TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004
THE ENDLESS BUMMER: Yes, it actually happened. With two minutes left in Sunday mornings Dem debate, moderator Dan Rather asked for a two-minute drill. One Q-and-A burned up 45 seconds. I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15, Rather said. Then the New York Times Elizabeth Bumiller asked a question. With a minute of time to split four ways, here is the question she asked:
BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. Hes made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on Americas side.Lets say it again, in case youre incredulous. Helping to moderate a presidential debate, Bumiller asked four hopefuls to sayreally quick and really fastwhether God is on Americas side.
Where does one start in discussing such foolishness? Perhaps here: Bumillers question barely stood out, given the tonnage of sheer inanity the debates moderators had already put on display. Bumiller was fatuous from beginning to end; her vacuous questions were only matched by her determined refusal to let anyone answer them. But the Gotham Times ace was hardly alone in her serial foolishness. For example, we were stunned to see local CBS anchor Andrew Kirtzman persist in asking (and re-asking) Senator Edwards if his constituents really knew how big his house is. Did you think that ABCs Billy Bush embarrassed himself Sunday night, asking weird questions on Oscars red carpet? If so, you should have seen this Gang of 3 as it conducted this nations great business.
Really quick, is God on Americas side? For us, the sheer stupidity of Bumillers question almost seems to answer itself. As we have often asked in the past: What have we ever done as a people to call down this plague of journalistic inanity? A Dirty Little Secret was revealed once again: The people who steward your discourse just arent very sharp. Really fast, is God on our side? If Bumiller takes a look in the mirror she will get a hint of an answer. Our question: What did we ever do to call forth this plague under which we all suffer?
THE MORNING AFTER: Here are four of Bumillers last five questions, spread out over roughly two-thirds of the debate:
BUMILLER (pgh 1): When President Bush announced his support last week for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, his body language in the Roosevelt Room did not seem to match his words. Mr. Bush may have forcefully defended the union of a man and a woman as the most fundamental institution of civilization, but even some White House officials said he appeared uncomfortable.Like all scribes of her vacuous class, Bumiller begins with body language, then is gulled by a White House admission that is, more likely, a White House spin-point. (Its clear that the White House would like us to feel that Bush is reluctant to act in this area.) Soon, Bumiller was discussing another irrelevancethe way Mr. Bushs friends say that the president is quite comfortable with gays. Passing on a lengthy anecdote, the Times ace recorded a fact:
BUMILLER: Although the presidents behavior might reinforce the view among his critics that he was acting cynically when he endorsed the amendment, the fact is that he has a record of tolerance in personal situations.To Bumiller, this unverifiable account of how Bush seemed (in one instance) establishes the fact of his personal tolerance. Please dont make us take our time explaining how foolish (and irrelevant) this is.
Where do they come from? Where do they find them? What have we done to deserve their rule? A deeply dysfunctional professional class sits at the head of our national discourse. If you watched Bumiller on Sunday morning, interrupting answers to fatuous questions, you understand why weve railed, for years, at this terrible problem we face.
ALL THE WAY WITH DDK: At his Boston Phoenix Media Log site, Dan Kennedy was startled by Bumiller too. Why not visit his incomparable archives? You know what to dojust click here.
8. IS NOT ENOUGH: Weve read that Jennifer 8. Lee does throw great parties, but she may not reesun reel gud. In this mornings Times, Lee describes the way Dennis Kucinich is currently viewed in his Cleveland home district. To explain her judgments, she quotes three voters. Heres the first voter she cites:
LEE: He has done some good locally, but I think hes gone bananas, said Mary V. Ridill, 79 and a resident of the western suburb of Lakewood who said she thought she had voted for Mr. Kucinich in the past.Yes, thats what the piece really says. Lee quotes only three voters; the first one says Kucinich has gone bananas. But just who is this fiery constituent? She is an elderly voter who cant even recall if she has voted for Kucinich in the past!
Nothing in this piece suggests that Lee has done any serious research. Nothing suggests that she actually knows what voters now think of Kucinich. And of course, many scribes will quote random voters because theyve said what the scribe herself thinks. But rarely do reporters pull back the curtain this far. Pleased with a colorful quote from this voter, Lee overlooked her apparent infirmities. Let them eat spoiled bananas, the Times said. What on earth did we ever do to deserve such an under-ripe press corps?
TOMORROW: Is Kerry a liberal?
MELS BELLS: There are intelligent criticisms to be made of Mel Gibsons new filmand then, there are the critiques being written. Again this morning, Richard Cohen let us see what happens when pundits fight dumb, silly wars. Whats wrong with Gibsons new film, The Passion? It is fascistic, Cohen proclaims, right at the end of his opening paragraph. Wow! And just what makes the film fascistic? Simple. The film is fascistic, Cohen explains, because he found himself unmoved by the suffering it shows! Yes, that really is what he says. If you want to try to puzzle it out, you know what to do: Just click here.
Like Mary Gordons piece on Sunday (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/1/04), Cohens piece is notable for its odd pseudo-logic. But thats what happens when people sign up as conscripts in vain, silly culture wars. No, Gibsons film doesnt seem fascistic, and Cohens reasoning defies comprehension. But just as conservatives all knew they must say it was good, liberals know they must say that theyre holier than Mel. Cohen is merely the latest to offer a puzzling rant about Gibsons new offering.
Final point: What do people typically do when they dont get a movie which others are moved by? If they care enough to bother, they ask other people why theyre moved by the film. But there isnt a word in Cohens piece to suggest that he has tried to do this. In the past week, major newspapers have offered accounts in which people explain why theyre moved by The Passion. Here at THE HOWLER, we dont share their response, but we dont pretend that these folks dont existor that they must be haters and Nazis. Are they all fascists? Are Ebert and Roeper fascism-lovers because they gave the film two thumbs way up? Cohen does what pundits do when theyre gulled into fighting dumb wars. He finds that he is bored by a film. Quickly, he gets extra-ugly.
LOST IN TRANSLATION: One more point about The Passionthe Aramaic proved tougher than we had thought. The film is more than two hours long. But by the end, we were still forced to rely on the sub-titles for translation.