Normal

TorgoX on 2004-06-13T04:50:53

Dear Log,

«If PBS functions in the minds of most of its viewers as the left end of the spectrum, what does it mean when it broadcasts an investigation into Bush’s faith that satisfies his evangelical base? Sure, the program scared the bejeesus out of plenty of viewers who already thought Bush was a zealot, but even some secularists responded with approval for the program and the faith it depicted. Bush, Frontline proposed, really believes what he believes.

That’s what the new narrative is all about—the internal coherence of belief rather than its worldly ramifications. The courage of convictions trumps concerns about consequences. Faced with what they must have thought were only two options—to present Bush’s religion as fanatical or “normal,” Frontline rejected the former as simplistic and embraced the latter as fair. Why is his religion normal? Because it’s sincere.»

--"The Jesus Factor: On the uses and abuses of neutrality by the religious right, the liberal media, and the journalists caught in between.

I think this whole Middle Eastern / West Texas religion thing has gotten out of hand ever since Saddam al-Ladin flew his book depository into the Reichstag! Can't we all just be unified by our traditional alien voodoo gods?!?

---

Reporting on Bush

yudel on 2004-06-13T16:14:06

It means that good journalistic coverage of a person with different views should please the person being reported on, because his views are being treated seriously and explained to others.

Consider: "Mr. Hitler belives that Jews are a "cancer" on Germany, one that must be aggressively dealt with. He also believes the restitution following the Great War was profoundly unfair, and that no self-respecting government can allow it to stand."

Straightfoward reporting. The subject's views have been portrayed as accurately and fairly as possible, and he is quite satisfied that his message has been conveyed. Meanwhile, the world has been warned.

The Journalist Wince

chromatic on 2004-06-13T17:38:09

Meanwhile, thanks to Woodward and Bernstein, patron saints of Journalist as Deliverer of Worlds, good luck finding a journalist who wants to present the facts as accurately and fairly as possible. Instead, we have a wearying parade of scent of scandal, perfume of peccadillo, and l'eau du self-righteous conspiracy buster and hero of the (and now a word from our sponsor) little guy.

I'm not sure where the "Oh no, today is the end of history!!" histrionics come from, nor the short attention span "Don't remember what it's like to be wrong every day" syndrome that's spread far beyond the fairly useless weather reporting. "Dem chicken bones, dey never lie: a high of 72 and a low of 48 with a low pressure system expected for the weekend."

Don't get me wrong. At least they sometimes interview the people they misquote. That makes them slightly more respectable than "we ARE the news" news webloggers. If TV news is porn without the naked people, news webloggers are fat, ugly amateurs you accidentally stumble across when mistyping a URL and you wonder "Wow, why are there people posting 'U R HOT LOL' on this message board?"

Anyway, I don't think that journalists think people are stupid. I think they don't think about people much at all.

Re:The Journalist Wince

TorgoX on 2004-06-14T01:57:25

Of course they don't think about people -- They Are Professionals!!!

Re:The Journalist Wince

pudge on 2004-06-23T04:10:49

The funny part is that Woodward has long rejected trying to do anything more than report on the facts of the matter. He does very little interpretation in his writing. But he seems to inspire many people to do just that.

Re:Reporting on Bush

TorgoX on 2004-06-14T02:03:09

"rather than its worldly ramifications"