Jon Stewart took on the role of a journalist covering "journalism" when he examined the exclusive White House story done by Brian Williams. Stewart is exactly right. Can you spell o-b-s-e-q-u-i-o-u-s? Yes, Williams' coverage of Obama's White House is shameful and vapid. Thank you, Jon Stewart, for exposing this "story" for what it was.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| The Real World D.C. | ||||
| ||||
Liz Coleman, the President of Bennington College, has some terrific ideas about reforming liberal arts education. She presented them at TED in February 2009. Many people will never appreciate Coleman's ideas, however, because she presented them in a long paper filled with redundant and sesquipedalian (!*) terms. To top it off, she chose to read her speech in monotone rather than speaking from her heart. Coleman's decision to read her speech rather than presenting it with spontaneous enthusiasm undercuts the very message of her paper. She violated a basic rule of speech-making: Don't bore your audience with good content deficiently presented. Why can't the highly educated C0leman see this conspicuous problem with her own delivery? Why can't she understand that many people (even the smart sorts of people who attend TED lectures, have lots of trouble paying attention to liberal arts college presidents who read pedantic speeches? For starters, she needs to keep in mind that the Internet audience is not a captive audience motivated by the pursuit of grades. Yes, ordinary Americans need to become more disciplined at being attentive audiences. They need to learn to persevere when difficult ideas are presented, even when those ideas aren't sugar-coated. On the other hand, academics (Coleman is one example of many) really need to get out of their ivory towers and learn to talk to real people without sounding condescending. One suggestion: Coleman should study Barack Obama, who often knows his material well enough to talk off-the-cuff. He has also learned to present pre-written presentations in a fresh, spontaneous-sounding way. I'm not suggesting that everyone can deliver ideas like Obama, but all us can take the time study the various techniques he often uses. Before getting to work studying her new technique, Coleman should carefully watch her TED presentation and ask herself whether her delivery would even keep her own interest. She should ask what so many academics should ask: was her speech designed primarily to move her audience or was it (perhaps subconsciously) designed to show off her own vocabulary and intellectual superiority, amply laced with uppity intonation? If there is even an unintentional hint of these, she's lost her audience. --
*sesquipedalian 1. given to using long words. 2. (of a word) containing many syllables.
I was watching TV recently. At the climax of one of my favorite shows a man was murdered. He was stabbed twice in the chest. I watched as the blade entered his chest two times, piercing his lungs and heart. The man fell to the ground and was kicked into a nearby fire where he burst into flames as he was dying. This was shown on television, during prime time, with no outcry from the public or the censors. And why would there be an outcry? One can witness murders of this kind and worse on TV many times a week. Now imagine this scenario... Prime time TV. A loving husband and wife wish to have children. They take off their clothes and get into bed, as married couples do. We then clearly watch his erect penis enter her vagina two times as he tells her he loves her. Cut to nine months later and she gives birth to a healthy baby boy. The couple rejoices. The husband kisses his wife on the forehead and we...Fade to Black. Can you imagine the outrage? Can you imagine the FCC fines and the righteous letters of condemnation? In the first case we see the brutal, senseless ending of a life, and we get to see it in great detail. In the second scenario we are witnessing the loving, natural creation of life between two married adults. Which one is obscene?
Gabriel Winant lays out a strong case at Salon.com: Rush Limbaugh just can't stop talking about butts.
Critics say that Rush Limbaugh likes to talk out of his ass. But that's only half the story: Rush can't stop talking about butt, either. It's too bad that Sigmund Freud's long dead, because Rush is the old shrink's dream patient, with an obvious diagnosis: Limbaugh has an anal fixation.
Based on Winant's long list of evidence, it does make you wonder whether Rush needs to go see a therapist to figure out why it is that this "family values" guy has now divorced three women. Maybe we've got yet another classic case of reaction formation on our hands, and that would certainly explain a lot of Limbaugh's hostility.The NYT today published an obituary for a deceased American fighter pilot who was captured by the Chinese:
Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American Flier Tortured in a Chinese Prison, Dies at 83... From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer — then an Air Force captain — was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air. [...] Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare.So - when the Chinese do it it's torture. When the US do it it's "harsh interrogation". We expect more consistency of our major news organizations. We expect more of our own government. It's time to call for a special prosecutor, Mr. Attorney General. [via Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan]