Two Corrections

I kind of like The Guardian's blog's "Noises Off" feature. It always signals to me the moment a debate has been over for a little bit and it's time to summarize it. Journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, but the "Noises Off" feature is basically the second draft: rarely is The Guardian's blog a primary source of discussion, but it's a nice way to round up everything that went on. At any rate, if I want to link to a complex discussion (like the one we had about Quality/Diversity or the one we had about Thomas Garvey -- good times!), it's a lot easier to link to their index-of-important-moments than to try and hit all the original posts myself.

That being said, they don't always get it exactly right (as is always the case with the second draft of history. And I thought it would be worthwhile to correct two quick points, both in reference to myself.

Firstly, in this post, I'm described as an "actor-turned-playwright." That makes it sound like I don't perform anymore... contrary to popular belief, I do still act! In fact, if you want to see me act, my show is still running this week:

Thursday at 9:30 PM

Friday at 7:30 PM

Saturday at 2:00 PM and 8:30 PM

All at 721 Broadway's 2nd floor Shop Theater. I'd love to see you there, and you can see for yourself that I still perform. Granted, I also wrote the play, but I am a performer!

Secondly, in this post, my brief response to Nick Clegg's liking Samuel Beckett is summed up in the sentence, "Clegg did come in for criticism from some quarters." Actually, when I said that "As usual, liking theatre is apparently on par with the worst opinions of bigots towards black community members," I was not criticizing Clegg, I was criticizing the horrible cultural atmosphere we have that makes Clegg's statement so rare.

I'd much prefer if Clegg's statement was the norm, just one of many intellectual acknowledgments that politicians made. Instead, it landed in the cultural sphere like a bombshell -- Somebody cares about us! The implication behind all of the glowing praise of Clegg was, "How politically risky it is to approve of the arts!" That's what I meant. That's the problem. Certainly I didn't criticize Clegg for not playing into it.

Also, I do have to say that this mischaracterization of my meaning (which I will accept some responsibility for, because that was kind of a throwaway post) does come at least in some part because of the common journalistic formula that gets applied often, not only here but in many media. The formula goes something like:

Token Liberal said: XXXXX

Token Liberal 2 agreed, saying YYYYY. Token Liberal 3 explained further, ZZZZZZ.

Not everyone agreed with Token Liberal, however. Token Conservative said AAAAAAA. Another Token Conservative said BBBBBBB.

Obviously that's almost insultingly reductive, (and I'm using Liberal/Conservative in place of any reductive "with-us-or-against-us" mentality) but when I saw how I was quoted in the Noises Off it seemed to me that I was suffered by being shoehorned into the wrong paragraph.

Just setting the record straight.

How To "Fix" CNN

Politico has an article up about how to "Fix" CNN. Their solutions are basically:

1. Make CNN more like Fox
2. Make CNN more like MSNBC

Take a look. The complete lack of originality or insight in the article is depressing... and not one sentence about what would make good journalism, rather than what would stem the hemorrhaging of viewers.

A Litmus Test For Newspapers

I was thinking about the Wall Street Journal recently, and its seeming decline in partiality and editorial quality ever since Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Then I was wondering, "How did I come to the conclusion that the Wall Street Journal has declining editorial standards, considering I don't read the Wall Street Journal."

I realized that it is because I get my news from Google News, and in Google News I see Wall Street journal headlines and literally it is just the headlines that sometimes get me steamed enough to not ever want to crack open a Wall Street Journal again.

I wanted to come up with a litmus test for partiality in news, and I came up with a simple one that is, almost certainly, reductive beyond all belief. If I ran a newspaper, I said to myself, I would make sure that its headlines contained no modifying adjectives, and could only use action verbs relating to an event. If the headline was about someone something said, it goes in the politics or opinion section. Period.

With that in mind, let's look at the front page of the New York Times.

UN Officials Say American Aide Plotted to Replace Hamid Karzai. Notice that are not only one, but two modifiers between this headline and US Replaces Hamid Karzai, the headline of an actual event. UN Officials SAY that the American Aide PLOTTED. Is this important news? Perhaps. But is it actually true that a plan that went nowhere and might not actually have existed is the top story of today?

M.T.A. Approves Big Service Cuts In Transit. Well, I'd prefer something more descriptive than "Big Service Cuts" since it basically puts the fear of God in your average NYC person. I've also always been torn about whether the New York Times should carry local news on the front page, but I guess it is still the New York times.

That Tap Water Might Be Legal but May Be Unhealthy. Is this an opinion article? I read the article, and it bundles together a bunch of anecdotal evidence (a lack of increase in regulated chemicals) with a bunch of not-very-in-depth-examined studies about the health of tap water in America. The Times appears to be choking on impartiality. Clearly they think our water is unhealthy (as it is a front page story), but then they don't want to say "Your water is unhealthy" so they throw in a bunch of tempering words, making the article easily forgettable. The net effect of this article will probably just to be to convince more people to buy bottled (tap) water.

Pakistan Reported To Be Harassing US Diplomats. Who is reporting it? US Diplomats. In fact, most of the article appears to be an interview with "One senior American diplomat." Is it true? Well, a senior American diplomat said it, right?

I was kind of hoping that one of the Times' headlines would be a statement, like US Commits 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan (which is an event) or Bomb Kills X in Helmand Province (which is an event) or House Passes Temporary Finance Measures (which is an event).

As for the WSJ:

Insurgents In Iraq Hack US Drone (which is an event -- but bonus points for their web edition carrying Readers React - 'We Can't Be This Stupid!')

US Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund - not an event in the present tense, but a promise of an event in the future, which I think is acceptable news.

Mexican Drug Boss Killed In Raid (event)

The only one I spot which isn't an event (or which doesn't lead with Opinion:) is:

Bernanke Foes Seek to Curtail Fed.

Well, well, I didn't expect the WSJ's headlines to do better for me than the NYTimes. Ah well.