Question Marks & the Mysterians
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
This is my second new year’s blog post where the most powerful piece of punctuation in the English language takes center stage as the subject. Lots of people of course think it’s the ubiquitous period and are fond of saying things like, “And that’s the way it is. Period”—as if putting a period down settled all further discussion. And then there are the hysterics among us who are extravagant with exclamation points and will pepper their prose with them like a bad chef trying to exalt a weak soup with salt. But sophisticated writers...and thinkers...and serious citizens...know there’s no more useful and provocative punctuation than the serpentine question mark. The reason I find myself writing about the question mark again is because it was much in the news as the bloodied old year limped into the emergency room of the new one, and the esteemed New York Times published a notable interview with the alleged President of the United States...notable for its absence of questions...or at least questions of the substance and character one would associate with as august an institution as The New York Times.
Rather than the probing and clarifying questions of the inquiring mind...the journalist’s stock and trade...Times reporter Michael Schmidt merely lobbed up softballs, like a batting practice pitcher, allowing Donald Trump to swing away for 30 minutes without fear of ever confronting a curveball or high hard one. There was nothing particularly unusual about this indulgence. Indeed Donald Trump owes his presidency to the fact that the media treated his every appearance before them as an entertainment...a fan dance...a gurgling newborn. It was all novel and marvel. The most marvelous being the infamous town hall hosted by now disgraced “news man” Matt Lauer, where Lauer treated Hillary Clinton as a sinner woman dragged before the Spanish Inquisition and treated Trump like a Miss America contestant. In retrospect it’s easy and not unreasonable to attribute Lauer’s disgraceful treatment of Hillary to his denigrating view of women in general. I won’t argue against that, but I also believe that Lauer’s distinctive bias between what he said and what she said had much to do with the media’s view generally that Trump was the show and no one...not Hillary nor any journalist should interrupt that show in any way for fear of enraging and losing the audience that had tuned in strictly for the show. (Poor Hillary....the only way she could ever become show worthy in their eyes would be to debase herself in apologies or break down before their cameras in tears.) One can easily imagine a producer at NBC or an editor at the New York Times warning their employees with just these words, “Remember the audience has tuned in to watch him not you. Don’t ruin it for us.”
As happens, it’s a strategy that has ruined it for the whole damn country by saddling it with a flim-flam man as president. The media elite try to justify this strategy...just as the Times recently did over its pathetic Trump interview...by claiming that if they didn’t allow Trump to be Trump we wouldn’t all know how truly dreadful he is...that under more probing...more professional questioning....he might skitter away like a rat suddenly aware that there’s a spring-loaded trap just beyond the cheese. This is self-induced nonsense...Exclamation Point! Trump’s record as consummate bullshit artist has been well-establisehd for any sentient being to see for decades. We don’t need the New York Times to expose more of it...the nation stinks to high heaven with it already. What we need from the New York Times...from its highly paid reporter Michael Schmidt...is that it does its damn job when Donald Trump says something as manifestly false and threatening to democracy as this:
Forcing Trump to confront even one of those questions would seem to be a far more worthwhile exercise of journalistic skill than sitting there taking dictation as Trump blathers on more about things he doesn’t know, believe, understand or care about. Journalists flatter themselves into thinking that they’re employing some variation on Muhammed Ali’s rope-a-dope strategy. But Ali’s strategy involved eventually throwing a punch...even a battery of them. A journalist going into an interview with any authority figure unarmed with questions or unwilling to ask them is as egregious a professional failure as a cop shooting an unarmed man. There’s no excuse for it.
But it’s not just a journalistic failing...American society as a whole views the question mark with suspicion...as a symbol of impertinence, rudeness, doubt, or stupidity. The Nob has visited this phenomenon before in a post called The Emperor’s Newer Clothes. It’s a freakin’ children’s story, which grown adults workng for the esteemed New York Times have faild to learn...asking embarrassing questions of authority is not a breach of etiquette...it’s a failure of good journalism and good citizenship. And who are these Mysterians of which we speak? They are those who betray us, our country, and themselves by failing to perform the simplest act of bravery when called upon: asking good, hard questions of authority.
This is my second new year’s blog post where the most powerful piece of punctuation in the English language takes center stage as the subject. Lots of people of course think it’s the ubiquitous period and are fond of saying things like, “And that’s the way it is. Period”—as if putting a period down settled all further discussion. And then there are the hysterics among us who are extravagant with exclamation points and will pepper their prose with them like a bad chef trying to exalt a weak soup with salt. But sophisticated writers...and thinkers...and serious citizens...know there’s no more useful and provocative punctuation than the serpentine question mark. The reason I find myself writing about the question mark again is because it was much in the news as the bloodied old year limped into the emergency room of the new one, and the esteemed New York Times published a notable interview with the alleged President of the United States...notable for its absence of questions...or at least questions of the substance and character one would associate with as august an institution as The New York Times.
Rather than the probing and clarifying questions of the inquiring mind...the journalist’s stock and trade...Times reporter Michael Schmidt merely lobbed up softballs, like a batting practice pitcher, allowing Donald Trump to swing away for 30 minutes without fear of ever confronting a curveball or high hard one. There was nothing particularly unusual about this indulgence. Indeed Donald Trump owes his presidency to the fact that the media treated his every appearance before them as an entertainment...a fan dance...a gurgling newborn. It was all novel and marvel. The most marvelous being the infamous town hall hosted by now disgraced “news man” Matt Lauer, where Lauer treated Hillary Clinton as a sinner woman dragged before the Spanish Inquisition and treated Trump like a Miss America contestant. In retrospect it’s easy and not unreasonable to attribute Lauer’s disgraceful treatment of Hillary to his denigrating view of women in general. I won’t argue against that, but I also believe that Lauer’s distinctive bias between what he said and what she said had much to do with the media’s view generally that Trump was the show and no one...not Hillary nor any journalist should interrupt that show in any way for fear of enraging and losing the audience that had tuned in strictly for the show. (Poor Hillary....the only way she could ever become show worthy in their eyes would be to debase herself in apologies or break down before their cameras in tears.) One can easily imagine a producer at NBC or an editor at the New York Times warning their employees with just these words, “Remember the audience has tuned in to watch him not you. Don’t ruin it for us.”
As happens, it’s a strategy that has ruined it for the whole damn country by saddling it with a flim-flam man as president. The media elite try to justify this strategy...just as the Times recently did over its pathetic Trump interview...by claiming that if they didn’t allow Trump to be Trump we wouldn’t all know how truly dreadful he is...that under more probing...more professional questioning....he might skitter away like a rat suddenly aware that there’s a spring-loaded trap just beyond the cheese. This is self-induced nonsense...Exclamation Point! Trump’s record as consummate bullshit artist has been well-establisehd for any sentient being to see for decades. We don’t need the New York Times to expose more of it...the nation stinks to high heaven with it already. What we need from the New York Times...from its highly paid reporter Michael Schmidt...is that it does its damn job when Donald Trump says something as manifestly false and threatening to democracy as this:
“I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” he said, echoing claims by his supporters that as president he has the power to open or end an investigation. “But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.”Put a period on it right there, and then hit him with a barrage of pertinent, substative questions, such as: Where in the Constitution do you derive this power? If such power exists, doesn’t it put the President above the law? If a President is above the law, what makes our democracy any different from an authoritarian state? Speaking of authoritarian states, what do you see as the difference between Putin’s power and Kim Jung Un’s? If such power exists, why didn't it help Richard Nixon avoid resignation? If this is not truly a power of the President, would you like to see it become one? Would you consider asking your Republican Congress to push through such power for you? Does being treated fairly mean being cleared of all accusations against you? And is being cleared the standard for fairness that should be applied to everyone accused of wrong-doing? When you ban Muslims and demand that protesting players be run out of the NFL, is that your idea of fairness? Are judges with Mexican surnames capable of fairness? Would you like to see Congress pass a law which gives you sole power to decide what is fair and what is not? If you don’t deem Robert Mueller’s findings as fair, what exactly do you plan to do about it?
Forcing Trump to confront even one of those questions would seem to be a far more worthwhile exercise of journalistic skill than sitting there taking dictation as Trump blathers on more about things he doesn’t know, believe, understand or care about. Journalists flatter themselves into thinking that they’re employing some variation on Muhammed Ali’s rope-a-dope strategy. But Ali’s strategy involved eventually throwing a punch...even a battery of them. A journalist going into an interview with any authority figure unarmed with questions or unwilling to ask them is as egregious a professional failure as a cop shooting an unarmed man. There’s no excuse for it.
But it’s not just a journalistic failing...American society as a whole views the question mark with suspicion...as a symbol of impertinence, rudeness, doubt, or stupidity. The Nob has visited this phenomenon before in a post called The Emperor’s Newer Clothes. It’s a freakin’ children’s story, which grown adults workng for the esteemed New York Times have faild to learn...asking embarrassing questions of authority is not a breach of etiquette...it’s a failure of good journalism and good citizenship. And who are these Mysterians of which we speak? They are those who betray us, our country, and themselves by failing to perform the simplest act of bravery when called upon: asking good, hard questions of authority.
No comments have been added yet.
