|
Hey,
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, Deconstruct THIS!
A
BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by
Thom Prentice
JODI WILGOREN OF THE
NEW YORK TIMES DEPLOYS ADJECTIVES TO SNEER AT HOWARD
DEAN AND AVOID REAL WORK IN COVERAGE OF THE RECENT DEAN "SLEEPLESS SUMMER"
CAMPAIGN SWING
It is truly hard to know where to begin to try to look for a place to
start to attempt to explain what is wrong with this reporter’s reporting.
In short: it is not a smear job as The New York Times did on Al Gore;
rather it is a sneer job.
This
reporter, Jodi Wilgoren, makes frequent use of insulting pejorative
words -– mostly adjectives -- in a story that suggests the reporter didn’t
seem get out of the cushy plane seat more than once or twice during the
Dean campaign tour. Further, it seems Jodi Wilgoren knows little if anything
about campaigns or recent presidential campaign history and further seems
disinclined to do any shoe leather research let alone internet research.
This reporter also likes to speculate about campaign strategy from a
position of cluelessness rather than do real reporting. The bottom line:
Karl Rove couldn’t be happier with this New York Times reporter’s
report if he had written it himself.
The
New York Times must not get away with this subtle, almost-off-the-radar
modification of the journalism of personal destruction through use of
coded, loaded parts of speech. It is not only time to hold Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-DeLay
accountable; it is time to hold the news media -- especially The New
York Times -- accountable.
Deconstruction is a way to start.
*
* *
FROM
THE NEW YORK TIMES:
August 27, 2003
In a Long Presidential Race, Dean Sprints
By JODI WILGOREN Crisscrossing
the country this week with Howard Dean, the underdog turned top dog
who has surged toward the front of the Democratic presidential
primary field, you would almost think there was an election coming
up.
Hello, there IS an election coming up. The fact that Dean is campaigning
so fast and furious so early to large, enthusiastic crowds doesn’t make
him an oddity, a dumb cluck who doesn’t know what he is doing. Rather,
might it be evidence of a grave national fear and concern among millions
of Americans that the country under Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-DeLay
is on the wrong track heading for a head-on collision, and that the nation
needs immediate correction by competent, new, legitimate leadership...and
fast. Is not Dean brilliantly capitalizing on and giving expression to
these profound national concerns? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Five months before the first ballot is cast and 15 months before the
last will be counted, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, spent
the past four days being ferried from rally to rally in a chartered jet
as though in the heat of a head-to-head national campaign rather than
in the nascent chapter of a long-shot bid in a crowded field. He hit
states like Oregon that have little to do with nominations but could
be crucial in a general election and all but ignored his Democratic rivals
as he roused rabid audiences against their Republican nemesis, George
W. Bush.
I’m confused. Dean is "an underdog turned top dog" in the first sentence
but by the second paragraph he "in the nascent chapter of a long-shot
bid in a crowded field". It can’t be both, which one is it? Decmate!
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
"Ferried?" "In a chartered jet?" What is the purpose of this pejorative
verb "ferried" and what is the importance of knowing that Dean has a
"chartered jet?" Like Dean has some sort of special privileges that,
say, Mr. Bush doesn’t have? Did Mr. Bush charter a jet in 2000? Did Mr.
Bush ever ride on free corporate jets provided by Enron and Halliburton
in 2000? Did Mr. Bush every ride in a Navy jet for free on the taxpayer’s
tab to an aircraft carrier for a political photo op where he declared
the end of major combat operations in a war that has resulted in more
casualties after "Mission Accomplished" and "the end of major combat
operations" than before? And might Dean’s chartered jet be evidence of
a campaign that is now NOT a long-shot bid? The choice of words by this
reporter is problematic: they are not used to modify or clarify or even
to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives as code to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Twice!
And "rabid"? Rabid? What is the function of this pejorative adjective?
The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives are
not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives
as code to SNEER. Were the Dean supporters foaming at the mouth? Had
they all been bitten by rabid dogs? Did they let the lunatics out of
the asylum? And why are not the Bush clones who wildly cheer each horrific
Bush remarks like "Bring ‘em on" not characterized elsewhere in The
New York Times as being "rabid"? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Thrice.
The staggering, seemingly spontaneous crowds turning up to meet him
-- about 10,000 in Seattle on Sunday and a similar number in Bryant Park
in Manhattan last night -- are unheard of in the days of the race when
most candidates concentrate on the early-voting states of Iowa and New
Hampshire and would seem formidable even in October 2004.
Hello, does this reporter really think that any political crowd, whether
staggering or not, actually shows up "spontaneously" anywhere for anyone
like an immaculate conception or something? The spontaneity is not metaphysical
-- it is metacognitive because of the deep concern millions of Americans
feel about the direction of the country under Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft-DeLay
and the fact they show up a testament to crackerjack, local grass roots
and internet organizing by the Dean camp, Paul Wellstone-style. If this
reporter doesn’t even understand this basic essential element of political
organizing and why the Dean -- and other Democratic efforts this early
are SO Significant -- then perhaps this reporter is not qualified to
walk and chew gum at the same time let alone cover the campaign. All
this A,B,C, 1,2,3 bonehead basics was covered in the course Campaigns
101 which apparently this reporter missed. There will be a quiz. Decmate!
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
And, yes, most candidates now and IN THE PAST have concentrated on early-voting
states, but this reporter makes it sound like Dean is a dumb cluck seeking
votes in New Hampshire by campaigning in Oregon. The Dean strategy of
a couple of weeks of full-court press 15 months before the general election
is certainly a new twist -- and probably an effective twist -- to presidential
campaigning. What does it mean? This reporter ignores the obvious and
implies that Dean and his staff are out of their minds rather than "thinking
outside of the box". Instead, perhaps this reporter, who apparently knows
little about strategy and history of previous presidential campaigns,
is writing about strategy from a perspective of blissful ignorance and
probably does darn good on bubbling in the answer sheets of standardized
tests. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Twice!
Yesterday morning, the campaign took another audacious step, saying
that it would broadcast television advertisements in six new states beginning
on Friday, and that it expected to raise $10.3 million in the three months
ending Sept. 30 -- more than any other Democrat in a similar period save
for President Bill Clinton in 1995.
Audacious? AUDACIOUS? Why not "spectacular, creative, unexpected, or
possibly brilliant strategic move?" Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The
New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
"We have to be in the president's face to win," Dr.
Dean, 54, said aboard the ancient Boeing 737 his staff dubbed the Grassroots
Express.
Ancient? ANCIENT? What function does this pejorative adjective serve?
The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives are
not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives
as code to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have
been deconstructed!
And why choose this quote? Why a quote on strategy and horse race and
why not a quote on something really strange and weird, like, say, an
issue? And, of course, choosing this quote subtly reinforces the press
scam that Dean is mean and is being a bully to our poor, little, mistreated,
misunderestimated president. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Twice!
"When this president talks, sometimes the opposite of what he says
is really the truth," he said yesterday in Chicago, between speaking
to a tepid union convention and being embraced by about 1,500 supporters
atop Navy Pier, "and if we don't call him on it, we can't win."
Finally, a substantive quote. But Tepid? TEPID? What is the function
of this adjective? Has anyone ever been to a convention of anything where
delegates, sitting for days and nights on end in general sessions, were
NOT a little numbed? The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic:
adjectives are not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this
reporter uses adjectives as code to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Moreover, the reporter MISSED THE STORY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Dean actually
said that BUSH LIES -- that what Bush says is often THE OPPOSITE OF THE
TRUTH! This should have been in the very first sentence! Didn’t we just
impeach a president for saying THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH? What about
poor Al Gore and that one Texas natural disaster trip when James Lee
Witt wasn’t along. Didn’t Gore get pounded forever over that little miscue?
Is there a pattern of double standard here? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Twice!
Billed as the Sleepless Summer Tour, Dr. Dean's 6,147-mile, 10-city
rampage cost $200,000 and had its own rock-concert-style T-shirt listing
places and dates. (The concept: Americans are sleepless over unemployment
and the lack of jobs and health care, while President Bush sleeps soundly
at his Texas ranch. The reality: Plane-riders are sleepless from crammed
schedules that stretch from 5 a.m. to midnight.)
Rampage. RAMPAGE? There it is again! The choice of words by this reporter
is problematic: words are not used to modify or clarify or even to smear
-- this reporter uses adjectives as code to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
The reality? The REALITY? No one cares about whining, simpering, complaining
reporters who want to be treated like royalty and pampered and wined
and dined and have their noses wiped by the servile help because the
Media Elite think their poo-poo doesn’t stink! What unconscionable elitism!
Soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and this reporter complains about
sleeplessness from "crammed schedules that stretch from 5 a.m. to midnight".
Is this reporter a "press plane virgin?" Has this reporter never covered
a full rootin’ tootin’ campaign? Has this reporter been shot at in Iraq?
If this reporter can’t stand the heat, get off of the press bus. Save
the pathetic personal stories for your analyst. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Twice!
It was the flashiest and most expensive of a spate of gimmicky Democratic
campaign swings this summer, from Grillin' with the Grahams (as in Bob,
the Florida senator) to Get on the Bus With Dennis (as in Kucinich, the
Ohio congressman) to the Real Solutions Express, featuring Senator John
Edwards of North Carolina.
Gimmicky? GIMMICKY? What is the function of this pejorative adjective?
The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives are
not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives
as code to SNEER. Now it is not only Dean, but Graham, Kucinich and Edwards.
Does one see a pattern here? Is anything Bush does "gimmicky" -- like
perhaps landing on an aircraft carrier after being an AWOL pilot during
the Vietnam War? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
The large and energetic crowds that followed Dr. Dean, and the meticulousness
of his schedule and stage-managed events, prove he remains a phenomenon.
Finally,
an accurate statement. Hallelujah! But "Stage-managed? STAGE MANAGED?
As if this was something new under the sun and Rove & Co.
don’t even think of stage-managing Bush with his cloned crowds and message
of the day electronic backdrops? The use of adjectives by this reporter
is problematic: adjectives are not used to modify or clarify or even
to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives as code to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
But the presidential-style trip could increase the risk of Dr. Dean
peaking too early -- and revealed other potential pitfalls. Holding oceans
of blue Dean placards at every stop were nearly all white hands, a homogeneity
the campaign tried to counter with a rainbow of supporters on stage,
which only drew more attention to the lack of diversity in the audience.
The feisty crowds were filled with Birkenstock liberals whose loudest
ovations always followed Dr. Dean's antiwar riff -- there were few union
members, African-Americans, or immigrants.
Risk?
Peaking too early? Pitfalls? What is the function of these pejorative
adjectives? The use of words by this reporter is problematic: adjectives
are not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter
uses words as code to SNEER. It is clear this reporter is so unenlightened
about the basics of presidential campaigning and the essential elements
of post-World War II presidential campaigns that there is no qualification
for this reporter to make such a statement or use such words. (One
might
start by reading Theodore White’s various "Making of the President"
books on 1960s presidential campaigns. And, yes, it will be on
the test.) Decmate!
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed.
And what is this? "all white hands, homogeneity the campaign tried to
counter with a rainbow of supporters on stage". Does this not sound more
like an indictment of Bush and his "inclusion illusion" Philadelphia
2000 convention? Are there any African-American candidates in the current
race that minority voters might want to support, like, say Al Sharpton
or Carol Moseley-Braun?
This is an excellent example of a psychological phenomenon called "projection".
Projection is where a person, like, say, a reporter, is aware at some
level of his or her own character flaws (or the character flaws of the
candidate he or she supports, in this case, Bush), but instead of working
to improve one’s own personal character, the person acts out and "projects"
his or her own personal character flaws on someone else. In this case,
Jodi Wilgoren projects her own character flaws and the flaws of her hero,
Bush, on to Dean -- which seems to be an all-too-typical right wing pathology.
It would have been mitigated if, for instance, she had made contextual
reference to the same phenomenon in the Philadelphia of Bush or noted
that Sharpton and Moseley-Braun were also running. But alone, the reporter
portrays Dean as a deceptive double dealer when in fact, Wilgoren is
the one involved in deceptive double dealing. This is a perfect example
of my assertion that, quite often, what is NOT in the story is more important
than what IS in the story. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York
Times,
you have been deconstructed.
It remains unclear how such untraditional rallies will translate into
the nuts-and-bolts of nominations like endorsements, voter registration,
fund-raising and debates. The campaign also may have trouble keeping
people interested and preventing its events in coming weeks from seeming
mundane.
Unclear? UNCLEAR? When have endorsements been the determining factor
that helped anyone in an election? Fund raising? Dean is raising boatloads
of bucks as he travels. Debates? DEBATES? What does that have to do with
anything right now -- there will be a debate in early September and every
so often thereafter but what do debates have to do with the "Sleepless
Summer" campaign swing? WHAT LAZY WRITING! The question is will the most
eloquent George Bush even debate at all, let alone debate in a freewheeling
format so that he can strut the stuff of his leadership and his intellect
in front of a nation which he has decimated economically and committed
to an expensive, bloody Vietnam Quagmire-On-A-Stick in Iraq. LAZY WRITING,
AND LAZY THINKING! STINKING THINKING! And hello, the grassroots organizing
is showing up in the success of the events themselves. If anything is
unclear, it is because this reporter has failed to read, study and research
(there’s a nifty little thing called the internet...) and actually get
out of the cushy Boeing 737 plane seat and do some shoe leather reporting!
Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
"We have momentum," Dr. Dean said. "Keeping
it is going to be a struggle."
Wow. An actual direct quote. But, again, on strategy. Not issues that
might "clarify" what the Dean phenomenon is all about. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Though polls taken this early in the race can be unreliable predictors,
there are statistical signs to back up Dr. Dean's surge in popularity
on the street. Zogby International, an independent firm, is scheduled
to release Wednesday a poll showing Dr. Dean leading in New Hampshire
with 38 percent of the vote to 17 percent for Senator John Kerry; in
early July Senator Kerry had 25 percent to Dr. Dean's 22 percent. The
poll has a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points.
Good information, but I guess the reporter had a handout from Zogby
rather than do some independent elbow work. The reporter does compare
these numbers with July -- only a month ago -- but as with most polls,
the current and immediate recent past are snapshots that don’t show anything.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE PATTERN OVER TIME. The increase in Dean’s support
since January shows a consistent trend upward from "not even on the radar
screen" to an astounding 38% in both Dean’s and Kerry’s neighboring state
of New Hampshire -- and this despite the fact that this reporter thinks
Dean is a dumb bell for seeking votes in New Hampshire by campaigning
in Oregon! And why are polls unreliable predictors? Are polls themselves
inherently unstable or do things perhaps change? I mean, has this reporter
not heard the expression that a week is a long time in politics? The
reporter disses the poll solely in order to diss Dean. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
As the tour began its final day, Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, announced
plans not only to match President Clinton's record $10.3 million quarter,
but also to buy two weeks worth of advertisements, likely to cost $1
million, in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin
and Washington. He and the candidate both refused to say whether the
campaign would abide by spending limits to obtain federal matching funds,
something they originally promised to do but later reconsidered.
Is Bush going to abide by spending limits? Did Bush abide by spending
limits? Was Kerry thinking about not abiding by spending limits? Is there
any context here at all? Hello...there is a light on but is there anyone
upstairs?? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
"Running for president of the United States is a marathon," Mr.
Trippi told reporters en route from San Antonio to Chicago. "We
decided we were going to run the first four miles at a 100-yard-dash
pace. We decided we're going to run the second four miles at a 100-yard-dash
pace."
Good, non-butchered quotation, but here we are, again, focusing on strategy
and not issues. Why not some quotes from Dean from his stump speech?
Is that asking too much? Indeed, why not more quotes from ALL the candidates
from their stump speeches. And then compare them with "Is Our Children
Learning?" People aren’t showing up for Dean because he has a good organization;
they are showing up because they are the organization, contribute the
money and believe in Dean’s fearless critique of the nationally disastrous
catastrophe that is the Bush administration. It’s called democracy. Decmate!
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
The new advertising plan came after the campaign spent four days soliciting
its Internet supporters to match the $1 million President Bush collected
last week in the Pacific Northwest, a goal it reached during the Bryant
Park rally. (There were also $100- to $1,000-a-plate parties at most
stops during the Sleepless tour.)
Yawn. Except this reporter earlier wondered a few paragraphs earlier
what this 100 yard dash has to do with fundraising and now, Eureka, here
is the answer! Wow. This reporter doesn’t miss a thing! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Linda
Ornelas, 54, said she came to Portland State University on Sunday uncommitted
but left planning to sign on to her computer and "give
him some money."
"It's not that what he says is really so different from what anybody
else says," said Ms. Ornelas, an administrator at a large athletic
club. "It's that it doesn't feel like it's rhetoric."
After months of low-key question-and-answer sessions in small-town living
rooms, Dr. Dean adapted to the masses by sprinkling call-and-response
lines and defiant finger-pointing into his standard spiel.
Finally, a quote from a member of the "rabid" mob! Yea! (Dean should
sell buttons that say "Rabid".) But those adjectives! "Sprinkling call
and response lines"? "Defiant finger pointing?" "Standard spiel?" ? (Does
Dean ever use other hand gestures besides finger pointing?) And why is
his finger pointing defiant? What is the function of these pejorative
adjectives? The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives
are not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses
adjectives to SNEER. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you
have been deconstructed.
"For the first time I realized the fate of the country might be
in my hands," he said later. "Not just because I might become
president of the United States of America. Because there were a very,
very large number of people depending on me to change the course of this
country."
Finally, a direct quote from Dean, unplugged.
In Spokane, Wash., organizers had cut a basketball court in half with
a burlap curtain, expecting 250 people. Instead, several hundred had
to watch an enormous television behind the curtain, and 100 more were
left on folding chairs in the patio, surrounding a faceless microphone.
This
is presented as a criticism -- of all things -- an example of incompetence
or perhaps callous neglect by Dean of his faithful supporters who trudged
out to see him and then had crummy seats -- as opposed to evidence that
Dean has ignited something in his campaign that turns out more people
than they expect. This reporter just doesn’t have a single K-Mart clue.
Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed.
"He's not running a campaign, he's running a movement," wrote
Natasha C., one of four people the Dean campaign invited to chronicle
the trip on their Web logs. "These are protest-size crowds, these
are not politics-size crowds, and that's the critical difference."
But it is unclear what the movement is for.
First of all, hurray! The reporter has discovered the internet!
But here we go again! Unclear. That word" unclear" again. Does this
reporter listen to Dean’s stump speeches? Did she hear about the stolen
election of 2000? What about the attempts to rig elections b y Perrymandered
redistricting, California recalls and to remove a duly elected president?
(The word Perrymander, named for Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry, is
a modification of the word "Gerrymander"). What about health insurance
(Dean said in his Austin, Texas stump speech that even Costa Rica has
it and why not us?) How about preserving, protecting and defending the
environment. Not lying about the reason for sending troops to Iraq? Does
this reporter EVEN READ HIS OR HER OWN NEWSPAPER? Does this reporter
take notes or record Dean’s speeches? Are the lights even on?
If anything is unclear, it is unclear why this reporter from The
New York Times is being permitted to cover anything above misdemeanor court
let alone a presidential campaign. What is the function of this pejorative
word "unclear" which makes it seem as if somehow Dean is at fault because
the reporter is unclear about what is going on. (How many teachers are
tired of the entitled ones who say ‘you didn’t teach me’ and helpfully
leave out the part about ‘and I didn’t do anything at all on my own to
learn, like, show up for class’)? The semantics and syntax and diction
of this reporter are all problematic: words are not used to inform, modify
or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses words as code to SNEER.
Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Dr.
Dean's standard presentation is a smorgasbord of universal health insurance,
opposition to the Iraq war, balanced budgets, tax-cut repeal,
affirmative action, gay rights, early-childhood intervention and a broad
appeal for "community." The defining theme is all about getting
rid of the incumbent.
Smorgasbord? SMORGASBORD? What is the function of this adjective that
is well-understood by Americans of Scandinavian Lutheran descent but
is probably not common knowledge in Birmingham, Peoria or Butte? By using
this unfamiliar, foreign-sounding word, this reporter again manages to
take an ordinary activity--a "standard presentation" -- and turn it into
something somehow suspicious.
Can we get some actual Dean quotes on issues here? Maybe even a dependent
clause or something, actual words from Dean’s actual mouth following
each item of this reporter’s bullet-point "smorgasbord"? Anything? Anything?
The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives are
not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter uses adjectives
as code to SNEER. Moreover, does anybody else have a smorgasbord of issues,
like, say, Bush: War, tax cuts for the rich, trash the environment, war,
tax cuts for the rich, trash the environment, war, tax cuts for the rich,
trash the environment. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
"What brought me here is Dean -- and George," said Karin Overbeck,
an independent at her first political rally, in Spokane. "For the
second time in my life, I'm ashamed of my nationality. I was born in
Germany and I was ashamed; now I'm ashamed to be American."
Here we go again on the pejorative words -- but now it is a Faux News
type of soundbite wholly without merit. Only this time, of all the thousands
of people that this reporter either interviewed or could have interviewed,
this reporter chooses to include a quotation which reinforces the right
wing, fundamentalist, control freak, super-patriot lie about liberals
"hating" America or being "embarrassed" by America or "blaming" America.
What is the purpose of including this quotation -- to inform, to persuade
or to entertain -- or to smear and sneer? This reporter has engaged in
the moral equivalent of a terrorist attack.
The
quotation does sound like an interesting personal narrative from one
member of the "rabid" mob -- but it is a quotation that the reporter
just suddenly drops into the story like a stink bomb. It would be interesting
had the reporter been curious enough to let the individual explain just
what, exactly, it was that this former German found to be shameful in
her Germany of the 1930s and 1940s and what it is, exactly it is in the
2003 America of Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld and DeLay that reminds
her of the Third Reich. This is not the first time that someone has seen
a parallel between the Bush administration and the rise of Hitler during
the last days of the democratic Weimar Republic in the early 1930s but
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times takes Hitler’s and Goebbel’s Big
Lie strategy to a heart-stopping, breathtaking extreme. It is a sneak
journalistic Pearl Harbor/Twin Towers premeditated attack and it violates
every sense of every human moral and ethical standard.
If
it weren’t so egregious, it could remind me of the kid sent to interview
the chemistry teacher and returns with news that there is neither
interview nor news because the chemistry lab just blew up. "No news,
just some
former German who sees signs of the 1930s Third Reich in 2003 Bush
America!" I mean, this is just basic Journalism 101, another class
this reporter
must have missed. Here’s a former German national who apparently
has some insight into what went wrong in the Germany of the 1930s
and apparently
sees some of the same danger signs in the BushAmerica of 2003 but
the reporter is so incurious that we don’t know from this source
just what,
exactly, the parallels are between then and now. So insertion of
this quote stands alone and serves as a McCarthy smear in the pages
of The
New York Times. This is such a gruesome, egregious attempted kneecapping
that the very naked inclusion of the quotation let alone the placement
of this single quotation without further exposition and development
is the journalistic equivalent of detonating a car bomb at the United
Nations
headquarters in Baghdad. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! And you should be ashamed, so very ashamed
of yourself.
Though
Dr. Dean often says that his message is appealing to independent thinkers
across the political spectrum, when he polled the crowd in Portland
there were loud claps for the Green Party and Democrats, but sparse smatterings
when he asked about supporters of Perot and McCain. And while the people
introducing him included Hispanic teachers and black preachers, the people
buying the "Doctor is in" buttons were mostly aging flower
children and the tongue-studded next generation.
Those
adjective again! "Aging flower children? "Tongue-studded
next generation? What is the function of these pejorative, insulting
adjectives?
The use of adjectives by this reporter is problematic: adjectives
are not used to modify or clarify or even to smear -- this reporter
uses adjectives
as code to SNEER -- but in this case, the reporter manages to perform
both functions -- smear and sneer -- simultaneously. Double Decmate!
Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Would the Portland gym be a venue that would attract many independents
and McCain supporters? What about elsewhere. Didn’t Dean include this
"sprinkled call-and-response line" in his other speeches in other cities
-- recall that this reporter says Dean "sprinkled" this sort of thing
into his "standard spiel"? What was the response in other cities? Or
was the reporter taking a powder or sitting on the plane? Did the reporter
look at any polls of independents or McCain supporters? Did the reporter
do anything except sit around and bitch about the absence of creature
comforts? Wonder if the soldiers in Iraq would bitch if they had this
reporter’s digs and grueling schedule? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed! Twice!
"We're working really hard to change that," Dr. Dean said.
At the union convention yesterday in Chicago -- where the undecided audience
offered mainly polite claps for the zingers that had delighted the devoted
-- he tried one of his newer lines: "When white people and brown
people and black people vote together, that's when we make social progress
in this country."
First the audience was tepid; now it is undecided. So which is it? And
"offered mainly polite claps for the zingers..." Really. Any examples to
cite here? Which ones worked in Portland and didn’t work in Chicago?
More important, which ones worked in Portland that ALSO worked in Chicago?
How about Austin, Manhattan or San Antonio versus Chicago? Did the reporter
interview any of the "tepid, undecided" union delegates? Inquiring minds
want to know.
This
passive voice master narrative summarizes and purees Dean’s words
into a mushy mish mash. This reporter needs to get out of the story
and let the candidate speak his mind using his own words once in
a while.
Would be nice if the press let Bush would do that too. Same with
other reporters covering Dean, the other Democrats and especially
Bush. I mean,
Bush actually said that the reason we sent troops to Iraq is because
Saddam wouldn’t let UN inspectors in last fall, a flat falsehood
or example of stupidity. Did this reporter or any reporter then ask
Bush, ‘What Up with Hans Blix?’
No one asked. Was the Blix mission supposedly looking for a smorgasbord
of weapons of mass destruction just all a dream -- like Bobby’s missing
year on the TV show Dallas? The press gave yet another complete free
pass to this guy as soldiers continue to die. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren
of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed.
Between stops, Dr. Dean had his first lengthy talks with a large press
corps aboard the Grassroots Express. He rarely veered off-message, even
when turbulence forced him into a seat between reporters from Rolling
Stone and Modern Physician magazines, who traded questions on guitarists
and prescription drugs.
Hello... I would think that talks with the press might be a possibility
on long flights between stops! What a concept! Long talks with reporters
on long flights between stops! I mean, I wonder if the sun will rise
in the morning. Were these Dean’s first lengthy talks with a large press
corps" because this was ALSO the first time that Dean "chartered" an
"aging" Boeing 737 so this trip was the first time it was POSSIBLE for
Dean to have long, on-board talks with the press corps? Wonder how Dean
traveled before? Did any reporters travel with him in coach class on
commercial airlines? On horseback like the Green Mountain Boys? (Go look
it up.) Moreover, did this reporter try to talk to Dean prior to or after
any Dean events over the last 8 months? Try to go up to Vermont and hang
out with the Deanster and chill? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
Regardless of the record crowds, it is still August -- of 2003.
This sentence is so wrong, wrong, wrong. It should read: "It is August,
2003 -- what does one make of these record crowds? Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
For
each of the 800 people who skipped the Green Bay Packers game on Saturday
night to chant "We want Dean" in a Milwaukee airplane
hangar, there must be many like the young woman in the pink taffeta strapless
bridesmaid's dress who went to the hotel bar where reporters and supporters
were mingling over martinis and wondered, "What's going on here?"
Told it was the Dean campaign, she looked blank. Howard Dean, someone
said. Running for president.
"President?" she asked. "President
of what?"
Were ALL reporters and Dean supporters "mingling over martinis" or did
the bar only serve martinis to the exclusion of any other alcoholic beverages?
Why does this reporter keep slipping in personal subjectivity? NO ONE
WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS REPORTER! Reporters should be invisible in their
stories -- NO ONE CARES about this reporter’s snotty choice of drinks
or complaints about long campaign schedules.
And why does this reporter waste more ink in describing the "pink, taffeta
strapless bridesmaid’s dress" than she does in describing Dean’s position
on major issues? Are we supposed to be real, like, impressed that this
reporter really knows the book on strapless pink taffeta? And how many
of these "President of what? jokes do we need to endure? It was cute
when Miss Lillian said that to her son, Jimmy Carter. It’s not cute anymore.
It is recounted solely to embarrass or insult Dean as well as to demean
ordinary people having a good time at one of life’s grand celebrations
-- a wedding. This reporter needs to stop recycling and plagiarizing material
and get something new. Decmate! Jodi Wilgoren of The New York Times, you have been deconstructed!
*
* *
INDEX OF PEJORATIVE WORDS USED
BY JODI WILGOREN OF THE
NEW YORK TIMES:
Ferried
Chartered
Nascent
Long-shot
Crowded
Little to do
Rabid
Seemingly spontaneous
Audacious
Ancient
Tepid
Rampage
Spate
Gimmicky
Risk
Peaking too early
Pitfalls
All white hands
Feisty
Birkenstock liberals
Untraditional
Mundane
Unreliable
Masses
Sprinkling
Defiant
Standard spiel
Faceless
Smorgasbord
Ashamed
Aging flower children
Tongue-studded next generation
Polite claps
Zingers
Pink taffeta strapless bridesmaid’s dress (for crying out loud)
* * *
A WORD ABOUT DECONSTRUCTION...
Deconstruction as an intellectual strategy comes from the mind of the
French (yes, French) intellectual Jacque Derrida. Deconstruction combines
an excruciatingly close reading of a text -- particularly at the margins
-- to tease out contradictions and hypocrisies. That way, one might therefore
discover multiple ways that a text can be "read" as well as what informs,
misinforms and animates the text and perhaps what motivates the author.
Deconstruction is a very sophisticated "crap detector".
Derrida himself would reject my very simple reduction and application
of his broad strategy to these definitions, tactics and formulas and
would probably question whether determining authorial intent is even
possible because he argues that there is only the text and nothing but
the text and no other text besides the text and, further, that the meaning
of any text is indeterminate, depending on the relationship between the
author and reader, time and place.
However deconstruction is a strategy that can reveal the psyche, the
zeitgeist of a time or institution or person -- the contradictions and
hypocrisies of the text and perhaps, as they say in Hollywood, illuminate
the "backstories".
Deconstruction is far more than what passed as "parsing" which the press
pretended to do on Clinton and which it unconscionably eschews on Bush
-- and it is much more serious than ordinary discourse analysis using
critical thinking. It is really close reading and critical thinking on
steroids. Hegelian analysis (thesis, antitheses, synthesis) along with
discourse analysis, parsing, connecting-the-dots context pattern mapping,
use of alternate points of perspective in textual analysis, and deconstruction
can provide an intriguing peek into what the text is really saying. Context
criticism -- connecting the dots, so to speak, which the intelligence
agencies didn’t do before 911 and which most current American news media
refuse to do, especially on Republican/ Religious Fundamentalist/Military-Industrial-Technological
Complex topics. Context criticism can show at least how some of the dots
are not connected in context. Further, deconstruction can look at the
margins for particular diction -- in this case the reporter’s constant
use of sneering adjective -- and reveal the prejudices and preconceptions
of the cultural mindset of the author.
Deconstruction is also a strategy for looking for what is absent from
the text -- especially in journalism and non-peer reviewed text that attempts
to disguise itself as ‘research’ -- like Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve
or much released by any White House and especially anything released
by the Bush White House. What is NOT there is often more important than
what IS there...and what is there is often a Goebbel’s patented and trademarked
Big Lie. (Bush Big Lied about Air Force One being a target on 9/11; he
Big Lied about the air being safe around ground zero; he Big Lied about
weapons of mass destruction...).
This particular story subtly trashed Howard Dean, but other stories
about other Democratic candidates inflict the Dark Arts on Dean’s competitors
-- but they, too, can be easily and quickly deconstructed as well to reveal
similar subtle, but devastating subversion of the lower case ‘d’ democratic
political discourse. Once you learn to start looking for patterns, once
could do so automatically for any text that one reads. Instead of "what
is wrong with this picture?" it is "what is wrong with this text?" What
one may often find behind the curtains is a totalitarian master narrative
that would be the envy of the former Soviet Union.
This much is clear: No matter who the Democrats nominate in 2004, Americans
must be vigilant to deconstruct every single media report on the campaign
to try and see what might be lurking in the shadows -- and we must do
it every day, for every story, by every reporter, in any medium and hold
them accountable on a daily if not hourly basis for the contradictions,
hypocrisies and sins of omission and commission which our deconstruction
efforts reveal.
Just as fish are not aware of water, reporters such as this one are
probably not aware of the "water" of their environment as participants
in an socially and culturally elitist capitalist institution -- The
New York Times in particular and the corporate news media in general -- and
so perhaps they can’t see how that environment shapes their perception
of reality well beyond just doing what the boss or owner wants. Maybe
such reporters will, on reflection, have an epiphany; maybe not. But
what is important is that the text always be deconstructed immediately
and published immediately and that the reporters and institutions of
the news media always be held accountable.
The
watchdog that once spoke truth to power became the lapdog and now is
the attack dog for power. The news media has shifted from afflicting
the comfortable and comforting the afflicted to the opposite: comforting
the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. The corporate/capitalist
news media are hired hands -- agents -- of the powerful and agents of
the institutions of wealth, power and social regression. The news media
have become little more than scops, scribblers, propagandists, press
agents, hacks, liars and misleaders for raw capital, power and Dark Age
mentality against Truth, Justice and the American Way.
We must watchdog the watchdog ourselves.
Thom Prentice, Ph.D.
Austin, Texas A
BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
|
