We realize some days have to be rough. But we think some people are living in a pre-internet world. Specifically some commentators. They believe the world awaits their every word, slowly in print. And that something like actually having a topic doesn't matter.
We'll start with Katha Pollitt whom we like. She ended 2006 in her usual manner, a list of charities. We'll assume the list took much longer to research than it did to read or skim. She does one every year. But apparently she's a seasonal type because for her first column of 2007, she offers up the new year in "Happy New Year!" (page 20, January 22, 2007, The Nation).
We're told she next reviews a book. But might we remind her that February 2nd is Groundhog Day?
The column is a joke. Sorry, Pollitt. When you're doing shout outs to Alan Wolfe, you're writing a joke or maybe you missed his slams in The New York Times. ("Libs" like Wolfe always slam the left.) In fact, that's why the column falls apart. She gives him a shout up in her second point: "Stop giving the right credit for our ideas." How about we stop giving shout outs to the mushy center? Seriously, Pollitt, go The Times archives and look up his reviews. Note that they include serious errors as well as slams at the left.
But we think a 9 point column is an embarrassment. We'd think that even if "point nine" wasn't "Party like it's 2007!" What is that? Did you have nothing to say? Was it a bad day with a deadline looming? When your next collection is published, we'd suggest you don't consider this one.
Now Pollitt we like. ("Oh my God, could you imagine what they'd say if they didn't like her?") And, in the past, she's usually managed to produce something that didn't read like it was written by a newspaper columnist who burnt out on ideas about a decade ago. (Nora Ephron addresses the topic of columnists brilliantly in her novel Heartburn.) Hendrik Hertzberg?
We laughed this week when a left link-fest featured one of his columns. The whole world had weighed in (and their dogs) long before Hendrik decided to grace us with what some see as style. We don't need style, we need commentary. And we don't need it from a fool who can't tell you when the shift started on Iraq or, for that matter, who goes on the road to promote a book and doesn't even know what he wrote in the book. (During the 2004 DNC convention, he was asked a question pertaining to a point he'd made about the 1992 race and his reply can be summed up in one word: "What?")
Both of the above columns appear in print. If we can take a moment of your time, might we steer you towards Margaret Kimerley's "Racism, Fascism at CNN and ABC" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report) and John R. MacArthur's "Who's the Journalistic Hypocrite?" (Harper's magazine). Notice that they both feature thought and analysis. Point of view. Neither reads like the writer is ticking off topics as they try to reach the magic word count.
If you missed it, there were massive layoffs in the publishing world last week. The New York Times reported that People magazine might no longer be able to assign seven people to write five paragraphs on Britney Spears (Katharine Q. Seelye and Richard Siklos' "As Time Inc. Cuts Jobs, One Writer On Britney May Have to Do", C1, January 15, 2007). After columnists have had their chuckles, we suggest they look in the mirror.
The pedestrian column isn't cutting it. People can get that online for free. Printing up lists really doesn't cut it for columns these days. We're sure there was a time, when newspapers thrived, that there was time to be silly (or at least immature) and offer up lists. We're sure that the likes of Thomas Friedman would probably still like to sneak those by.
But for political coverage, it doesn't cut it.
Bland isn't the new Pink which briefly became the new Black.
You could also check out Amy Goodman's "Make King's dream come true" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
Now before you think, "Oh no, another White person writing about Martin Luther King, timed for the federal holiday," note that Amy Goodman doesn't just bring up King on the designated day. On Democracy Now!, his work will be brought into conversations on any given day of the year. You should also note that Amy Goodman didn't write the piece trying to promote a (Democratic) candidate. She ties it into her recent trip to Memphis, she opens with the blood stains. This isn't someone looking at the calander and exclaiming, "Oh! MLK Day! Let me pull some thoughts together!"
But that's what people seem to think they can do. They think they can offer laundry lists, for instance. Here's a suggestion for the next person who writes a ten-point column (Pollitt wrote nine-points, this isn't aimed at her), learn how to write one-point before you get giddy with ambition. Learn how to develop a theme. Superwoman or Superman though you may be, leave the things to do list on the fridge. No tree need die so you can reproduce your jottings for a readership.
It's not just that the internet allows commentary on topics in real time, it's also that this society moves at a faster pace. For those thinking, "Well I offer deep insight" -- we suggest that unless your last name is Zinn or Chomsky, you've probably overrated your own offerings.
We do think it is amazing (and we'll include Pollitt in this category because we happen to agree with Martha's e-mail to The Nation), that those who seem to really struggle to find some topic to cover were unable to ever write about Abeer.
We'd further suggest that even Thomas Friedman's ill thought out, wack job, poorly phrased columns exceed much of what passes for commentary in independent print. Why is that? Thomas Friedman wants to sell you on big business and on the war. He believes in something. He takes a side. It's the wrong side. His facts are wrong. But he doesn't put you to sleep. (He does give you a headache.)
Kimberley and MacArthur demonstrate in the articles above that media criticism can be written from the left . . . when you're not fearful that you won't get booked, that your book won't get reviewed, that . . . Go down the list.
All the bland writers of the left and 'left' who think they're auditioning for the New York Times op-ed page might want to check out all the layoffs this week and grasp that their fussy, little voices are not 'reasoned' and haven't gotten them the TV appearences they dreamed of (or the best seller list). Whether you're a useless male or "Truth," nobody needs it.
Nobody needs your slow to arrive, dithering approach anymore. A lot are overly praised for their "stryle" (they have none -- along with independent thought, independent style got squeezed out of them long ago and there's nothing graceful about their prose). Your days of slowly turning out your half-assed clip jobs could be numbered.
While the likes of Uncle Marty kept a lot of you on the speculation dole in the past. Those days may be about to end. While the useless males prefer to use the all knowing voice, the useless women prefer to act as though they observe from on high, a cloud just passing by.
Psuedo-lefties should be especially worried because daily papers aren't going to be adding any 'left' voices anytime soon.
As circulations continue to decline, don't kid yourself that you are 'set.' You might actually have to start earning that check by doing more than looking at the calander and musing, "MLK Day. What did I learn in school?" Or, "What did my neighbor say?" You might actually have to do some work. A scary thought for those who've spent the last year 'sailing along.'
