Media Criticism

I harbor a grudging jealousy with anyone who can write a poem that doesn’t sound like something a teenager wrote for an ex-girlfriend. I know I can put together a string of good sentences but I cannot put the soul of a poem in my commentary. The reason I bring this up is that The New York Times interviewed U.S. poet laureate Charles Simic in the Sunday edition.

I should say Mr. Simic’s official title “Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress,�? a mouthful of words that make the title holder an ambassador for flowery prose. Deborah Solomon’s interview with Charles Simic covers the spectrum of issues from the poet laureate’s accessible poetry to his vote for John Edwards in the New Hampshire primary. I like the issues spanned in this brief interview because few people know what the U.S. poet laureate does on a daily basis. The vague mandate offered by Congress for this position makes the ideal candidate capable of promoting poetry while relating well with the press. Charles Simic seems to fit this bill.

The Times interview points out a fatal flaw in our educational system which is a focus on writing. I don’t mean handwriting which remains a sticking point for many students (I can relate as a left hander who was encouraged to turn rightie by some mean old nuns). The over-scheduling of children leaves no room for imagination, whimsy, mental flexibility or expression of emotions of all types. I hope that Mr. Simic uses what Deborah Solomon refers to as “unusually accessible and plainspoken�? poetry to open doors for artistic endeavors in our schools. As someone who grew up in a family that encouraged expression and went to a school that tried to suppress it, I can tell you that the former is vital for proper development into adulthood.

In the midst of the primary season, I forgot to write my usual take on the Sunday interview in the New York Times Magazine. My apologies to the dozens of readers who were frustrated by reading something else on Monday morning but other issues arose. The interview on Sunday was with former Republican opposition researcher Stephen Marks and his book, “Confessions of a Political Hitman.�?

Deborah Solomon tried to engage Marks with the questionable morality of pointing out the affairs, misstatements and other blunders of politicians in a public way. Marks is unapologetic in this interview, citing a need by the voting public for as much information as possible on candidates. Most of the questions published in the magazine focus on specific examples of opposition research including the George Allen “macaca�? comment and negative ads about Al Gore in 2000.

While Marks does not apologize for his line of work, he has also left the industry for other endeavors (namely, writing a best-selling book). I have mixed feelings about opposition research as someone who has worked in academic and legislative research in the past. There are different levels of opposition research in political campaigns of which I was admittedly at the lowest level. I looked at an incumbent’s speeches on the floor of the House for inconsistencies and mistakes that could be used by the challenger I worked for. It is easy for me to say that my work was designed for the public good because it might help elect a better candidate (it didn’t). In my view, opposition research can cause greater harm than good.

The reason I dislike the work of operatives like Marks is the tone of the advertisements and press releases that carry this information. I would agree with Marks that the public good would be met by revelations of extortion by a politician if the resulting advertisements were informational instead of sensational. The problem comes when operatives who have an affiliation with someone three times removed from a campaign find an obscure or unsubstantiated claim about a candidate that is treated like truth.

Just like the media’s obsession with documenting every moment of a celebrity’s life, political operatives want an unfiltered lens into the private lives of politicians. I agree that public good comes from additional information but everyone, even a politician, deserves a private life as long as it does not influence performance in the public sphere. We need to move away from a culture of virtual voyeurism and toward a culture that values truth placed in context.

The issue of free speech has become prevalent in recent years due to the general curb on civil liberties by the Bush administration. A false dichotomy between civil liberties and security has been created by neo-conservatives (and more than a few “liberals�?) who want to maintain their power. Individuals like Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times op-ed columnist, have been addressing the history of civil liberties in recent years to place the post-9/11 tightening of liberties in context. Mr. Lewis was the subject of this week’s New York Times Magazine interview by Deborah Solomon.

The subject of the interview is Lewis’ book “Freedom for Thought We Hate�? which provides an exhaustive history of the First Amendment. Solomon’s line of questioning helps bring out the essentials of the book including the origins of civil liberties restriction during the Adams administration. As someone who has studied civil liberties at the undergraduate and graduate level, I agree with Lewis’ assertion that the issues of curbing free speech and other liberties are not exclusive to the 20th century. The freedom from wrongful imprisonment was waived by the Lincoln administration in the Civil War and the jingoism of the Spanish-American War made informal empire a reality for the next century.

Anthony Lewis states that the curb of civil liberties during the Bush administration is not nearly as bad as the limits placed by the Wilson administration during World War I. I am not certain about this assertion because there is no critical distance from the Bush years. It is difficult to make historical comparisons and analogies when you are in the midst of a political current. I would rephrase Lewis’ comment to say that the abuses of human rights by President Bush have been worse while civil liberties were violated in higher volume by Woodrow Wilson. I am looking forward to reading Lewis’ book and celebrate my right to free speech thereafter by continuing this blog.

This week’s interview subject in the New York Times Magazine was director Francis Ford Coppola. I know the hotter story this past week was the cover story involving Mike Huckabee, the Devil, God and other nonsense. I am not going to get into the coverage because I can tell you what I think of that story in a single sentence: The issue of religion in politics has been drummed up by reporters who want to gain access to politicians, influence voters and sell magazines. That being said, I think that the Coppola interview was a less than revealing look at this hyped director.

I have seen The Godfather multiple times over the years and enjoyed the movie. I don’t fall into the many people who worship The Godfather as if it were directed from on high. This affliction seems to strike at 30- and 40-somethings who share an affinity for reciting the same dozen Caddyshack quotes during meals. The movie was entertaining but it has also spawned an obsession in recreating the The Godfather experience in the last two decades. In this sense, Coppola’s answers to questions lobbed by interviewer Deborah Solomon fall between pretention and annoyance.

Francis Ford Coppola spends some time (I imagine more in the unedited version of the interview) talking about his new film “Youth without Youth,�? how little it cost to make and its philosophical underpinnings. I appreciate that Coppola is aging and wants to head a different route but any time an interviewer asks a director to examine independent movies the response comes off as pretentious. Solomon and Coppola share the blame for the ensuing conversation which sounds like two college students trying to figure out how to sound smart after reading the back cover of Plato’s Republic.

I am torn in the end by Coppola’s persona as projected through this interview. He brushes off a question about The Godfather in a way that I appreciate but the rest of the interview Coppola seems to be conflicted about his legacy as a director. No one will remember “Youth without Youth�? and few will remember his gaffes since The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. Francis Ford Coppola could have spent the last two decades trying to change his reputation, cultivate credibility in the indie film game and begin a rebirth as a different type of director. In the end, an interview in the New York Times Magazine will not get the job of changing legacies done.

Deborah Solomon from the New York Times spoke with Commentary editor John Podhoretz in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. The conversation began with a discussion about Podhoretz taking over for his famously conservative father as editor of the magazine. For those readers who are unfamiliar with Commentary, it is a magazine that features conservative and neo-conservative views on the world. The magazine’s description on Google says “General, yet Jewish�? in recognition of the magazine’s connections with the American Jewish Committee in the 1940s.

Solomon showed the paper’s bias a bit by highlighting Podhoretz’s position as a film critic for the conservative Weekly Standard. The tone of the question indicates a stereotype that conservatives are incapable of enjoying movies, books and music in the mainstream. I am no conservative but I seem to remember Al and Tipper Gore among other Democrats at the forefront of the censorship issue in the 1980s. The question is dispatched quickly by Podhoretz who reads like he has something better to do.

I must note that I read Commentary on occasion because the magazine is interesting and offers a view of ideas that I don’t necessarily hold. Podhoretz provides an insight into his editorial style by lauding the New York Review of Books for its commitment to simplicity over the last four decades. His view of intellectualism is fairly conservative and I agree with his point that the 21st century is not sovereign in its possession of intellectual mediocrity. As a devoted reader to magazines ranging from The Nation to Commentary, I hope to due my small part toward encouraging thoughtfulness and creativity in media.

This week’s Sunday interview by The New York Times Magazine was with British author Ian McEwan. Every time I read an interview with an author, I always cringe about the incessant focus on the author’s greatest work. I think Deborah Solomon does a great job delving past McEwan’s work Atonement to speak about atheism and converting books into movies.

The discussion of McEwan’s pronounced atheism and the problem of writing characters with a strong sense of spirituality was particularly interesting. As someone who is a skeptic about religious fervor, I agreed with McEwan’s assertion that the conscience of the average atheist is as strong if not stronger than the believer. Some individuals use a deity as a crutch while others accept the inspired word of their God without any analysis. It takes hard work and effort to maintain agnosticism and atheism in a world where religion is seen as a prerequisite for any sort of authority.

Solomon digs further into the issue of religion later in the interview when talking about attacks on author Martin Amis regarding his criticisms of the Muslim faith. I agree in part with McEwan’s assertion that Amis and other authors need to be free to criticize religion in the same way that religious leaders can criticize secular humanists. The key for any critic of religion, politics or society is not to paint too broad a brush stroke about an entire group of people. I can guarantee that there are plenty of Muslims who disagree with the reactionary response in the Sudan to a teacher allowing students to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

While I have ragged on The New York Times in multiple entries in the past, one of my favorite pieces of reading materials is the Sunday Times Magazine. The magazine encapsulates some of the major issues facing the world today without committing to some of the bloviating that goes on in the regular paper. I have to confess that I also enjoy the interviews because they are free online. This week’s interview subject was Umberto Eco, an Italian political philosopher who laments the growth of media consolidation in Italy.

Eco’s attacks on former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi reveal his belief that media consolidation is a major demon in his native country. In the interview, however, the Times writer seems to bypass the fact that America is undergoing similar problems. Eco acknowledges that his specific concerns are peculiar to Italy though the Federal Communications Commission has certainly done a lot toward deregulating media markets. I think the responsibility for this oversight falls on Times writer Deborah Solomon.

One other issue I have with the interview with Umberto Eco is the type of questions that Solomon pursues about Eco’s literary background. The written word does not easily lend itself to transcribing discussions but I got the impression that Eco was agitated. Solomon asks whether he would care if anyone read his book 100 years from now. Eco gave a curt answer that essentially said that writers need to care about their work to ensure the creation of something significant. I am toying with the idea of making a review of the Times magazine a regular fixture each Monday. If anyone has any input, I would love to hear it.

The religious conservatism that arose in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan and in the 1994 Republican revolution promised an increasing role for leaders like Gary Bauer. Bauer failed in 2000 to gain the Republican Party nomination and has focused his attention on affecting change on the party from the outside. This past weekend’s Values Voter Summit gave evangelicals an opportunity to listen to speeches by Republican candidates while leaders of the Holier-Than-Thou club met in private in their version of the smoke filled room.

The conference did not seem to accomplish anything that had not already been determined through televised debates and live events. Rudy Giuliani is a secular devil, Fred Thompson is a conservative, Mitt Romney is religious but the wrong kind of religious and so forth. The New York Times article discussing the Values Voter Summit mentions support among the brain trust for Governor Mike Huckabee which makes sense if value voters are solely concerned about their values.

One reason this type of conference does not work is that Christian conservatives are becoming increasingly irrelevant in politics. The ties of religious conservatives to President Bush at every step of his administration have been disastrous. American voters are worried about those stupid secular concerns like Social Security, health insurance and international affairs that diehard evangelicals are only loosely concerned with. The concentration of the eyes of the faithful toward what is wrong with American politics including the potential evils of two New York politicians gaining party nominations shows that evangelicals are guilty of politics as usual. Americans need to blend the good parts of their religious faith like justice and compassion with their political concerns when they vote for president.

The week-long visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York City has drawn the ire of media types throughout the city and the United States. The New York Post used its typical sensationalist language to condemn Ahmadinejad’s visit while the New York Times highlights protests for today’s address at Columbia University. I cannot believe that a weak president whose country is sinking quickly into depression and personally has the eyes of the entire world upon him will leave any significant mark on an American audience.

It is important for Americans to hear Ahmadinejad without the filter of the American and Iranian presses. Without the banners and cheering crowds carefully orchestrated by Iranian handlers, Ahmadinejad will resort to discussing the issues instead of spouting rhetoric. If he expects his call for the destruction of Israel to receive cheers from dignitaries, he will be lucky to walk away with a handful of boos from an otherwise shocked audience.

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is nothing unique and New York City residents in specific and Americans in general need to listen attentively to the Iranian president’s words. Iran is experiencing economic issues and the tense glare of world powers over Iran’s foreign policy and weapons manufacturing may help crack Ahmadinejad’s demeanor on hostile turf. Ahmadinejad may be a bad man and a terrible leader but America needs to realize that we have already fought our war in the Middle East. The Republican media machine is not dissimilar from the Iranian media machine and it is important for America to realize that its politics are nearly as reactionary. This week will come and go without incident except for the extraordinary traffic associated with his visit.

An article today in the New York Times discussed the hot button topic following George Bush’s victory in 2004, the role of “security moms�? in his re-election. We have heard of “soccer moms�? and “security moms�? as if these were new issues. The Times article even notes that women have been separate from men in terms of their votes since at least 1980 though it seems likely that local and state voting has been diverse since the end of World War II.

The Internet has caused the mainstream media to hop on board with buzz words and industry language that sounds ridiculous when it comes out of the mouths of reporters. “Security moms�? sounds like a bad ABC drama or a ridiculous category on a pie chart targeting women with children who are getting bullied. The Times and other newspapers should link so much to the hype of these words. While it seems like the mainstream media makes up these words and attaches them to situations, they are only a vessel to move these words into common parlance.

Most Americans don’t realize that niche marketing in presidential elections goes back to 1896. William McKinley’s campaign manager was Mark Hanna, a business insider and future Ohio senator who plastered McKinley’s visage on advertisements like he was a new brand of soap. The Republican Party under McKinley divided the country based on its stance on the gold standard and prosperity as defined by the Northeastern elites. You can go back further to the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson who hoped to define himself as a person of the frontiersman and a foe of the banker. “Wal-Mart Women�? (something I do not relish typing) is only a new term for a very old technique in politics.

Newspapers, cable news shoes and other mainstream media outlets need to relax. Take a deep breath, editors of the Times, and think about putting your stories in plain English instead of the hot marketing terms of the day. I know that newspapers aren’t supposed to stand the test of time but they should try their best to give analysis that doesn’t wear out while I finish reading an article. It is okay for a newspaper especially one as prominent as the New York Times to bypass the latest fad and provide normal analysis without terms like “soccer moms.�?