Thursday, August 18, 2005

Cindy Sheehan

Apparently she became news when I was off in the Great White North. Now that I know about her, I have to say something--but I have nothing to add to what James Lileks has said here.

Update, 8/21/05 11:53 pm: I was going to add more in the comments section, but again, someone else was far more eloquent than I am at expressing views I share. So, as usual, I refer you to Mark Steyn's take on the affair.

Update, 8/22/05 10:08 pm: Here's the view of an Iraqi.

10 comments:

steve O' said...

I'd like to say that I agree with what he said but disagree with how he said it.... but he never said anything. No meat, no substance. Just more hysterical hype.

So instead, I have to simply say, very poorly written.

Who exactly is Newhouse News Service?

Ponderance of the day: Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you. And contrapositively, if an extremist calls you an extremist, that doesn't mean that you aren't one.

And if you're first initials aren't "H.L." you shouldn't try to mix sarcasm and commentary. Very few can pull that off. Lileks doesn't.

Okay, back to my hole in spineless, gutless, Moderate-Land...

Darren said...

Then we disagree all over the place. But thanks for coming back periodically, Steve!

Steve O' said...

What did the article say? What was it's contribution to the public discourse? That Sheehan's a flaming liberal, possibly an extremist liberal? Duh! Thanks for the newsflash, NNS.

The OIF death toll is pushing two thousand. Let's due the math... it's statistically inconceivable that 1% of the parents of those killed in action are not flaming liberals, possibly even card carrying communists. So why are we fake-surprised if one of the parents turns out to be Michael Moore's sound editor or a major contributor to MoveOn.org?

That's not the news. The news is that she's camped out in Crawford. And the only way to play it is with a sympathetic light.

But here's what bugs me about the article you cited. They act like they've scooped the main stream media, that corporate news is turning a blind eye to the truth and that NNS is here to save the day.

And I'm telling you that if you didn't already pick up that Sheehan was a flaming liberal, then the problem is not with the main stream media but with the person watching the tv set, reading the paper, and listening to the radio. Again, duh. But that's what folks like this author are counting on, that we're all idiots out here and need to be spoon-fed.

So it's bad enough that they're parading around as the only news service with a flashlight in this cave of ignorance. But on top of that, they jump to the conclusion that the public is going to label them as bullies for dog-piling on poor Cindy. It's that arrogant, fake-apologetic tone that gets under my skin. They're building a wall around themselves, then accusing those on the outside that it's our fault for not supporting them as they pretend to tear down that wall.

So again... no meat to the story. No contribution to the public discourse. Didn't tell anyone anything that they didn't already know. Unnecessarily inflammatory, and then points the finger at the reader for taking it the wrong way as a defensive offensive.

I'm going to be way-judgemental with this last comment... but you know someone is fanning the flames instead of trying to shed light on the subject when they drag in hot-button names for no reason whatsoever, such as the Michael Moore / Jimmy Carter comment.

And, on top of all that, poorly written in terms of prose and organization. Takes one sound bite from Sheehan and then tries to give her an equally sparse sound-bite of a global politics lessons. The second and third to last paragraphs were worth exploring, but he just couldn't do it.

I guess my point is, the article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and I was offended by the way he tried to force it down my throat. Like Cleveland, there's no "there" there.

Steve O' said...

Just one more point: On NPR of all places, in just the last week, I heard:

-- a commentary laying out how Sheehan's actions will probably backfire
-- a feature on the parents of a Georgia National Guard soldier who was killed last week, who said their kid died fighting for what he believed in
-- a feature on Army recruiting that focused on a kid who escaped gangs and the slums by joining the Army.

What do I take from that?
--Both sides are being told, but the audience ain't smart enough to pick up on it
--This rant against the main stream media is disengenuous on all levels. There is no main stream vs. non-main stream anymore.
--We the Audience need to listen more critically yet at the same time stop being so dang paranoid.

Darren said...

I appreciate your backing your comments/beliefs with intellectually substantial commentary. Unfortunately, I now have to leave for work for the first time since June--I'll comment later!

Anonymous said...

Hey -- don't think I wasn't watching the clock when I hit the *Publish* button! I've never been accused of fighting fair.

Good luck with the shock of re-entry. And don't be leaving no one behind, y'hear?

Steve O' said...

sorry -- that was me up above, inadvertently "anonymously"

Anonymous said...

Darren,

FYI

"Steve O" is a character from the TV show Jackass.

Guess what? This guy is a Jackass.

Darren said...

I'm not so sure. In fact, if he's who I think he is, we share an alma mater.

Steve O' said...

Hey anonymous: I can take personal attacks with the best of them, even those that lack substance. How about two cents worth of honest thought and mental elbow grease and a little illumination as to the specific points with which you disagree?

Again, having read the NNS piece three times, I stand by my comment that there's no meat to it. And personally, I'm tired of the whining from certain portions of the media that the rest of the media is out to get them. Someone please define "mainstream media" for me, in terms other than "you know it when you see it."