- BIG NEWS:
- Glenn Beck
- |
- ABC
- |
- CBS
- |
- Oprah
- |
In today's media Tower of Babel, the only way to prosper is to get noticed, to be heard above the din. Somehow. It's the very best way to get to the front of TV's Clamoring Class. From there it's direct link to those coveted obscenely lucrative speaking engagements.
James Carville is a poster boy for this. How better, for instance, to enhance his image as the always outspoken "Ragin' Cajun" than to compare Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot.
Richardson certainly infuriated Carville and his fellow Clinton backers by coming out for Barack Obama, but does that warrant a comparison to one of Christianity's supreme villains? Even Carville finally had to admit that was "out of bounds". Mind you he didn't apologize. He made light of it. That way he could calm the uproar a bit while keeping the bad boy image intact and the big bucks flying toward that carefully maintained high profile.
It works. All you have to be is either impetuous or utterly shameless. Would Ann Coulter be just another blond with legs were it not for her poisonous insults, which are are too numerous and too unworthy to mention?
Let us not forget that every time she regurgitates her newest venom, the bookers stampede to her to get her on their talk shows where she can enhance her toxic stardom.
After a while it's hard for the desperately ambitious pundit or pundit wannabe to resist joining this rhetorical freak show. That's where the glory is and you can't be left behind.
It explains why commentators insist on saying that Chelsea Clinton has been "pimped out" to campaign for her mother. They know full well that particular phrase has been incendiary since the first feckless time it was uttered. But each and every time they repeat it , it's like some junior high school taunt which causes the blogs to light up with their names. Remember, it doesn't matter what makes you famous as long as you're rich and famous.
It works because of us. We've been conditioned to flock to newsertainment. Bizzare and mindless always gets ratings. Thoughtful doesn't. Even if it did, why should media executives spend the time and intellect to present stuff that matters when all that matters is the bottom line.? By definition the cheap shot is much cheaper.
Carville probably won 't want me to mention this, but in person he's really pleasant to be around; gracious, affable, down-to-earth, approachable. We've talked countless times. He's funny, but in an engaging way. In other words, a nice guy. That means the other stuff is either just schtick or he feels sorry for me.
I can say the same thing about Ann Coulter, which will amaze an awful lot of people. But in both cases they have created an act that sucks most of us into believing it has something to do with the "competition of ideas". Instead it is mainly about the moronic nastiness of our political debate.
Follow Bob Franken on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankenb
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
James Carville and Donna Brazile were both supporters of the Clinton Presidency. Neither became government employees, as staff members. They were just two people from Louisiana that supported the principals of the Democratic Party (and no doubt were well paid for their support).
Ms. Brazile now thinks Obama is the right candidate and Carville disagrees. I think that is fine. She might be correct, but give Carville a little bit of credit for getting his wife out of Dick Cheneys 'White House' and into Creole and Cajun country.
Ann Coulter? The daughter of Phelps-Dodge mine executive in Arizona, that had no use for working stiffs.
Give Carville credit for marrying the right person.
I'm sorry but to me behavior does not lie. It doesn't matter if the miserable behavior can be masked on occasion by a thin sheen of manners, folksy wisdom, self depreciating humor, faux-humility or even an insecure adolescent smirk, continuous and intentional appalling behavior is still the truth of who these people really are.
Good Grief....
One might wish to keep in mind when applying any of one's vast but still finite intellect towards issues that matter, the following: These two creatures, and others like them are largely the creation of our apparent demand to be simultaneously enraged and outraged over style and superficialities. I don't live in a cave, but I do turn-off the TV to read books on issues other than what and how the electronic media would tell you is imprtant, and there is very little of either of these two most egregious charaters out here away from pundit land. Keep in mind, the news outlets don't make money by informing you, but by delivering the pliable minds of the public to the screens on which they cultivate a lucrative craving for the crap that makes america's elite wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of Croesus, and yet still we complain. Evidently we love it more than the solutions, probably becuase it's easier.
Carville has been "passing" for white for so long, like Hillary, he has begun to beleive his own lies.
Never really accepted by the white establishment, Carville will "sell Obama down the river" to gain status as the Clinton "house negro."
The problem is not that the political shock jocks exist, but that the MSM gives them airtime. If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can get advertisers to support them, fine, that's business. But why would the MSM invite people like Carville and Coulter to talk as commentators, as if they are legitimate journalists/analysts?
The problem is that the MSM invites these kind of commentators to "perform their schtik", instead of performing like legitimate journalist or analysts. They are hired precisely to be the "newsertainers" that boosts profits to their perceived maximum.
And, as a group, American Consumers vote with their dollars by tuning in and succumbing to the commercial messages hidden right in the open between segments of programming.
Franken, Franken What are you thinking? when you acknowledge deliberate crassness and a supreme lack of personal integrity by carville and coulter as two pundits responding to the existing playing field ? As though it all makes sense because they're ....just doing their job? So Carville's a nice guy and Coulter's a nice girl, but oops they say nasty things about people just to make a living? Explain to me how you so easily separate what he/she does and who he/she is. He chooses nasty and you gleefully identify him as nice... am I missing something?
"I can say the same thing about Ann Coulter"
So, mAnn is "really pleasant to be around; gracious, affable, down-to-earth, approachable. He's funny, but in an engaging way. In other words, a nice guy."
I find this difficult to believe, except for the gender stuff.
Hitler was reputed to be great with children.
I think you really need to embrace the WWF philosophy. Without bad guys and good guys there would be no WWF or Red Sox, Yankees, or action movies. The problem here is that there is no clear definition of who the bad guy is, Richardson the opportunist, or Carville, the opportunist.
Humans are nothing if not HUMAN. Few people are not charming -or at the very least interesting one on one. But we should remind ourselves that when we put on a public display-- and the bottom line is dollars--and we don't actually believe in what it is we're saying WE ARE TRADING IN THE COMMODITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. Apparently, many are up for sale, se la vie
What they do is a blatantly amoral appeal to Darwinian impulses. The only thing exceptional about it is that we had somehow for so long maintained a veneer of honesty and seriousness about how we inform the public of important events.
Christopher Cross was a great artist. The rise of MTV killed his career. Years later Britney Spears became a star, and today we now know that was a mistake (at least I know). The disease described is all over the place, perceived style over substance with the always underlying theme of making a buck. It would be funny if it were not so injurious to so many who adapt reality from soundbyte and the acting skills of mugs that appear on TV and radio. There are lots of talented news professionals out there who have something more meaningful to say than Coulter and her lot and they do not get the chance it seems. Whenever profit drives production it seems that quality can lose its way.
I do not mean to demean Ms. Coulter but your insinuation that somehow her looks play a role is a stretch in that she does not in anyway appear sexy, beautiful, or tantalizing to me. Instead, when I look at her the first thing I think about are vampires. I do not know why but her physical presence always scares me a bit. Again, it is probably wrong of me to say this because beauty is all about the individual eye, but I said it anyway
STYLE IS IN.
SUBSTANCE IS OUT.
SOUND BITES ARE IN.
CONTENT IS OUT.
MEDIA IS IN.
JOURNALISM IS OUT.
I don't know that he was a great artist, but Clive Davis did say he'd be the voice of the 90's. And he certainly had a wonderful voice and was a good songwriter.
"wonderful voice and was a good songwriter"
Dare I say again, a great artist?
Oh and add another-you don't even have to be intelligent either.
Studpidity and a telegenic looks count for MUCH more.
Oh and don't forget you have to have a loud booming/grating/whining/shrill voice that always helps.
Fascinating, attempting to defend Carville by equating him to Coulter. Seperated by a matter of the degree of yellow press I suppose. Sensationalism has always been with us. I propose to you that we have generally done better as a nation when it was at a minimum, boring, but better.
I once had lots of respect for Carville.
He has turned into just another pathetic Clinton talking head.
America is now a tinder box piled very high.
The slightest spark could easily set off an uncontrollable conflagrating maelstrom that would last decades.
Hate speech is fanning the spark.
No doubt. If only public radio and TV were that insidious, at least there would some education while they hate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with