Bristol Palin’s Television Debut

At least Bristol didn’t read the lines off her hand.

I guess that, as a public personality, we’re allowed to shower her with derision – some may say it’s actually our civic duty to do so – but what does Bristol’s wooden acting have to do with politics?

I’ll bet the real Yo-Yo Ma will now fly up to Alaska and smash his cello against Sarah’s two-ish story high fence while cursing her out. (I”d love to post his quotes as “500 words” but we have enough moderation problems already.)

Every time you post a story with a Palin in it, God kills a kitten.

I always tought – it named stupidity.

Probably soon her youngest brother would tell us stories on Discovery

“500 words”
.
Bristol: …me two, I mean, too.
Roommate: Um, how did you know I had a baby? (pregnant pause) And you didn’t marry that hot stud Levi? Oh he looked soooo hot in that magazine spread and whew, how big is ….oh wait, with thoughts like that, no wonder I got knocked up.
Bristol: Welcome to my world, ding dong.

more “500 words”
.
Bristol: This program is for teen moms …with rich ex-governor moms who flies my …errrr, their newborns all over the country on book and endorsement tours. And I can afford Yo-Yo Ma any time I wish thanks to Mom while you can’t, nyah nyah nyah nyah. Get out. Now.
Roommate: Oh like, whatever. (rolls eyes as she storms out)….

That, budding thespians, is what they call ambiguity.

That and the line “of all my siblings, I am closest to Trig.”

I hear Bristol Palin is slated to star in the straight-to-DVD release of a movie based on Glenn Beck’s Overton Window…

Maybe I’m just a weak-kneed, bleeding-heart liberal… and sure, she’s put herself in the public eye, and all, and mockery is part of the price you pay.
-
But I dunno, this poor young woman, she’s been through quite a lot of very personally difficult trials, in the public eye. You see life stories like Gary Coleman and Corey Haim and Dana Plato and however many others…
-
I dunno, all I can think is that I just hope she comes out of all this as an OK human being.

No argument from here, Elvis. The only question remaining: Is it her parents’ fault for thrusting her into the spotlight, or the media’s fault for taking the bait.

I disagree completely.
.
Child or young stars end up missing out on family life.
.
With parents like hers, every minute away making bad movies. Besides, Gary Colman made a run for a governor of California. He had a much better chance than Palin ever has of becoming president.

Correction:
.
Every bad minute making bad movies is a good thing for her since it means less time with her wacky Mom and Dad.
.
(Sorry, I’ve been sick all day with a Summertime cold and am not up to par on proof reading today).

Why, Adam Sorensen?
.
Why do you imagine that we’re standing in a long line at our local big-box supermarket, waiting to have our Hot Pockets, Chef Boyardees and Hamburger Helpers scanned, thinking to ourselves

“I really shouldn’t buy that Kit-Kat…I’m so big these days, I can hardly fit into these jeans anymore…Maybe I’ll just get it and save it for later…OMG! It says on People Magazine that Jake and Vienna split up!…Wait, Scarlett Jo looks awful…I wonder if I can lose 15 pounds of fat in 15 days, just like it says…Hmmm…Ryan Seacrest and Julianne Hough getting more serious…Wait…if I get all this, will I have enough in the account to put gas in the tank on the way back…Tori Spelling’s kids are so cute…“

?
.
Why?
.
For whom exactly do you think you’re writing these posts, Adam Sorensen?

I like KitKats (dark Milky Ways even more) but not Hamburger Helper (make my own casseroles). Stouffers French Bread Pizzas are a winner too. Interesting that you mention Scarlett Johansson. Last year she wrote a HuffPost piece re: media gossip over her weight. She shredded them, good for her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scarlett-johansson/the-skinny_b_186233.html

Sorensen made it pretty clear he finds politics BOOOR-ing.

That Family Guy character, the Down’s Syndrome daughter of an Alaskan governor, had better acting chops than this girl. And she was a cartoon!

Wow the liberal left’s feeding frenzy continues. Isn’t it amazing how they all love to attack some 18 year old girl, just because she is the daughter of someone they so desparately want to hate.
.
I bet life really sucks for you nimrods.

“Why?”
.
Because its easier than risking their ever-so-precious ‘access’ if they write a negative article about any individual politician.
.
Because its easier than being accused of bias for pointing out the negative actions of one party over the other party.
.
Because its easier than alienating the corporations that provide the advertising revenue, or in some cases, own the media outlet.
.
Because its easier than real journalism.

I don’t have a problem with Kit-Kats, nor people who like Kit-kats nor people who buy some of the weirder food that’s for sale at big-box supermarkets to which they drive enormous cars and trucks every week.
.
That piece by Scarlett Johansson was good, thanks, deconstructiva.

“they all love to attack”
.
“life really sucks for you nimrods”
.
And Rusty won’t even get the irony….

We didn’t ask for this sh*t, Rustydog, Sorensen put it up here to make us pissed off because he’s forced to watch all the boring action of our Congress screwing the American people with the latest financial “reform” conference.
.
He’s supposed to be paying attention to this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/24/rep-mcmahon-to-vote-no-if-derivatives-plan-isnt-altered/
.
* June 24, 2010, 12:43 PM ET
.
Rep. McMahon to Vote ‘No’ If Derivatives Plan Isn’t Altered
.
By Damian Paletta
.
Rep. *Michael McMahon *(D., N.Y.) said in an interview today that he will vote against the financial overhaul bill if a section that could require banks to spin off their derivatives businesses isn’t changed immediately.
.
McMahon’s threat underscores New York Democrats’ hostility toward the provision, known as “716” and inserted by Sen. *Blanche Lincoln *(D., Ark.).
He said New York Democrats are discussing what they should do, and that others appeared to also be weighing voting against the bill.
.
“This may cause the whole bill to fail,” McMahon said. He said there needed to be new regulation of derivatives but “we’re not going to force the whole industry to go to Singapore and Zurich.”
.
The House bill passed by just 21 votes in December; if only 11 lawmakers who originally supported the bill switched to “no” votes, the bill could die on the House floor.
.
House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to finish negotiating the financial overhaul bill today, and the derivatives section is up for debate in the afternoon.

, but he’s bummed out at the “mind-numbing spectacle” of Blanche’s cynical primary play getting yanked out of the bill by somebody else, to Larry Summers’ delight.
.
Do not dare blame liberals for this failure of journalism, Rustydog.

Yeah, rusty, think about how the media is never, ever critical of Brittney Spears, Madonna, the Rolling Stones, the Olson twins… no, they never want to get the dirt on anybody.
.
Hell, people like Madonna are now famous for being famous. I thought her music was awful 30 years ago, but it is media infamy which keeps money rolling in for her.
.
Media infamy?
.
Famous for being famous but not much else?
.
Wait, it looks like even she never learns to act, Bristol will have a multi-million dollar career for being terrible at what she does for a living just like Mom.

I really don’t care one way or another about Sarah Palin and her kids. I hope she find some opportunity to carve out her own personality and life.
.
Best of wishes to her; it’s not really her fault that her mom made her life, struggles and teen pregnancy a spectacle.
.
But acting ain’t it. I bet the other girl is p!ssed because she got there based on her looks AND because she can act and she got there because…Sarah made her ‘famous’.
.
But again – if she ends up making an acting career out of it, good for her.

What choice did she have? Republicans aren’t allowed to do “reality” TV, or reality of any kind for that matter.

“I’ve been glued to the mind-numbing spectacle of financial reform conference committee unfolding on C-SPAN 3″
.
And a couple of days ago Scherer was complaining, perhaps observing would be fairer of me, that persidents are boring.
.
Assuming you actually wanted to be journalists, why would you pick an occupation that you can’t stand?

Of course “persidents” ARE boring.
.
Presidents not so much.

“Wait, Scarlett Jo looks awful…”
.
I’m sorry but that just isn’t possible.
.
I’ve read through all the posts and this is the only comment I’m inspired to respond to.
.
BTW, Viva Nippon!

Come now people, Rusty’s point is that Adam/Time are liberal-left propagandists.

Japan looked great, Honda’s a very good player, and that penalty was not deserved.
.
It’s on to Paraguay, we’ll see whether the South American nations’ juggernaut can be slowed!

LOL
.
You’re killing today, JC.

Whoops, I was laughing to hard.
.
LOL
.
You’re killing today, JC.

Like Lincoln (D, The State of Walmart) or Nelson (D, Group of Omaha), McMahon is simply representing his constiuency. Their interests are our interests, people. In fact, it’s the new populism!

Hate to bring up boring politics. Or even worse, campaign finance reform(bah!) but this isn’t bad.
.
“This morning at the Democratic caucus, the message from leadership to Blue Dogs unwilling to support a new campaign finance measure requiring more disclosure in political advertising — wise up.
.
The bill — a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — passed this afternoon, 219-206. There were 36 Democrats — members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Blue Dogs — who voted against it. Many Blue Dogs feared retribution from the business community in an already tough election year if they had voted for the legislation.
.
So in a huddle with rank-and-file members this morning, Democratic leaders told Blue Dogs they should ignore threats from the bill’s chief opponent, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber endorses the occasional Democrat, albeit infrequently, but leaders made the case that Blue Dogs aren’t likely to be rewarded by the usually pro-GOP group for blocking the bill.”
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/leadership-to-blue-dogs-in-campaign-finance-fight-get-with-it.php?ref=fpa

Prerequisites are boring…..
Perquisites not so much…..

One of the few benefits of a child crying at 4:30a.m. is it got me up in time for the 2nd half. Surprisingly easy go of it–highly doubtful this will hold true Tuesday. Little dual-passport holder has two teams in the sweet 16.

“Assuming you actually wanted to be journalists, why would you pick an occupation that you can’t stand?”
.
They love the politics, they’re just too hip and smart to be bothered with all that nerdy policy stuff. Imagine if you had never evolved emotionally past the eighth grade and still thought your sh!t was foie gras.

“The major media-particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations ‘selling’ privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values; it is not easy to say one thing and believe another, and those who fail to conform will tend to be weeded out by familiar mechanisms.”
.
Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies

Thanks for this link, PNNTO, very interesting.
.
Especially this part:

[the corporate special interest spending on politics disclosure bill] …faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Republicans had hoped to exploit the majority party’s differences and cause the measure to fall apart, as it did last week in the House when leadership was forced to pull it from the floor.

What “differences” can they possibly mean?
.
What are the “differences” in the Democratic party on transparency and corporate special interests?
.
I mean, they’re all just the same old liberal Democrats in the Senate, right? What divides some Democrats from others?
.
What kind of ideological fissure can the GOP hope to exploit?

Jay Rosen says that Chomsky’s analysis is too ideological, simple and divorced from professional reality, JC:
.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/06/14/ideology_press.html

All true, JC. But, to put a bottom-spin on the idea that all politics are local, it’s more than just the adoption of certain job facilitating ideological viewpoints, it’s a psychological orientation that seems somewhat innate. I’ve always thought that the most successful actors in business, especially the media business, really excelled at the art of politics – if nothing else (and sometimes, nothing else). And if you’re living politics, whether by predisposition or by necessity, that’s how you’re going to think. It’s also why great scientists, teachers, engineers, (liberals?) etc., generally suck at professional politics; they just don’t think that way.
.
Whoever said “great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people” must have been describing that sort of fixed orientation.

sigh

Shep, completely agree about inherent temperments & not only regarding this topic. For instance, I couldn’t sell nickel hotpockets to Inuits.
.
Who did say: “great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people”? Killer quote.
.
SZ, I did manage to get to that Rosen piece last week. Nothing in particular that I take issue with, though his penchant for jargon (often unnecessary/more complicated than the phenomena being described) is a little off-putting. But, hey, we’ve all got personas to sell. That said, in no way do I find his theories incompatible with Chomsky’s fundamental observation (not merely of MSM but of all institutions). Rosen is obviously more dialed into media 2.0 but the intersection of power and ideology remains almost entierly unchanged
.
Thus, we see the NYT add Ross Douche-hat but not Conor Friedersdorf, WaPo add Better than Ezra but not GG, or Time break out yet another slice of stale wonderbread-CW on us here in the Swamp. F@ck me, have they ever interviewed a person of color, let alone someone occupying the intellectual margins.

The dis-inclusion of someone of the caliber of Conor Friedersdorf is egregious and perverse, I agree.
.
Disgusting.

Right you are sz.

Hey, as long as we’re bored crapless with the financial “reform” conference, why not watch some other TV than the kind that features the children of celebrities?
.
How about this kind of tv?
.
http://motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/06/BP-louisiana-police-stop-activist
.
What do you think?
.
Do you recognize this America?
.
Do you accept that this kind of outrageous collusion between the armed state and international –they’re British Petroleum, for God’s sake– corporations is what we’re about as a country?
.
Is this what the Founders had in mind?

You remember all the editors of the major publications getting together and protesting BP’s conduct since the spill? Me neither.

When I was young my mother told me that every time you masturbated, God would kill a kitten. That started a lifelong mission. There’s still a jillion cats. Can anyone out there lend me a hand?

Well, those of us who recognize such collusion are unlikely to accept it. But since a) the reality-based community is small and lacking in power and b) the media has no interest in bringing more Americans into the fold of reality or in challenging such collusion…
.
Which of “The Elements of Journalism” are being practiced today?
.
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

jc, the exact origin of the quote is unknown (it is often attributed to either Eleanor Roosevelt or Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, though neither claimed credit for it).
.
sz, I like Jay but he’s got some problems with his “tiny camp”. He says, “The left says: Look, it’s very simple. The political press ultimately serves the interests of the people who own it— the corporate capitalists, the ones with money and power and “access” to politicians, the people who run things and always have. Those who are unwilling to make peace with this fact don’t make it very far in political journalism.”
.
I notice he doesn’t refute any of that (the word “ultimately” being the saving generality which would prevent him from doing so) he simply claims that it’s more complicated. Well, sure. They are also powerfully influenced by their editor bosses (why would he leave that out?) their peers, customers and their families, along with their lifetime experiencial framework. Nevertheless, “ultimately…”
.
Later, he says, “…if we were able to engage our political journalists in a deeper discussion we would also find that most of them are skeptical about changing society in any fundamental way. And they are big believers in the law of unintended consequences. So: liberal or conservative? My answer: it’s complicated.”
.
My answer: no, not really. “[S]keptical about changing society in any fundamental way”, is a perfectly descriptive and accurate way to describe traditional conservatism. And, considering that any “fundamental” change, at least any that would move the country in a positive direction for the masses, will require some loss of corporate power and indemnity of industry, we’re back to “ultimately…”.

”The way professional journalists… demonstrate that they are not on anyone’s “team,”] puts a premium on stories that embarrass, disrupt, annoy or counter the preferred narrative—the talking points, the party line—of one or both of the sides engaged in political battle.”
.
Which, I say, is effectively countered by the fear of losing access (to corporate/government power) if you piss someone off too badly.

“Each of these factors cuts different ways in different circumstances. There are ideological implications to all of them. For example: one of the consequences of the contempt for true believers is that street protests and marches aren’t taken very seriously in political journalism. Also, religious leaders getting involved in politics have a huge hurdle to overcome. Third effect: Ironists do better with the press than idealists. None of these things is “neutral.”
.
The most important ideological implication is the merit of the ideology. The fact that journalists seldom discuss the relative rational or social value of an ideal or a street protest against a horrible public policy (or the merit of the policy for that matter), compared with simple irony or religious leaders in politics, could be the problem here. Smarmy contrarianism, i.e., “the delight most reporters take in inconveniencing with reported fact and discomfiting questions those who represent a particular point of view,” doesn’t make one a skeptic, not even close.
.
OK, enough. Like I said, I like Jay.

“Which of “The Elements of Journalism” are being practiced today?”
.
I hope that was irony, jc. ‘Cause you know you’re going no where with teh journalists if you’re spouting some sort of ideal (sorry, Jay).

I watched ABC version of thye General’s firing and more time was used by the star news people than on what the President said.

What happened to Harry’s backbone? Should the Dem’s not be threatening a filibuster over the Republicans blocking of the employment benefits. I wonder if Karen was still here if she would think this is a time for a filibuster? This is the only thing that would give this the news coverage it deserves.

I think Michael “Bored with the President” Scherer should consider trading places with James Poniewozik, Time’s TV critic.
.
Nothing like watching the Palin family screeching on TeeVee..

Speaking of our star reporters. How many you think head the stuff the Rolling Stone reporter heard and just did not report it? Because the way this story is playing out is that free lance guy from Rolling Stone got off the plane and all this stuff kind of just happen when he showed up.

Yes, chronically ironic will be my epitaph.
.
Now, for non-courtiers beyond Versailles…
.
Jeremy Scahill:
.
“I would define an independent journalist as someone that’s totally un-embedded when it comes to their relationship with the powerful. In other words, you don’t get into bed with any political party. I’m not a Democrat; I’m not a Republican. I’m a journalist. It means that you don’t get in bed with the military, with the CIA, or wealthy corporations, and you don’t compromise your journalistic or your personal integrity in the pursuit of anything, including a story.
.
I believe that the way independent journalists are most effectively able to conduct their work is by maintaining their independence from the powerful. I don’t hob-nob with the powerful. I don’t count among my friends executives or other powerful people. I think it’s important for independent journalists to not be beholden to any special interests whatsoever.

On the flip side of that, it’s the role of independent journalists to embed themselves with the victims of U.S. foreign policy — in the case of U.S. journalists — or domestic policy. What I mean by that is to actually go out to where the people live who are most affected by these policies — be it Afghanistan or the slums of the United States. You have to be un-embedded from the powerful and you have to embed yourself with the disempowered, because I think part of our role as independent journalists is not only to confront those in power, but to give voice to the voiceless.”

gysgt213 The RS reporter said he had a lot that was off the record, so this was readily available to the star reporters. I am glad we have a few like this reporter that has the courage to do what reporters should do.

Another great article from Rolling Stones, on Goldman Sachs.
.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796
.
I doubt anyone has missed reading it, as it was this article that had the memorable quote about GS – ” A great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”.
.
So, Time reporters – Are you just going to sit there and watch TV and let Rolling Stones roll all over you?

Talk about turning a lemon into lemonade, this thread has some good stuff having nothing to do with Bristol. Enjoyed it.

The above-mentioned Jay Rosen tweeted:

@jayrosen_nyu
.
Lara Logan of CBS News suggests the RS writer might have violated McChrystal’s trust http://jr.ly/zmca a charge that he has not made so WTF?

Eeeuuuuw that is so gross. Try using your other hand sacredh.

My mother told me that every time I masturbated I would kill a whale. I guess size does matter.

But she also told me that every time I masturbated while thinking of Sarah Palin I would reinforce the influence held over Congress by the oil, healthcare, banking and tobacco industries. Sorry guys.

“Wait, Scarlett Jo looks awful…”
.
I’m sorry but that just isn’t possible.
.
Not awful, but I was actually in the supermarket recently – no, I was not buying junk food – and I saw a magazine cover with ScarJo and thought, “Oh my God, what happened to her?” She had this cliche skinny model body and I thought she might have gone Hollywood and lost 15 pounds. It turned out her head had just been photoshopped onto another body. Yes, the editors had decided that Scarlett Johansson was too fat for their magazine cover.
.
Like stuart, my question was why. Apparently men think she is one of the most attractive women in the world. Obviously women don’t want to feel that anyone as slim as Scarlett Johansson is fat. The consequence of all this is that women feel more insecure, which is probably the aim. Confident people are bad consumers.
.
Mocking Bristol Palin promotes the same aim. Sure, we can briefly feel superior to her, but when the culture is flooded with cheap ridicule we become more anxious because we know we could be the next target. Most people look in the mirror and know, even if we don’t consciously admit it, that if we were famous we’d be ridiculed for being fat, ugly, bald, having a shrill voice, or getting pregnant at 17, or something. If it happens to Scarlett, it could happen to any of us.

Excellent commentary, Rose, thank you.

Scahill was on Olbermann tonight. The topic was new contracts given to Xe (aka: Blackwater) by the Pentagon and the CIA. Olbermann was upset that Xe was still getting contracts. Scahill, who wrote a great book on Blackwater, stated that Xe used graymail. They knew where the bodies were buried.
Olbermann had played some clips of Eric Prince, head of Xe, being interviewed on CNBC earlier. Scahill made a great point. How can CNBC have Prince on, talk about his company and ask no questions about their infamous record? Well, Olbermann really couldn’t answer that one. We all know the answer of course.

There have been a number of “reporters”, including a mention in politico, that the Rolling Stone reporter was foolish. After all, be revealing what was actually said, he has ruined them as future sources.

OK, first Scarlett J, now Lara Logan–any other women who make me drool that you’re going to bring up on the same thread.
.
My proclivities aside, this could be added to my NYT-Douche, WP-Ezra riff above. Lara Logan was a perfect choice for CBS as opposed to someone like Chris Hedges. Those who self-censor prosper, those who don’t starve.

SZ: See 13.7

when the culture is flooded with cheap ridicule we become more anxious because we know we could be the next target
-
That is an extremely sharp and important formulation of a problem with our culture that extends far beyond the issue we’re dealing with in this post.

I was more struck by this observation:
.
“The consequence of all this is that women feel more insecure, which is probably the aim. Confident people are bad consumers.”
.
Not so much the 1st 1/2 of the equation, as IMO there’s no “probably” about it. Where (particularly young) women are concerned, it’s all about creating a false sense of both insecurity and security. If what’s threatening your self-esteem is created by marketers, is any ensuing “fix” more true? But that 2nd 1/2–confident people are “bad consumers.” Hmm. Meaning less likely to be manipulated by evil marketers but not necessarily less materialistic, right?

if she was playing the role of a teen robot – she should win an Emmy.

“Lara Logan of CBS News suggests the RS writer might have violated McChrystal’s trust.”
.
And of course this is a reporter’s first obligation and insight into their mindset. Ms. Logan is of course not alone in this thinking, because it all comes natural to our press and media core.
.
Of course if the RS reporter had just stuck to writing about how McChrystal slept only 4 hours a night, ate one meal a day and personally guided predator drones around the battle field he would have been fine. If he had only fell in line and created a fake super hero narrative neither he or his magazine would face any type of suspicion of being just a bunch of DFHs in the first place.
.
But in all fairness RS should be use to this type of distain from the mainstream inside media types. Remember when Matt Tabbi wrote nasty things about Goldman?

But that 2nd 1/2–confident people are “bad consumers.” Hmm. Meaning less likely to be manipulated by evil marketers but not necessarily less materialistic, right?
.
Yes, they’re less gullible.
.
Thanks for all the good feedback!

“though his penchant for jargon (often unnecessary/more complicated than the phenomena being described) is a little off-putting.”

Which pieces of impenetrable and persona-selling jargon did you have in mind, jcapan?

Unfortunately, JC is actually living and working in Japan at this time, Prof Rosen, so it may take a number of hours for him to respond to your question.
.
Please do not take offense at this delay.
.
As it happens, I’d like to know to which jargon he was referring, myself:
.
“Quest for Innocence?”
.
“Regression to a Phony Mean?”
.
“The Ideology of Fluff?”
.
“Church of The Savvy?”
.
As an engaged news user, I found these terms and the concepts they encompass to be useful in helping me identify and separate what tends to wrap my journalism.
.
(Of course, I have my own theories on press corps ideology, which you know from my contributions in commentary to PressThink.)
.
I look forward to JC’s response, as I’m sure many of us in the Commentariat do.

You’re not getting the context right — “yo-yo ma” is what Bristol Palin calls her mother.

@20.4, these sources may be so badly burned that they have no future value anyway.

Hey Jay,
.
Welcome to the Swamp! And thanks for the forewarning, SZ. Yes, it’s only 6:30am here in the land of the rising raindrop.
.
I’d emphasize the first part of what I said: “Nothing in particular that I take issue with.” Meaning that individually the terms you employ make enough sense, but as a whole it seems that you’ve made it a lot more “complicated.” No doubt these are the mores of “the craft” as currently practiced but…
.
… the driving force is what Chomsky has been expressing for decades. That our best and brightest matriculate at elite universities where they face a subtle and unrelenting form of indoctrination, internalizing rigid establisment values. Sooner or later, they’re no longer conscious of such grooming–they’re then ready to assume the maintenance of society. It’s not merely that the State Dept. or WaPo wouldn’t hire someone who declared most U.S. presidents since WWII war criminals–it’s that these young suits have been trained not to think, let alone utter such heresies in polite company.
.
Anyway, my opinion of your perspective probably says more about our relative positions–you’re a freakin’ journalism prof and pro-media critic after all. Naturally, you’re writing to a certain audience. That’s not my gig, professionally or here in the blogosphere. I did grad work in lit and have taught for over a decade. As you know, we have our own share of jargon. Among colleagues, I dish it out. In an undergraduate classroom, it’s tempered considerably. On the blogs, not at all. IMO, the objectives of the netroots should transcend talking to one another. This is, ironically enough, much like the ivory tower. The greater society it ostensibly is so knowing of is often held at a careful, controlled distance. So much anthropology.
.
Anyway, I would like to offer my apologies for the gratuitous ‘persona-selling’ tag. Wholly unnecessary and I’m not qualified to say it of you/your work.
.
And SZ, I’m reminded of the extended conversation we had with allthings… a few weeks back. We simply, however complicated it is, have to get better at conveying our ideas to folks like him.

In other words, there isn’t any jargon you can point to that is really jargon, jcapan. That is what I thought.

No, not at all. Like your own mostly helpful attempts to explain our media’s epic failings, my response was complicated. Of course, High Broderism, Church of the Savvy or the Sphere of Deviance are jargon. Do you deny that they are? As is asemic writing or terministic screen for lit theorists. Your ability to explain the terms well in paragraph form doesn’t change that fact (i.e. h/t Merriam-Webster: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity, group, profession, or field of study).
.
I never said what you write is impenetrable (it’s not that complicated, Jay). I said it was “a little off-putting,” which is of course my personal judgment. Further, you seem to delight in its coinage/employment. Finally, my pt. was, compared to the process I described this morning, that I find many of the phenomena you describe to be peripheral.

So, I’m surfing around while swilling my overpriced J-IPA after a long Saturday of cleaning up baby feces and drool, and I think, why in the world is this esteemed bloke coming here to defend himself against some anonymous commenter’s incredibly mild slam. And I come across this Somerby post from last year:
.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011909.shtml
.
So, perhaps jargon struck a nerve. Maybe you have some response to Bob’s “academizing a simple idea” lying around and you can cut and paste it for me. Full disclosure, I typically can’t stand Bob.

If you want to see, by contrast, really good acting where the dialog tells you nothing but the movements, tones and expressions of the actors tell you everything check this out as a comparison to Bristol Palin:
WARNING THE ONE AND ONLY WORD IS A FOUL WORD, THOSE WITH WEAK EARS OR EASILY OFFENDED, DO NOT WATCH

.
Not in his alcoholism but his being a workaholic and prone to being insubordinate, I can easily identify with McNulty.
.
Now, imagine people with Bristol Palin’s theatrical skills trying to do this role (maybe the other girl could pull it off, but not Bristol Palin).