Is this really too much to ask?
NOTE: Boston Common is no longer being updated. For the latest Boston-area blog posts, please see Universal Hub
The Globe today reports that Deval Patrick is thinking of running for governor.
As with their extensive coverage of Boston City Council candidate Sam Yoon, however, the Globe never asks (or reports) why.
Grr! It's such a simple question: "Why do you want to be governor/city councillor/dog catcher?" Why can't the Globe reporters get their noses out of their inside-baseball asses for a moment (Oooh, "he could be Barack Obama of Massachusetts", they quote one insider - who happens to be the guy's advisor, yeah, real objective analysis there) and give us answers to the Five W's first?
J. R. Pascucci says (on January 17, 2005 06:13 PM):
It turns out there is a reason they don't do this. It has to do with the undercurrent of deconstruction in leftist education, combined with the reinforcement of moral and intellectual relativism.
The answer to 'why' requires (and implies there is) a meaningful response. In the context of deconstruction, communication is not and never can be used to convey meaning - it is used for pretext and to convey a subtext.
Combined this with the power dialectic, which says that all communication is an extension of an 'in-power' group oppressing an 'out-of-power' group, and you have the entire range of leftist approbation and criticism.
So, it is a sufficient argument in favor of a candidate to show that he is a 'good guy', not one of the 'powerful elite', so whatever he says is deemed trustworthy.
On the flip side it is a sufficient argument that the opponent is a 'bad guy', who has 'special interests', to counter a person's arguments by publishing opinions that undercut his motivations and call him 'dumb', 'evil', 'incompetent', so that one _never_ has to confront an actual argument with another argument - disapprobation is sufficient. The term for this is "Poisoning the well": this pattern is played out in the media constantly. Watch for it. And reject it. The best arguments for 'classical liberalism' (that which conservatives conserve) _never_ make it into the MSM.
Like mother's milk to a baby, these arguments will always make it into the liberal media stream, because, to someone who recognizes no 'truth' in an absolutist sense, this is the only thing that remains. Anything that resembles truth that you don't agree with is only a pretext for something "evil": it must be, since "there is no truth", and "everything is relative".
Look for it - it's there. It's why editors can always feel comfortable tanking a well-reasoned argument against the position they themselves take - it doesn't occur to them to do otherwise, they dismiss it out of hand. It's not usually _overt_ manipulation of the media, but that's why it is called a 'media bias' instead of a 'media conspiracy'.
adamg says (on January 17, 2005 06:56 PM):
Interesting argument, but I'm thinking the cadres at the Globe don't spend their time debating Derrida. As a one-time reporter myself, I'm thinking that when somebody covers the same field for awhile, they get to thinking too much like the people they cover (sort of like the Stockholm Syndrom) and forget that most of us still want to know the "why" of something.
jomy says (on January 22, 2005 10:57 PM):
Does it make any difference?
Deval Patrick has as much chance of getting elected governor as this snow has of being around for Memorial Day.
Sheesh, the guy thinks he's so special that he can't run for AG first?
Yoon, I don't know, he has a chance, but it's an uphill climb. The Globe can't help him that much, may hurt.
Trackback: (From Boston Common) Is this really too much to ask? The Globe today reports that Deval Patrick is thinking of running for governor. As with their extensive coverage of Boston City Council candidate Sam Yoon, however, the Globe never asks (or reports) ... ...
From Is this really too much to ask?, posted on PPK Blog (Priest, Prophet, King), January 17, 2005 06:14 PM
Post a comment