As I mentioned the other day, there's a certain irony to the fact that Al Gore is out touring behind a book about the decline of reasoned public dialogue, since his emergence on the public scene inevitably elicits paroxysms of the shallowest, bitchiest, most vacuous commentary of which our punditariat is capable -- and that's saying something.
Today brings examples so telling they hurt. I mean literally hurt. You've been warned.
Start with this dazzlingly obtuse column by Slate's Jack Shafer, who misses Gore's point so fundamentally one can only gape. Shafer seems to think, based on ... well, god knows ... that Gore wants the media to report less about celebrities. That's it -- that's the sum total of Gore's 250-page book. Shafer points out that celebrities are covered in celebrity media, whereas the serious media covers serious stuff. So what's Gore's problem?
Of course, part of Gore's point is that the "serious" media has reduced serious matters to footnotes and focused instead on trivialities like, I don't know, whether a presidential candidate wears earth tones or sighs too much.
The crowning irony in Shafer's feat of un-self-awareness is this: "Maureen Dowd showcases Gore's critique in her New York Times column today."
But of course, Dowd doesn't "showcase Gore's critique." Instead, she uses Gore's critique as a thin excuse to indulge in her usual vapid snark. She mentions Gore's weight no less than four times in her 800 word column. The only time she even comes within spitting distance of "his critique" is a catty aside that, like, if Gore really isn't running, then the book is just, like, a bunch of scolding.
Yes, Gore is scolding. He's scolding people like Shafer and Dowd, who have reduced political reporting in this country to the level of Peretz Hilton, only less funny.
Or more succinctly: what Digby said. Or if you prefer: what Bob Somerby said. Or better yet: what Scott Lemieux said:
It's not that there's anything wrong with writing about fashion or gossip per se. The problem is when major news organizations (and their would-be internet equivalents) think fashion writing and gossip constitute political writing. In the 2000 campaign it was the lead reporters and columnists of America's elite newspapers, not just gossip columnists, who were writing about Gore's suits, his sighing, the salaries of (only his female) consultants, and so on. One would think that two terms of George Bush would remind our newspapers that making elections turn on junior-high-school trivia has consequences that are anything but trivial, but given Maureen Dowd's disgraceful ongoing presence on the NYT's op-ed pages sharing her insights about John Edwards's haircuts, Judith Steinberg's troubling lack of makeup, and Al Gore's waistline, one can hardly be optimistic.
Sigh.
In other Gore news, Jim Sleeper thinks he ought to run with Obama, and also reviewed his book.
And finally, damn, this picture makes me jealous.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 11:38 am
24 May 2007
However, comedy makes any serious consideration of serious issues very difficult, if not impossible. By the way, I would very much recommend the hour-long interview of Gore that Dave participated in, it gave Gore the opportunity to talk outside the box of the sound bite. Judging from the bloggers' questions of Gore, and the reaction of Slate, etc., the most serious reporting is being done in the blogosphere.
Since protecting our democracy is a very serious issue, the comedians (including Dowd) can't make much a contribution, except to lampoon Republicans. Thom Hartmann on Air America Radio seems to best of those who are serious in anything approaching mainstream media, no?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:51 am
24 May 2007
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:06 pm
24 May 2007
What I mean by that is they tend to suffer from an intellectual form of ADD. Usually these folks are pretty bright and curious about a vast range of subjects. Alas, they can also be quite shallow, e.g., fixating on the horse race aspects of election campaigns. Bring up a theoretical idea and it tends to be dismissed as idle chatter by pointy headed losers.
That caricature does have some basis in reality, but it is overly glib and dismissive.
Global warming will not be stopped unless we start to think differently about some pretty fundamental issues, such as the nature of democracy in a world where one generation can do permanent and widespread damage to the next without its consent.
Scholarly theory matters. Gore understands this better than 95 percent of today's public figures. This is but one reason why he is such a remarkable statesman.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:44 am
25 May 2007
Let's see...mmm...does Grist contribute to anti-intellectualism?
If I ask questions such as could you point me to a scientific paper, or tell me more about that data, I get a series of "rebuttals" telling me that I'm a "troll".
I guess that's what Al Gore considers intellectual -- having everyone who doesn't agree with him get tape put over their mouths and down shouted by his Blue Guard bullies.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:38 am
25 May 2007
Cold Fusion
Hydrogen
Cosmic Ray Theory
And info from high paid lobbyists like Fred Singer in general.
I mean come on.
I'd love to see some credible arguements put up.
(Mainly since that lets me know where the competiion is at)
But most of what you keep putting up are merely strawman arguements.
Permalink