Powerful Men or Powerful People? Let's Get Philosophical.
Especially after reading Maureen Dowd's October 22 takedown of Judith Miller I wondered whether the Times just should print its own daily, maybe weekly, supplement dedicated this entire WMD/Miller/Libby/etc. episode. I wager the Times' credibility is being doubted by some at about the same rate that George Bush is dismantling the government.
Dowd ignites the entire scene with typical Dowdian comedy, introduced by a headline that is New York Observer in spirit: "Woman of Mass Destruction."
The column's second paragraph reads: "The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy -- her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur -- have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types."
My annotated version reads: "The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy {REPORTERS ARE KNOWN FOR BEING DRIVEN CRAZY}-- her tropism {BIG WORD NOT OFTEN SIGHTED} toward powerful men {LAST I CHECKED, GEOPOLITICALLY SPEAKING, MEN WERE THE ONES IN POSITIONS OF POWER. MEANWHILE, DON'T MANY TIMES REPORTERS GRAVITATE TOWARD POWERFUL PEOPLE? EAT DINNER WITH THEM, ETC.?} , her frantic intensity {WHAT TOPSPIN!}; and her peculiar {WHAT A BACKHAND!} mixture of hard work {I'M TEMPTED TO SWITCH TO THE SHOOTING-FISH-IN-A-BARREL METAPHOR} and hauteur -- have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types." {WE THOUGHT YOU ENJOYED MOVIE STARS.}
Never mind that the Times shaped Judith Miller. Who's going to write the column, the Op-Ed, The Piece, that will explain for us its quote-unquote peculiar stance toward accountability? It can't be somebody inside the fishbowl, and it can't be somebody who works for the Times. Maybe Jeffrey Frank, maybe a playwright. Maybe culture and media historian Dan Czitrom. Joan Didion? Janet Malcolm in conversation with David Mamet?
I can't help thinking about the arc of the Times' very existence, its "objective reporting" duds, and its place in this cultural moment. Somebody once told me that magazines were bound "books" of advertisements with editorial text stuck between. What does the Times think it's supposed to be doing? Who and what are its reporters supposedly impressed by, and who and what actually impresses them? What *is* the Times any more? And who outside of satirical channels is covering it ?
Clearly Maureen Dowd is covering herself, among other things.
Dowd ignites the entire scene with typical Dowdian comedy, introduced by a headline that is New York Observer in spirit: "Woman of Mass Destruction."
The column's second paragraph reads: "The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy -- her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur -- have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types."
My annotated version reads: "The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy {REPORTERS ARE KNOWN FOR BEING DRIVEN CRAZY}-- her tropism {BIG WORD NOT OFTEN SIGHTED} toward powerful men {LAST I CHECKED, GEOPOLITICALLY SPEAKING, MEN WERE THE ONES IN POSITIONS OF POWER. MEANWHILE, DON'T MANY TIMES REPORTERS GRAVITATE TOWARD POWERFUL PEOPLE? EAT DINNER WITH THEM, ETC.?} , her frantic intensity {WHAT TOPSPIN!}; and her peculiar {WHAT A BACKHAND!} mixture of hard work {I'M TEMPTED TO SWITCH TO THE SHOOTING-FISH-IN-A-BARREL METAPHOR} and hauteur -- have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types." {WE THOUGHT YOU ENJOYED MOVIE STARS.}
Never mind that the Times shaped Judith Miller. Who's going to write the column, the Op-Ed, The Piece, that will explain for us its quote-unquote peculiar stance toward accountability? It can't be somebody inside the fishbowl, and it can't be somebody who works for the Times. Maybe Jeffrey Frank, maybe a playwright. Maybe culture and media historian Dan Czitrom. Joan Didion? Janet Malcolm in conversation with David Mamet?
I can't help thinking about the arc of the Times' very existence, its "objective reporting" duds, and its place in this cultural moment. Somebody once told me that magazines were bound "books" of advertisements with editorial text stuck between. What does the Times think it's supposed to be doing? Who and what are its reporters supposedly impressed by, and who and what actually impresses them? What *is* the Times any more? And who outside of satirical channels is covering it ?
Clearly Maureen Dowd is covering herself, among other things.
posted by Elizabeth Manus at 1:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home