We're southbound, and worried about the analysts!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2014

Full services resume tomorrow: As Doc Watson put it, we’re southbound today, on Amtrak.

For today’s new post, see below. Full services resume tomorrow. In the meantime, we’re concerned about the analysts.

We’re told that howls emerged from their spartan quarters when they read Maureen Dowd’s column in yesterday’s Times. Dowd channeled Paddy Chayefsky, presenting herself as the jealous watchdog of real and respectable journalism.

In comments, very few readers noted the absurdity of this stance on Dowd’s part. A few readers did file mordant remarks. The vast majority failed to notice the lunacy inherent in this stance.

The analysts were said to be mad as hell after reading the column. We’re going to tell them that they’ll just have to continue to take it. A widespread code of silence has permitted the empire’s most fatuous columnist to peddle this pap all these years.

Maureen Dowd is upset about modern news values! Comically, that’s what she said.

19 comments:

  1. Thank you for linking to that Dowd column. I never read her because she does have this tendency to be insipid. But that one was brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A better, more current analysis of how our society is being affected by media is Dave Eggers, The Circle. Even the film Broadcast News was more on target than Network which is very dated. The only real point of contact is Howard Beale's meltdown and even that belies today's ironic stance and is way too close to the rants of street people (who were not as much a daily phenomenon when Network was made). It isn't clear why Dowd has written a fond obituary of Chayefsky when he died so long ago and so much has happened since then. It reads as if she had pulled an unused draft from her files and updated it a little because she didn't have time to write anything for her column yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, by all means, let's discuss whether Dowd should have used The Circle or Broadcast News instead of Network. That will show everybody how smart we are.

      Delete
    2. Maybe not, but a defense of the indefensible, Dowd, certainly shows everyone how stupid you are.

      Delete
    3. What good is social criticism based on the 1970's & 80's?

      Delete
    4. Yes, our orders are in, Bob fans. Absolutely nothing Maureen Dowd ever writes can possibly be for no other purpose than the ruination of our national discourse which, before her and Rachel Maddow, was on such a high intellectual plane.

      So don't bother clicking onto Bob's link. He'll tell you how awful that column is. Tomorrow. Maybe.

      Delete
  3. One of the worst perps laments the sickness she and her news organization represent. It's not their fault entirely. It's more the fault of brain dead rube news consumers, including the MSNBC admiring trolls who pollute this comment section whenever one of their idols comes in for overdue criticism. In a free democratic society, we get the government and media we deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Were the analysts cheered by Krugman's post on Team Progressive winning the Battle of the CBO Report last week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Krugman writes as if the audience were monolithic. Who understood the message to be that Republicans lied about the CBO report? Not conservatives. I'm glad liberals are fighting back against non-factual messages, but who was polled to decide which tribe won the week? What does it mean to win?

      Delete
    2. There's really nothing to be done about people who will choose to believe the lie. Telling them they are being lied to, while it should be done so as to show them some measure of respect, will usually only serve to humiliate them, then they blame you for humiliating them, and wrap that lie tighter around themselves for comfort.

      Delete
    3. The "win" is the battle of the narrative. Krugman calls this "second-order journalism" whereas TDH might call it the "script" (for the decade older example, see Krugman here and TDH here). I thought that Chuck Schumer had a pretty good pushback on MTP but with no one manning the smelling salts after the "intern" made her second MTP appearance in two weeks, the analysts may have missed it.

      Delete
  5. Yes, how dare Maureen Dowd invade territory that Bob has "marked" in the most literal sense of that word, for himself?

    To wit:

    "What would Paddy Chayefsky make of Kim Kardashian?

    "What would he think of Diane Sawyer showing cat videos on the ABC evening news?

    "What would he say about Brian Williams broadcasting on the Huntley-Brinkley network a video of a pig saving a baby goat while admitting he had no idea if it was phony? (It was.)

    "What would Paddy rant about the viral, often venomous world of the Internet, Twitter and cable news, where fake rage is all the rage all the time, bleeding over into a Congress that chooses antagonism over accomplishment, no over yes?

    "What would he think of ominous corporate “synergy” run amok, where “news” seamlessly blends into promotion, where it’s frighteningly easy for corporate commercial interests to dictate editorial content?

    "What would Paddy say about the Murdochization of the news, where a network slants its perspective because it sells and sells big?

    "What would he make of former Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief Norman Pearlstine returning in a new position as Time Inc.’s chief content officer, breaking the firewall between editorial and business as he works “with business and edit teams to drive the development of new content experiences and products throughout our portfolio that will fuel future revenue growth,” as C.E.O. Joe Ripp put it?

    "What would Paddy think of American corporations skipping out on taxes by earning nearly half of their profits in tax-haven countries?

    "What would he think of the unholy alliance between Internet giants like Google and Facebook and the U.S. national security apparatus?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, Bob likely would call her a hypocrite, accusing others of the very same sins of which she is guilty.

      Bob would never indulge in such hypocrisy himself.

      Delete
  6. I wouldn't blame the readers too much. Their comments must be heavily "modulated." I've done a bunch of comments on Dowd columns pointing out all kinds of less than flattering things and they rarely get published. They haven't been obscene or abusive, just corrosively sarcastic and biting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob should ban trolls. He has already shown they can be replaced by cutting and pasting comments from Dowd's place.

      Delete
  7. I tried to comment and it was not published.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad. I really wanted to read it.

      Delete
    2. We surmised that.

      Delete