...more recent posts
Friday, Sep 28, 2001
September 28, 2001
More Words
Every story seems to reach the stage at which the story is no longer about the story. The main topic moves away from the actual event to the fluff around the event. The WTC attack seems to be headed in that direction. Tonight on Fox, Bill O'Reilly was harping about how CNN was afraid to use the word "terrorist." The implication wasn't clear. Are they soft on terrorism? Are they un-American? Are they money grubbing bastards who pander to foreigners? Simultaneously CNN aired Greta Van Susteren's show, The Point, with the sub-banner of "Tracking the Terrorists."
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:57:49 -0700
To: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: "terrorist"
O'Reilly,
Precisely at the moment you were harping about CNN not using the word "terrorist", Greta's show focused on "Tracking the Terrorists." Don't be stupid.
-Mark
You Say You Want a Revolution
The Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke of "ending states". Emphasis added. The standard list of bad guys is Syria, Iraq, the Taliban, and sometimes Libya, Iran and Sudan. That's a lot of regimes.
There has been a battle within the cabinet about this and related topics. This battle often leaks into the media. I'm not sure "leak" is really the right word. "Planted" is more to the point. By gaging reaction of the press and public to various statements of position, the administration better understands the mood of the country.
Today's national mood reading: Ending "states" is too ambitious at the moment, but the singular form of the word "regime" is acceptable to the American public. Taliban is bad. Northern Alliance is good.
My friend Jennifer said to me ...
It is apparent the W likes catchy jingoisms. I assume that he does this to connect to the "people". The "people" do this sort of simplistic word use all of the time. (I have learned this by observing my Republican relatives.) It makes for clean and simple sound bites. I do not think that it really sets or determines policy as much as you think. I think it is just his communication style.
I fear that oversimplification not only defines the communication, it also defines the policies. This is where the French may have something over Americans. The French national spirit embraces irony. How could a people who built the Maginot Line live with themselves without having access to irony?
Americans don't like irony mixed in with serious topics. So we ignore that the "good" Northern Alliance is not much better than the "bad" Taliban. We ignore that we just paid off Pakistan to switch sides in the Afghan civil war. We ignore that we trained and armed Osama and his cohorts. We ignore that part of Osama's beef is that he didn't get to participate on the Saudi side in the ass-whupping we gave to Iraq.
These and other details add too much complexity, when what's needed is a good slogan. It seems that we want to treat every problem like Alexander treated the Gordian knot, cutting through all the complexities with a simple solution.
I hate the smell of quicksand in the morning.
Attention
I keep reflecting on the American attention span.
CNN Headline News: Around the World in 30 Minutes
September 27, 2001
Bill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News network is billed as fair and balanced, unbiased, and based on reason. I watch Bill O'Reilly because he makes me think. I used to admire him, as someone who thought differently than me, but who thought well. I'm having trouble with the admiration these days.
On a recent program, Bill asked the probing question, "Is Dissent Treason?" Oh, that's got fair and balanced written all over it.
Bill gave a commentary in which he reasoned that those who seek to "understand" the attackers and their supporters are giving comfort to terrorists. "There's nothing to understand here."
So I wrote Bill a little note. By the way, Bill's slogan is "Powerful Confrontation" and he asks for pithy letters, so I suppose I should cut to the point.
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:20:55 -0700
To: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: neo-luddite
O'Reilly,
"Understanding" the threat is sympathy for the enemy and is near-treason? I never suspected that you would preach in favor of ignorance. Failure to understand the enemy will lead to failure against the enemy. Don't be stupid.
-Mark
----------
I watched the tail end of the Factor, and my email didn't make the cut. Too wordy, I guess.
September 27, 2001
Ben Stein
So there's this one thing I can't get out of my mind. Dubya called for a crusade.
Am I over-reacting to Dubya's gargantuan malapropism? I went to a Jesuit high school whose mascot is the Crusaders, so I'm painfully aware of the meaning of the word crusade. But some people don't know the derivation. I received a forwarded email on the subject, allegedly written by an expert. An excerpt is below.
by Bernard Lewis
President Bush's use of the term "crusade" in calling for a powerful joint
effort against terrorism was unfortunate, but excusable. In Western usage,
this word has long since lost its original meaning of "a war for the
cross," and many are probably unaware that this is the derivation of the
name. At present, "crusade" almost always means simply a vigorous campaign
for a good cause. This cause may be political or military, though this is
rare; more commonly, it is social, moral or environmental. In modern
Western usage it is rarely if ever religious.
Mr. Lewis is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton
University. His most recent book is "A Middle East Mosaic: Fragments of
Life, Letters and History" (Random House, 2000).
I decided I should ask an expert, Ben Stein.
As a quiz show host/contestant, Ben displays an encyclopedic knowledge of western civilization. And he was a speechwriter in the Nixon Whitehouse. Yeah, that's it, I'll ask Ben!
--------------
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:17:29 -0700
To: BenStein@aol.com
Subject: Presidential Question
Hey Ben,
Love the show. Gotta question.
As much as I'm appalled by the WTC attack, I'm also appalled by Bush's use of the word "crusade". Some people think I'm over-reacting to a nit. In your experience as a quiz show host, and as a member of Nixon's staff, is this a little boo-boo, or is this a display of a profound ignorance of a major chapter of world history? If it's the latter, I'm very afraid.
-Mark
--------------
From: BenStein@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:19:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Presidential Question
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
I would be more worried that we are so confused that we even worry about
words right now.
--------------
While searching for Ben on the web, I came across some very worthwhile columns which comment on the WTC attacks.