Have a Twinkie?

« Oh, the profits of reverse engineering! (or, damn, I hope this is not another shrieking post in the interminable series on torture) | Don Key's Blog | On and On We Drone »

June 10, 2009, 11:25PM

A very good post earlier today questioned the value of strident and loud-mouthed pontificating from pundits on both left and right, arguing that uncivility, emotionalism and name calling only leads to the different sides simply shouting over each other and overshadows real debate.

I don't completely disagree but think that too often valid criticism from the left is unfairly dismissed as the left version of Limbaugh just because it is blunt and doesn't pull its punches. When Al Franken writes a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (an excellent book with many criticisms that have been borne out) he is using Limbaugh's own m.o. to skewer him. The self-petarded Limbaugh is presented here in the form of satire. Satire is a tool as is Limbaugh who often attempts to use it himself. But it's a blunt instrument in Limbaugh's shaky pill-popping hand.

Limbaugh is a large man who routinely says things like this (from today's radio show): "Barack Obama has one thing in common with God. Do you know what it is? God doesn't have a birth certificate either." Ergo, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. End of story. And then there are things like Limbaugh's travel to a known foreign haven that traffics in child prostitution with illegal prescriptions of Viagra!

Oops, have I gone too far? Yes, yes I have. Not because these things are not true and not because Rush Limbaugh isn't really a big fat idiot (he is a big fat idiot). But, the point is- who cares?

Mr. Limbaugh may broadcast idiotic things daily to millions of ears (twenty million listeners a week. I guess that's forty million ears give or take). But I have absolutely no interest in what he is blabbing about except to the degree that his propaganda becomes CW, and unfortunately, in this age of infotainment a Rush Limbaugh is credible.

From dailycensored.com:

The US is not only becoming a nation of obese people, but is on the verge of another phenomenon the equivalent of cultural and mental obesity. We are a nation awash in a sea of information yet we have a paucity of understanding. We are a country where over a quarter of the population know the names of all five members of the fictitious family from The Simpsons yet only one in a thousand can name all the rights protected under the first amendment to the US Constitution. Journalistic values have been sold out to commercial interests and not even our core, national and constitutionally protected values are sacred.

I've been surfing old news archives ('50s- '70s) for hours and I simply did not stumble across any celebrity gossip or manipulated human interest stories (gossip as news) anywhere. True, there was the occasional article about Ursula Andress in a bikini and her standing as the best Bond girl, and there were reports about trends like Twiggy's waifness (1967 NYT headline: Twiggy: She's Harlow, and the Boy Next Door). But endless obsessing over the most trivial goings on of every barely famous or infamous bubble-headed actress or drunken actor or busted athlete was nowhere to be found. I can safely say, from years of watching Walter Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley, that the broadcast news of the time was a gossip-free zone, too. Talentless people could not become famous for being famous. It did not seem necessary to know every sordid detail behind the doors of anyone remotely famous. Aside from game shows playing actual games, the only reality program was Candid Camera. It was the original Punk'd without the celebrities, coarseness, mindlessness and cruelty (again, supposed satire as a blunt instrument).

I think mass media has always been obliged to entertain. But the nature of what is entertaining has changed. Today, those of Limbaugh's ilk are entertaining (mostly, but not always, to like-minded bigots) and those of Coulter's ilk are nothing if not sensationalist. Pursuit of the sensational has degraded both the content and the framing of news. How do we discuss the world without confronting the propaganda that is being spread far and wide? And how do we then change the direction of the media when we have thus joined in the game?

Another feature of this new media is information overload catering to short attention spans. Who really wants to read a dry newspaper article several pages long? The kaleidoscopic graphics and multiple headline crawls supered over a fast-clipped news broadcast hearkens back to the multiple simultaneous stories and attention-grabbing headlines of National Enquirer. The general public is hardly exposed to straight information in this, the Information Age, it is all infotainment. The world of information has been tabloidized. 'Nother twinkie?

19 Comments

| Leave a comment

Don, we're on the same page here, but I think the fallout is more serious than tabloidization. The MSM is creating tabloid selling drama through the polarizing rhetoric that has become their main means of presenting dissenting opinions. No dialogue is really necessary, no thought required, just choose your side, and grab yer guns. It's the gun part that I find disturbing. It's interesting that we're seeing a LOT of posts right now on the media and the way the MSM produces and presents the news. I suppose, when the news, becomes the 'news', we've not only jumped the shark, but are riding it wherever the f@#k it wants to takes us. Makes me think of Slim Pickens in that final scene of Dr. Strangelove for some reason.

Posted by miguelitoh2o
June 11, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink

Geeez Miguel I finish my meaningless rant and read you. You beat me by a minute.

I hereby award you the Knightly Comment of the Day Award for TPMCafe given to all of you from all of me. I rarely read paragraphs as tight as yours.

This is good stuff. And I do not even have to look at the link, I have seen Slim doing his bucking bronco gig on the bomb a hundred times. It is engrained into our generations head.

Posted by dickday in reply to a comment from miguelitoh2o
June 11, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink

"A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

Sounds just like what Fox News is doing.

"I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence."

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from miguelitoh2o
June 11, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink

Yeah I marvel myself at some of the links I get at the so-called 'news sites'. I mean I read a paragraph and I am sent to the 'full story' which is two paragraphs.

This is not a rare phenomina. It happens to me every day. I mean you really have to look for the seven page Newsweek article or a similar examination by the NYT. And, of course, WSJ is a complete waste of time since Murdoch took over.

I mean Daily beast will sometimes send me to some Indiana Currier or some such with an amazing story of some Indiana pol.

But talk about 'sound bites'. I mean HuffPo gives me cable frames when I have cable news in the background all day.

I did however, catch one hell of a speech by Whitehouse today, the guy who grabbed Chaffe's seat in the Senate. I mean he was attempting with an emotional plea to explain what he has recently seen and read with regard to torture by our peeps.

And I try not to get to sentimental about 'the old days'. NYT was doing great things about disclosing Southern Bigotry. And Life and Look were all pictures, but geeez what pictures!!!

And REaders Digest, my god (blesses himself) what a bunch of crap along with Sat. Even. Post of course.

That's all I got. As always, the message is out there, we just have to loooooook for it. ha!!

Oh I almost forgot. I mean goood post. Made me think. I rarely rant like this on a post.

Posted by dickday
June 11, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink

Thanks, DD. Whitehouse has made some amazing speeches and is often leading the charge on civil liberties like Feingold.

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from dickday
June 11, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink

Something... something... Twinkie.

Where you keep 'em, Don?

Posted by quinn esq
June 11, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink

Got tons of 'em in the hidden bomb shelter (mum's the word). They last centuries. First food made almost entirely of chemical preservatives (with a sugar base, of course). Try the spam-flavored ones...

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from quinn esq
June 11, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink

Compared to High Fructose Corn Syrup, sugar based food-proxies are health foods.

Posted by neoboho in reply to a comment from Don Key
June 11, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink

A friend of mine, as an experiment, tried to listen to conservative talk radio- Rush etc.- to try to understand, but had to stop after a week because her dashboard was coming loose.

As an observation- this kind of journalism is a lot cheaper than having to do all that investigatin'.

And- just to recycle-

Rush Limbaugh is hard to surpass 
In the ratings; he's top in his class.
 But I ask my friend Gary
 "How does his voice carry
 With his head so far up his big ass?"

Posted by tomgnh
June 11, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink

Hah!

My radio won't play my Dylan CDs anymore (and I just listened to Rush that once)!

Forgive me, but I had to expand on the theme of your poem:

Tho Limbaugh’s the original blame-gamer
Could his verbal diarrhea be any lamer?
His anal-izing is just a rude noise
But he loves to hear his own voice
And his ass is the RW echo chamber

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from tomgnh
June 11, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

What has happened is that capitalist motives have trumped public responsibility in the media. Making money was always the true motive in the newspaper and broadcast industries. The difference between 30 or 40 or 50 years ago and now is that there was far more of a sense of obligation to actually deliver news to the people. Corporate acquisition of the media exponentially accelrated the corrosion of the sense of obligation news organizations had in the past and the capitalist imperative continues to destroy what is left of that sense of obligation in the corporate owned media. It is a danger to the republic and it may well be too late.

Posted by oleeb
June 11, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink

Many believe that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 led directly to Limbaugh and his ilk. I don’t know how many times Democrats have tried to reinstate it only to be shot down, not just with the help of corporations but also journalist organizations who see it as an impingement on free speech.

Another bill to reinstate the FD was just defeated a couple of months ago with Obama against it. The attitude is much the same as with the financial industry- government interference in the private sector, too much regulation, etc.

I don’t know if the same policies of strict adherence to fairness and tit for tat equal time for “both” sides of every issue is needed but some sort of “truth-in-advertising” standard is badly needed.

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from oleeb
June 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink

Personally, I think the capitalist imperative the more damaging of the two, but the loss of the Fairness Doctrine along with corporations swallowing up the media was a toxic mix. I think the necessity of the Fairness Doctrine is obvious. The complaints of the media corporations and "journalists" who are owned by them are absurd. They want to be able to pick and choose who gets heard. If you recall, the media was not being forced to allow every whack job to respond under the FD and there was never any complaint about it restricting freedom of speech while it was in effect.

Posted by oleeb in reply to a comment from Don Key
June 11, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

I think you're right, Oleeb. It seems to always be true: the motive is money. My granmother always had a plaque up with the biblical quote, "Money is the root of all evil." I blame her for my poverty :)

I was just commenting on another post that the same guys who decry the FD are the ones who wax nostalgic about the good old days (when there were real journalistic standards and not all of this news candy).

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from oleeb
June 11, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink

I think people listening to Rush L. led to more Rush L. He has a following and he wouldn't be on the radio if he didn't. Someone on this blog once said what percentage of the American pop listened to Rush L. Talk about Rush L. pulls numbers so there is more talk about Rush L. I dislike the man but I probably have as many comments on this site about him as all the other comments I have made put together and Rush loves it. And I know he is a big fat idiot and a liar and all the other blankety blankety names I would love to call him. Fairness Doctrine won't stop Rush L.
Interesting post, thank you.

Posted by bluesplashy in reply to a comment from Don Key
June 11, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink

Don Key, maybe you're not reading the paleo-news critically enough (or I could be completely wrong). An old friend of mine attended the "Introduction to Cultural Anthropology" course taught by Edmund Carpenter, in 1961. The course work consisted in analyzing stories in Time and Newsweek for content. Well, Carpenter had worked with Marshall McLuhan, so obviously he was on a media tack. The students had to edit out all the evaluative language out of the news stories, and look at what was left over in terms of actually information conveyed to the reader. It wasn't much. A 50 page magazine would reduce down to about 5 pages of hard info. "In brooding silence, Ike heaved one foot after another up the ascending plataeus of the Supreme Court's stairs." (I just made that up) Reduces down to "Ike went to the Supreme Court."

But I agree with you - today we have the same rhetoric appended to really funky non-news items. For this I recommend Guy DeBord's "Society of the Spectacle." I don't believe however, that this is something that "media" does to us - we co-participate as full members of the exchange. Dang, some day I'll remember what art historian wrote: "The theory of modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as a theory of production."

Finally, Ernie Kovac's great contribution to the early Mad Magazine, "Strangely Believe It." "Contrary to popular belief, ducks cannot fly. They are great jumpers." As media critic, Kovacs was "the" pioneer.

Posted by neoboho
June 11, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

I don’t think you’re wrong, NB. That sounds like an interesting study. I think Mcluhan was as influential as anyone on how media was changing. And Ernie Kovacs wrote for Mad? Funny stuff.

I just did a google archive search for articles between ’53 and ’63. This is the first that came up. It’s about a New Zealand beekeeper’s expedition to the “Goddess Mother of the Snows” (Hillary and Tenzing’s assent of Mount Everest). This was the sensationalism of the day (and I think it’s pretty sensational). Edmund Hillary would soon be a household name; a celebrity. But look at how he was covered, how he behaved and what he did with his fame.

News articles were certainly more wordy and detailed but I don’t know if that’s good or bad. Writers didn’t seem to condescend to readers (i.e. “reconnoiter” would not likely be used today). This is a Time article that popped up. Read the description of a contentious McCarthy fighting against censure. It seems about as scandal-mongering as it got back then and usually around politics.

You’re also quite right that we participate in our own media diets no less than our food diets. Hence the junk food tie-in. Just hink how quaint a book like The Oranging of America now seems with a McDonald’s, Taco Bell or Walmart in every neighborhood and a Fox News or MSNBC or People Magazine in every living room.

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from neoboho
June 11, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

Gawd I feel old. The language and style of the Time article you've cited seems so ancient. It's almost as exotic as all the 19th century stuff that predominates on the "books on line" lists. It would be interesting to compare that writing with the egghead stuff at the same time in, say, New Yorker or Saturday Review. I think you would see the intrusion of pop culture into information media.

Posted by neoboho in reply to a comment from Don Key
June 12, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink

Yeah, I feel old sometimes commenting on stuff like this. I was 'texted' yesterday asking if I texted. Since I don't really, how should I have replied? I do think pop culture rose in the magazines and tabloids of the late 19th and early 20th century with mass media and then advertising. early Beatlemania over Rudolph Valentino may have been ignited because pictures in mass media were still a novelty.

But the older the writing is, the more dense and overly elaborated it seems. The thing is, that implies more thoughtfulness on the part of the writer I think. It's deliberative.

I could be wrong. Maybe we're so advanced, so beyond those old wordy things, we can impart immense wisdom in some shorthand line or two. Instead of a hefty tome on individualism, we can simply twitter or tweet- U_B_U_N_I_L_B_M_E instead. Someday, there just may be profound tweets(?), snippets from the great minds of our great thinkers, electronically displayed next to the voluminous yellowed parchments of those primitive times.

Posted by Don Key in reply to a comment from neoboho
June 12, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

Have a Twinkie?

19 Comments

Leave a comment

Don Key

Favorites