Look, after all, at Easongate and Rathergate; how much were they propelled by independent bloggers and how much by The National Review? Having asked the question, though, I don't think it's really important; the size and volume of the right-wing echo chamber is just so much greater than the left-wing equivalent that we always have less sway.The problem here is Dubners sense that Gannongate is comparable to the other two stories. The comparison is completely far-fetched. After all, Rathergate involved a bungled story by CBS Dan Rather, one of the most famous broadcasters of the past forty years; and the bungled story played a key role in a White House election. How can this be compared to the Gannon matter, in which a person no one ever heard of asked a stupid question one time? Trust us: Karl Roves klatch must rock with laughter to see the liberal web so distracted. And while we boo-hoo about the lack of coverage, we might recall that Easongate also received little mainstream coverage. Unlike the Gannon matter, Easongate involved a big player from a major news org. But it got little mainstream coverage until hapless Eason resigned.
Sorry. The Gannon story is trivial as a matter of news; as a matter of liberal politics, it isnt likely to interest the public. But alas—the liberal web doesnt seem to know that. Indeed, note the difference between the webs two spheres. The conservative web, yapping loudly, arranges to take out a Big Major Player. In retaliation, the liberal web goes after a Complete Total Nobody, then complains when it doesnt get coverage! And by the way: When the conservative web went after Rather, the liberal web didnt know how to treat it. Next week, well review the way the liberal web treated the Rather bungle—and well get another look at the liberal webs lack of important Master Narratives.
As readers may have noticed, weve begun to lose patience, in the past few months, with aspects of the liberal web. If liberals and centrists are ever to have potent messages, they will have to emerge from the liberal web. The Democratic Party is too hopeless to form them; big mainstream pundits wont perform the task either, unless theyre forced by folks on the web. For that reason, its troubling when the liberal web thinks Jeff Gannon is a Big Story. Sorry—as news or as politics, Gannon blows chunks. And omigod—now theyve got Boehlert! Seeing that break in the natural order, incomparably, we rise here to speak.
THE MIGHTY QUINN: Finally, a statement by Charles Krauthammer makes a major press insider mad! In this mornings Post, Sally Quinn echoes our past remarks about the gender problems of Sideways. I hated it, Quinn confides. Most of the women I know feel the same way. Needless to say, you heard it here first, although we also found the film quite amusing.
That said, we scope the contenders:
Finding Neverland. Could anyone makes a duller film bio?Two we thought were better:
The Aviator. Omigod! Somebody did!
Sideways. As Quinn observes, a classic male fantasy. Creates modern films most soulful character. Instantly drops her like a rock.
Million Dollar Baby. A well-wrought tone poem. But whats up with Clints now-repetitive gloomy tone? Explanation: Its all about Clint! At the end, he rides off silently into the west, the way the big stars always do. Mopping up for the final time, Morgan Freeman gives the closing narration.
Ray. We thought this film was loaded with merit, but a bit short of a Best Picture.
Maria Full of Grace. The most fascinating study of manners and morals we have seen in quite a long time. And then, of course:
Hotel Rwanda. No, its isnt great film art, something we especially noticed on second viewing. But the importance of Hotel Rwandas meditation dwarfs that of the five nominees combined. With most films, we find ourselves wondering why anyone bothered to make it. In the case of the dissed Hotel, no one is likely to ask.