When I saw the front page flag on yesterday’s Wall Street Journal — the one that said, “Why We Need More Dick Cheney” — I thought my favorite WSJ contrarian troll was at it again. If you follow the Journal’s Op-Ed page, you know it is populated — exclusively — by some of the eeriest, most in-bred cultural reactionaries American journalism has ever produced. And that is saying something.
But among them, deputy editor Dan Henninger is my hands-down favorite. The guy had to be last picked at kick-ball. My list of all time favorite Henninger syllogisms would have to include the time he dared gay-marriage advocates to prove that what they wanted wouldn’t lead to people, (most likely gay liberal Democrats) to eventually demand to be allowed to marry snakes … like a woman in India did. (Link is here, scroll to the bottom.)
Anyway, sorry to ramble, but it turns out Henninger was NOT the author of the “Damn, That Dick Cheney is a Smart Guy” Op-Ed. No, the piece was written by Cheney’s approved biographer, Stephen Hayes, who, just like Lindsay Lohan on Leno, has something new to sell, in this case his latest book, “Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice-President”. Hayes writes for the ultra-conservative Weekly Standard and Cheney himself has referred to his previous work asserting the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein several times as proof enough that … Cheney’s … epic fiasco in the Middle East isn’t rooted in either fraud or incompetence. (Here’s the counter-point to Hayes’ assertions.)
Here’s a bit more on Stephen Hayes.
So … imagine my surprise when Hayes turns up on Jon Stewart’s show last night … only a couple days after his boss, Weekly Standard editor and uber-neo-con, William Kristol, had been on.
My point — and don’t you wish I’d get to it? — was the demeanor and tenor Stewart displayed in the presence of both men, neither of whom would ever be considered fellow-travelers. Here is Stewart with Hayes, and here is Stewart with Kristol.
In the context of … the myriad problems with mainstream media … it by now a cliche to point to Stewart and say, “Look, damn it. This isn’t so tough. Ask these questions in this way.” Point being that Stewart understands that O’Reilly-style head-knocking offends the sensibilities of his audience. Bellicose name-calling and boorish grandstanding not only is off-putting to anyone with an adult brain, but it is utterly valueless in terms of asserting or ascertaining any truth.
In fairness to Kristol and Hayes, both understand, like a liberal tip-toeing on to O’Reilly’s set, that they are probably not going to have the last word in this fight. But, unlike the usual “adversarial” pin-cushions on O’Reilly-like acts, both also knew that Stewart, despite profound disagreement, was going treat them with civility befitting … a guest.
I was thinking of this because there has been some talk around town of trying to set up a liberal/conservative face-off website for the Twin Cities, where readers/viewers could, you know, maybe get a better idea of who is dealing with reality and who isn’t? As in: An actual honest debate. This strikes some lefties as a complete sell-out. After seven years of Rove-Cheney (abetted by the Kristols and Hayes of the world), they have no tolerance at all for collegial civility. Not right now, anyway.
“First, rip their gizzards out, spread them out in the sun, cover them with lime and salt … THEN we’ll consider civility.”
(And that’s a sample from usually squishy-huggy liberals.)
Accepting that the right-wing attack and echo machine invented the game of mass/pop media demonization-for-profit, lefties are justifiably worried that engaging in human-level interaction with characters so notoriously, and unapologetically wrong-headed as Bill Kristol risks playing into another diabolical trap.
But the Stewart model seems to be working pretty damned well. And in the context of so-called “objective” journalism, particularly as the mainstream shifts on-line and must re-visit a few of the hoarier standards of “fair” questioning, the ability to pose tough — but demonstrably fair questions … revealing personal viewpoints … is a place journalism is going to have dare to go if it has any hope at all of holding both demanding, long-time news consumers AND attracting younger news seekers.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply