Photoshop of the Day

"CNN's Finest Hour".

The State of the Modern Media

From a CNN column on potentially attacking Iran,

Author George Santayana famously said, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Somehow I doubt we will hear that line of reasoning brought up by Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum when they talk about what the United States should do about Israel and Iran.

We also won't hear how Iran is not in violation of international law or that U.S. presidents don't control gas prices.

All we'll hear is that this president is weak and that we need to bomb the hell out of Iran.

And maybe that's true, I don't know.

Then, dare I ask, why is he writing about the issue?

I do know it is hard for voters to separate the wheat from the chaff, because before Obama even voices his position on an issue, his opponents are prepared with a rebuttal.

Not a rebuttal - demagoguery, often predicated upon misrepresentation or outright falsehood, is not a rebuttal. But alas, the author would have to be somewhat familiar with the issues to know that - and he admits that he knows nothing about the issues.

A lot of people attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff by tuning in to news sources, such as CNN. It seems fair to say that news sources such as CNN should do better than shrug and, in effect, tell people that they need to find the answers somewhere else.

That's no way to hold a healthy national discussion on something that's inconsequential, let alone foreign policy.

Agreed, but this column reflects why it is possible to hold a national discussion in this manner. Given the opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff, the author chose not to do any investigation, and thus the column is nothing but a criticism of form without any helpful information of substance. If "in our sound-bite driven culture, it is an effective way to win an election" it's in no small part because lazy media figures don't require that candidates substantiate their sound bites.

In fairness the author does note that Mitt Romney "essentially lied" when he said "(Obama) failed to communicate that military options are on the table and in fact in our hand, and that it's unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon," but that's pretty tepid given the nature of the rhetoric and pervasiveness of the mendacity (or in some cases, appalling ignorance, or both) of leading candidates such as Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Besides, there's no "essentially" about it.

Why qualify the assertion with "essentially" - Romney either lied or he didn't. I expect Romney's response would be that... he didn't believe Obama so that frees him to argue that, whatever the President's words, they failed to convey the necessary conviction that he would act." And I expect that even if the media attempted to challenge Romney on his statement, which they probably won't, they'll allow his mealy-mouthed rationalization of his mendacity to stand.

How to Save CNN

Um... paraphrasing Ross Douthat... Let's see... Jon Stewart made fun of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for their part in turning Crossfire into a bad show, and CNN responded by firing them. But Crossfire was once a better show, so CNN should bring it back - because objectivity is boring and CNN needs more head-butting editorializing. But not "red-faced shouting" because that's not debating. They need the type of head-butting they did on Crossfire back when Jon Stewart embarrassed them. Only in your dreams will you see Pat Buchanan back in the host's chair (glory days... well, they'll pass you by) and, as high minded as he is, poor widdle Tucker Carlson gets all worn down by responding to the other side's talking points.

But you know what was great - truly wonderful, high-minded debate? Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. But without the partisanship. So maybe William F. Buckley, Jr. versus Gore Vidal. Because nothing is as high-minded as seeing Vidal call Buckley a "pro crypto Nazi" (I still don't know what that is), or seeing Buckley threaten to sock Gore Vidal in his "goddamn face" and call him a "queer". Discourse just doesn't get better or more elevated than that.

To Vidal's credit (cough), he later indicated that he should have said "fascist-minded" instead of "pro crypto Nazi", but would that have been calling Buckley a liberal? Can you take this much high-mindedness in a single dose?

Ah, but Buckley's not available, so who could possibly step into his shoes. Other than John Stewart, who we've previously ruled out for recognizing that there's a political divide in this country. Who is the obvious heir to somebody like Buckley, who certainly would never have tried to divide the country by politics. There's only one possible person who comes to mind - a person whose high-mindedness and entertaining brand of nonpartisanship would do nothing but shoot CNN's ratings through the roof! You guessed it - Glenn Beck. Jon Stewart's ability to debate and interview, crossed with Beck's ability to be "lengthy, respectful and often riveting", even if, um, only when hosting "conservative commentators". Maybe it would look like this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Conservative Libertarian
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Pair Beck with Gore Vidal, and you've got a real ratings winner! Or if Vidal's not available, Ross Perot! Anything involving Ross Perot is a winner!

I'm not going to say that Douthat's completely wrong. He's correct that CNN's formula isn't working. He's correct that there's a shortage of "real debate" on television. Pretty much everything else he writes, though, is nonsense. Despite his pretense that he wants to move away from political partisanship in favor of some other flavor of partisanship - people clashing over controversial ideas, but leaning back in their chairs when insulting each other or threatening fisticuffs - he seems to view conservative commentators through a lens that transforms them into non-partisans, while being quick with the ad hominem toward anybody on the left (other than Gore Vidal).

One of Douthat's more ridiculous sneers is directed at Rachel Maddow, who he accuses of only inviting conservatives on her show "when they have something nasty to say about Republicans." I don't watch her show, but even I know better than that. Is his problem that he isn't watching and chose to make stuff up? If Maddow has difficulty booking conservative guests, it goes back to one of the hallmark failures of modern talk TV - if the host makes a guest look bad, the guest will refuse to come back and will tell all his friends not to do the show - or maybe even to boycott the entire network. Most guests prefer only to go on shows where they can expect to be tossed not just softball questions, but marshmallows.

But when you're reading an essay that effectively argues, "CNN should hire somebody like Glenn 'Been There, Didn't Do That' Beck to revive its ratings," and works its way up to the dig, "And some CNN suits have probably never even heard of Gore Vidal", perhaps you shouldn't expect much.

CNN

I watched some CNN this weekend, while traveling. I could almost feel my IQ dropping with each inane, truncated exchange between an anchor and his momentary guests, as they tried to cram "short attention span theater"-type discussions of current events between commercial breaks.

"We could talk about this all day," the anchor said, before cutting off a discussion that was at most a few minutes in length....