Where My Ho's At?
What's with this David Ignatius column? He tells us about how Dusty Foggo "attended poker parties hosted by his old school pal Brent R. Wilkes, a military contractor whose activities were described in the bribery indictment of former representative Randy 'Duke' Cunningham" but he leaves out the hookers. He's not covering for Foggo, it's a harsh column. But, really, do the delicate sensibilities of Washington Post readers really need to be safeguarded from the prostitution angle? Wouldn't it be good for the country if curious teens started thinking of the op-ed page as a good place to go for racy material?
This feeds in to what I was saying yesterday. The general newspaper approach seems to be to take some work, and then shift the dial two or three notches in the "less interesting" direction before publication. Like remember just yesterday when USA Today broke this giant story about how the president had an enormous secret illegal surveillance program? Shouldn't they gloat a bit the day after, keep kicking ass and ringing bells? Instead: "NSA secret database report triggers fierce debate in Washington" -- ooo, a "fierce debate," I'll read that one . . . sounds fascinating.
Comments (8)
The general newspaper approach seems to be to take some work, and then shift the dial two or three notches in the "less interesting" direction before publication.
God, you are so right, Matt. It's a reflex, obviously - less interesting = more serious. A weird, sublimated puritanism. It's probably just some ancient form substituting for forgotten substance ('anybody remember why we do this?').
May 12, 2006 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt -- this is OT, but since I don't know how to email you, I thought I'd leave this in a comment where you might see it. Pajamas Media has put up several of your posts in the last few days in a way that makes it look as though you posted there. See, for instance, here. I thought you'd want to know, in case you weren't OK with it.
(I know because they did the same to me, and a whole bunch of other people. I'm not at all thrilled by this.)
May 12, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's an interesting question. Could it be an issue of signalling - reputable investment advice doesn't come on infommercials, good lawyers don't advertise on the backs of phone books, and good newspapers tone it down?
May 12, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a balancing act - keep the public in fear, confused, and anxious, but not actually disturbed enough to do anything that might not be controllable by the state.
It's like herding cattle (or maybe cats, given some of the public - but then cats don't herd enough to be a problem, anyway.)
Keep 'em all pointed where you want 'em to go, and rein in the stragglers as much as possible.
By all means, make sure the "social compact" is protected at all costs.
May 12, 2006 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is MSM's method of flushing vital stories down the rabbit hole.
Tell the story.
Retell the story with modifications.
Retell the modified story with Bush's picture beside it.
Replace story with Bush's remarks about 911 and terrorists and terrorism and 911 again and terrorists, etc.
May 12, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really care . . . it's properly credited and has links; my goal is to maximize audience size. Josh as the proprietor of this enterprise may have another point of view.
May 12, 2006 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember that being true in the Nineties. When there was a Democrat in the White House, the newspapers couldn't wait to tell their readers all about the presidential dried jism encrusted on a blue dress, not to mention 101 uses for a cigar. Not so much decorum then.
May 12, 2006 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
Ah, where is Larry Flynt when we need him? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to the Hustler publisher who, in the nineties, outed various republicans having affairs as they denounced the president's affair. Surely, this is a story that some working girl knows all about. Washingtonienne be damned -- we want some red meat. And there is surely a juicy book, or at the very least, VF spread in this. Perhaps the Daily Muck should issue a call for testimonies?...
May 13, 2006 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink