Joe Posnanski has turned into arguably the best sportswriter in the business; his mix of the personal with the professional creates a warm, easy read even when discussing advanced sabermetrics. Joe has a fascination with the number 32, and a few days ago, he listed the 32 best players in the game. The writing is fantastic, and the reasoning behind most of the selections is intelligent and thoughtful.
But some of those choices are baffling, specifically in regards to Chase Utley. Posnanski stresses that the list is limited to who will have a fantastic year in 2011 and mentions that Utley is, in his eyes, one of the ten best players in the game usually. He then informs the reader that Utley might not play at all this year . . . before ranking him at number 12. Clearly Posnanski is infatuated with the Philly 2B - he basically ignores his own rules to list Utley that high.
His inclusion of David Wright is equally questionable, and some of his omissions are egregious. Yet rather than matching his 32, I will only rank 30. Thirty is a more well-rounded numbers; humans are taught to think in multiples of ten, and a list featuring a number ending in zero tends to carry more gravitas as a result.
There's a reason Moses came down the mountain with ten commandments.
I actually agree with Posnanski's top three, so you can stop reading once you get there. It's the other 27 that deserve re-ranking.
30. Andre Ethier, Los Angeles Dodgers
A controversial choice, but the knack Ethier shows for walk-off hits, his meaning to the Dodger lineup, and his young age gives him the slightest of edges over a number of spectacular players.
29. Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox
Injuries slowed Pedroia in 2010, but the scrappy 2B is everything a manager would covet in a player: tough and feisty with hitting ability for average and power. Chase Utley's injury places Pedroia head and shoulders above 28 starting 2B in baseball.
28. Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees
In another life, he could've been a starting CF. Fans that arrive early enough to catch batting practice can sometimes see him fly across the outfield to catch balls.
In Atlanta in 2009, Rivera was forced to bat and hit a rocket to deep center field. When the ball was caught, the Yankee dugout cheered the Atlanta CF for making the catch.
"If he'd had gotten a hit," Derek Jeter said later, "we'd never have heard the end of it."
27. Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants
Only a special player could hit cleanup as a catcher on a World Series champion . . . as a rookie.
26. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
Sports Illustrated tells the tragedy befalling Verlander's last batter of 2010: three straight fastballs over a 100 MPH. It's amazing to think that the man with a no-hitter and two Top 5 Cy Young finishes on his resume might not have reached his potential yet, but many feel that the righty from Richmond could improve. That'd be a scary thought for the rest of the AL.
25. Ubaldo Jimenez, Colorado Rockies
Much as Verlander topped the velocity charts in the AL, Jimenez did the same in the NL. He returned to earth in the second half of 2010 after a mind-blowing first half, but with that disappointing finish under his belt, Jimenez will be motivated to continue his blistering 2010 start across all of 2011.
24. Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle Mariners
Mariano Rivera threw his cutter inside, and this was not during his seasonal dead arm period. This cutter had bite, but the batter pulled it over the right field wall for a walkoff HR.
That anecdote from 2009 proves that Ichiro can hit HRs when he wants to . . . he just chooses not to. And that anecdote doesn't even mention that he pitched occasionally in Japan.
23. Kevin Youkilis, Boston Red Sox
The single most annoying Sox player since Pedro. It should be noted that there are two categories of Sox semi-legends: the unlikable pricks that you'd hate no matter what (Schilling, Papelbon) and the people that you hate because they're Sox but would love if they were not Sox (Pedro, Pedroia). Youkilis straddles the line between the groups much as he's straddled the line between 3B and 1B in his career.
22. Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants
The man did not allow a single earned run in the playoffs last year.
21. Carl Crawford, Boston Red Sox
If Crawford ever developed consistent power, he'd be a top 5 player. As it is, he's still pretty special.
20. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington Nationals
19. Ryan Braun, Milwaukee Brewers
It's crazy to think that both guys were drafted in the same year (in the top 10) at the same position. Braun's transitioned from 3B to the outfield, and his hitting from the outfield gives him the slightest of edges over Zimmerman.
18. Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds
Votto had a truly special 2010, but there are so many talented first basemen in the league today that it is hard to separate the good from the very good, and the very good from the great. Konerko, Morales, Pujols, Cabrera, Gonzalez, Teixiera, Votto, Morneau, Helton . . . all are worthy candidates for spots on the list.
17. Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees
This is the first year in quite awhile that Rodriguez has been able to fully focus his training on baseball instead of rehabbing injuries. The last time that he did so, he won the MVP.
Plus, being fed by your woman like an Ottoman sultan is worth quite a few spots on the list.
16. David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
15. CC Sabathia, New York Yankees
14. Jon Lester, Boston Red Sox
It's impossible to truly separate these three - it's up to the individual to rank them in any order.
13. Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
Think about one of the best times of your life: maybe it was college, or maybe it was specific vacation. As time goes by and you're sucked back into the real world, you always tell yourself that you're going to go back to relive the experience, if only for a short time.
And yet it's never the same - it can't be. The place has changed, but more than that, you've changed as well, and no matter how much fun the flashback is, it can't match up to the first time around.
With the losses of Utley and Jayson Werth and the declines of Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins, the Phillies are not the same powerhouse as they were in 2009. But Lee has changed as well - he's no longer invincible. He has two more years of wear and tear on his arm. And as great as he may be this year, his second tenure in Philly won't match his first.
Because it can't.
12. Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins
11. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers
The current and former Marlins would be top 5 players if they could only overcome their demons.
10. Josh Hamilton, Texas Rangers
I worry about his durability. He won the MVP last year even though he missed a month. And I worry about that ballpark effect. Posnanski pointed out that Texas has fielded 5 MVPs since 1994, and of the 5, only Alex Rodriguez did not have a significant difference between his home and road stats.
But the fact that Hamilton is a five-tool player, and the fact that he took an Andy Pettitte cutter that was both at the letters and in the other batter's box and smashed it over (the admittedly close) Yankee Stadium wall in last year's ALCS makes him more than the real Roy Hobbs.
It makes him the reincarnation of Mickey Mantle. Right down to the colorful off-field history.
9. Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins
Brett Gardner, perhaps the fastest player in the league, thought he could win the game. Mauer had just retrieved a bunt and seemed to throw a rocket to first as Gardner came speeding down the third base line.
Except that Mauer hadn't let the ball go. He dove backwards across the plate and tagged Gardner out.
The only flaw in Mauer's game is a lack of HR power; in 2009, he hit quite a few, but his HR power disappeared again in 2010. If he hit HRs like in 2009, he'd be in the top 3.
8. Carlos Gonzalez, Colorado Rockies
A six-tool player.
7. Robinson Cano, New York Yankees
Cano took himself out of the MVP running with a late season swoon. He ended up with only a .319 average, which was down from a .320 average the year before. He did hit four more HRs and win a Gold Glove. But in two seasons that featured aged Yankees teams, Cano's most important number is 321.
That's the number of regular season games Cano played in the last two seasons. Spectacular numbers at a position where those numbers are hard to find combined with durability - that's why Cano's one of the top figures in the game.
6. Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants
Lincecum's 2010 regular season stats ended with an ERA in the mid 3s and a WHIP over 1.25 in the National League. These would be numbers that 85% of pitchers would kill for. They resulted in Lincecum's worst season. The playoffs were a different story. Short of a rocky first World Series start, Lincecum was jaw-droppingly good.
To put it in perspective: Roy Halladay threw only the second no-hitter in playoff history . . . and pitched only the second best game of that weekend.
5. Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies
Ramirez may put up comparable numbers in a less advantageous environment, but like the shortstop who made Tulo's number famous, it's the intangibles that place Tulo above him. Tulo brings leadership and drive to a team that will win the NL West this year and challenge for a spot in the World Series.
4. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
Felix has been pitching at a high level for so long that it's almost profane to point out that he's in his mid 20s. His Cy Young season last year will be looked at down the road as the moment that the paradigm shifted from old school stats like wins to more advanced sabermetrics.
3. Adrian Gonzalez, Boston Red Sox
Gonzalez put up monster numbers despite playing 81 games per season in a ballpark where both power alleys are close to 400 feet. When going right, Gonzalez hits the ball to left-center field.
The Green Monster is imposing not only because of its height but because of how close it is to the plate.
Earl Webb of the Boston Red Sox holds the single season record for doubles in a season with 67. He set the record in 1931. 80 years later, a fellow Red Sox seems destined to shatter it.
2. Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies
The only man to throw a no-hitter in the regular season and the postseason in the same year. And if he hadn't hurt his groin doing so, perhaps the Giants would not be the defending champions.
1. Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
This is Pujols' contract year. The definitive study on players and contracts estimated that the top free agents tended to be 10% more productive in their walk years. Last year, Pujols hit .312 and 42 HRs with an OPS of .1010. Posnanski notes that this might have been Albert's second worst year in the big leagues.
Now add 10% to those figures.
Pujols is looking for a new contract worth over $300 million. It's hard to believe that a baseball player would be worth that money. But if Babe Ruth could make more money than President Herbert Hoover, then maybe having Pujols take Barack Obama's salary and adding three zeroes may not be so farfetched.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
TV's Lockout
Many eyes are watching the NFL’s labor talks, but none watch with more interest than the broadcast television networks.
The NFL players’ union has officially decertified to avoid an official lockout, and issues are still being tensely negotiated. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has pressed to the implementation of an 18 game regular season, but the players’ union is resisting that concept and hoping to make contracts more equitable. Today, unproven rookies at flashy positions can command over $30 million in guaranteed money before taking a snap, while valuable veteran cogs in a team’s well-oiled machine, such as offensive and defensive linemen, make less in a year than Charlie Sheen makes per episode of Two and a Half Men.
Sheen has dominated the news lately, and CBS will struggle to replace his show in the lineup, but a resolution to the football crisis remains at the top of the wish list for all the networks. This is because the NFL is perhaps the one thing keeping television afloat.
In recent years, television ratings have been steadily declining in a manner similar to the American economy: all have been hurt, but those at the top have felt the least decline. Ten years ago, there were three shows that averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged 17.8 million. Five years ago, four shows averaged over 20 million viewers, and the tenth-rated show, House, averaged 17.3 million. This year, four shows have averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, which is once again the original CSI, is averaging 13.7 million. The averages at the top have dropped as well: the top rated show of 2001, Survivor, brought in 29.8 million viewers, while 2006’s anchor, American Idol, averaged 31.2 million. Idol is once again king, and ratings may pick up as the competition comes to a close, but it has currently shed 10 million viewers since that peak.
Yet the overall ratings are only part of the story; the key to television’s decline can be seen in the key demographic of adults 18-49. Ten years ago, the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged an 11.6 demo rating. This year, the top¬-rated show, American Idol, has averaged an 8.6. The only scripted show in the overall top 5 this year, NCIS, averages a 4.2 demo rating, which places it behind not only both nights of Idol and a night of Dancing, but also behind Glee, Modern Family, and Two & a Half Men. Glee is the only scripted show to average above a 5 in that demo.
The only product to produce massive ratings, both overall and in the 18-49 demo, and have those ratings eclipse prior performances is the NFL. This year’s Super Bowl was watched by 110 million viewers, and at the end of the TV season, the top primetime performer will not be Idol but NBC’s Sunday Night Football. Regular season NFL games over the three broadcast networks (and ESPN) averaged over 20 million viewers, and the postseason saw record ratings as well: a 28.1 and 31.3 rating for the NFC and AFC Championship games, respectively, meant increases of over 10 percent from last year (and the late game’s ratings were an increase of 32 percent over the late game two years ago).
With the rise of technology such as TiVo and the popularity of original programming on cable networks, the broadcast networks rely ever more on football to bring the nation together to their programming. Indeed, with the music industry hemorrhaging and the film industry losing dollars as well, football appears to be the one form of entertainment that unites Americans.
In 1958, Elvis Presley was drafted into the Army and served in Germany for two years. Elvis was the most popular musician in America by far, and industry crumpled in his absence. This was a time in which new products were released by the same artist every few months; it took years for the industry to recover. Television has reached that point with the NFL, but it is likely that there are no Beatles, Beach Boys, or Motown to eventually ride to its rescue.
The NFL and the players’ union hope to come to a reasonable agreement, and no one is hoping for that more than the broadcast networks.
Because the one thing Americans have come to a reasonable agreement on is the NFL.
The NFL players’ union has officially decertified to avoid an official lockout, and issues are still being tensely negotiated. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has pressed to the implementation of an 18 game regular season, but the players’ union is resisting that concept and hoping to make contracts more equitable. Today, unproven rookies at flashy positions can command over $30 million in guaranteed money before taking a snap, while valuable veteran cogs in a team’s well-oiled machine, such as offensive and defensive linemen, make less in a year than Charlie Sheen makes per episode of Two and a Half Men.
Sheen has dominated the news lately, and CBS will struggle to replace his show in the lineup, but a resolution to the football crisis remains at the top of the wish list for all the networks. This is because the NFL is perhaps the one thing keeping television afloat.
In recent years, television ratings have been steadily declining in a manner similar to the American economy: all have been hurt, but those at the top have felt the least decline. Ten years ago, there were three shows that averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged 17.8 million. Five years ago, four shows averaged over 20 million viewers, and the tenth-rated show, House, averaged 17.3 million. This year, four shows have averaged over 20 million viewers, but the tenth-rated show, which is once again the original CSI, is averaging 13.7 million. The averages at the top have dropped as well: the top rated show of 2001, Survivor, brought in 29.8 million viewers, while 2006’s anchor, American Idol, averaged 31.2 million. Idol is once again king, and ratings may pick up as the competition comes to a close, but it has currently shed 10 million viewers since that peak.
Yet the overall ratings are only part of the story; the key to television’s decline can be seen in the key demographic of adults 18-49. Ten years ago, the tenth-rated show, CSI, averaged an 11.6 demo rating. This year, the top¬-rated show, American Idol, has averaged an 8.6. The only scripted show in the overall top 5 this year, NCIS, averages a 4.2 demo rating, which places it behind not only both nights of Idol and a night of Dancing, but also behind Glee, Modern Family, and Two & a Half Men. Glee is the only scripted show to average above a 5 in that demo.
The only product to produce massive ratings, both overall and in the 18-49 demo, and have those ratings eclipse prior performances is the NFL. This year’s Super Bowl was watched by 110 million viewers, and at the end of the TV season, the top primetime performer will not be Idol but NBC’s Sunday Night Football. Regular season NFL games over the three broadcast networks (and ESPN) averaged over 20 million viewers, and the postseason saw record ratings as well: a 28.1 and 31.3 rating for the NFC and AFC Championship games, respectively, meant increases of over 10 percent from last year (and the late game’s ratings were an increase of 32 percent over the late game two years ago).
With the rise of technology such as TiVo and the popularity of original programming on cable networks, the broadcast networks rely ever more on football to bring the nation together to their programming. Indeed, with the music industry hemorrhaging and the film industry losing dollars as well, football appears to be the one form of entertainment that unites Americans.
In 1958, Elvis Presley was drafted into the Army and served in Germany for two years. Elvis was the most popular musician in America by far, and industry crumpled in his absence. This was a time in which new products were released by the same artist every few months; it took years for the industry to recover. Television has reached that point with the NFL, but it is likely that there are no Beatles, Beach Boys, or Motown to eventually ride to its rescue.
The NFL and the players’ union hope to come to a reasonable agreement, and no one is hoping for that more than the broadcast networks.
Because the one thing Americans have come to a reasonable agreement on is the NFL.
Friday, March 4, 2011
America's Present Time
In the shadow of the Super Bowl, Spring Training has begun.
It’s easy to overlook the unofficial start of summer when football has posted record ratings. Football is uniquely suited to take advantage of technological advances such as high-definition television and instant replay, which accentuate the violent collisions and highlight exceptional passing plays like never before. In recent seasons, the NFL has combined these technical innovations with soap-opera level storylines involving interesting and flawed personalities such as Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and Brett Favre. Football has become America’s ultimate reality show.
As a sport, baseball cannot compare with football’s brutality; as George Carlin humorously noted, baseball is a pastoral game with a seventh inning stretch in which the defense initiates play and the only way to score is to be safe. The lack of an organized clock locks the potential viewer into an open-ended situation, and the rise of both advanced sabermetrics, which has led to an increase in strikeouts and walks, and bullpen specialization has lengthened the game and made many casual viewers believe the game to be boring.
It seems that America’s national pastime has been overtaken in America’s national imagination. Yet in the last twenty years, baseball has been more American than ever before.
In baseball, offensive statistics rose dramatically beginning in 1993, eventually shattering all sorts of records and shifting the paradigm of economic success before the sport was humbled by the revelation of unenforced laws in the late 2000s, which coincided with baseball’s economic bubble bursting.
Stop me if you’ve heard that before.
It should not be a coincidence that baseball almost exactly mirrored American capitalism, because baseball best reflects America’s economic structure. Both political liberals and political conservatives have reasons to complain about baseball, much as both complain about America.
Liberals decry the lack of a salary cap that allows baseball to avoid the parity trend of other sports and field dominant organizations. The New York Yankees are the symbol of unfettered capitalism, throwing dollars around with such wanton disregard that smaller market teams have little chance of signing an enticing free agent that the Yankees desire. Other big market teams, such as the Boston Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies, can compete, but there is seemingly little chance for a small market team to win a championship unless they aim to win one year and then sell off their assets immediately after their victory.
In response to this, baseball executives instituted a luxury tax that financially penalized teams spending above a certain fixed amount; that financial penalty would then be spread out among the small market teams to help them compete. The Yankees are the primary target of this virtual bill of attainder, but other organizations have paid miniscule amounts in the past.
Yet the results of this tax have angered conservatives, who invoke the specter of Ronald Reagan’s fictitious “welfare queen” in light of recently released documents that show the owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Florida Marlins, among other small market teams, pocketing the tax revenues rather than investing it in their teams. Conservatives also point out that the Steinbrenner family and their limited partners that own the Yankees are not even close to the wealthiest owners in sports, and that the Yankees are successful because the owners are willing to risk unprofitability in order to sport a successful team on the field. The Yankees’ primary sources of income in the last few years have been their new television network (a risky investment) and their almost unparalleled attendance figures (spurred on by the winning team fans come to see). The Yankees have proven that investing in successful teams will eventually lead to great consumer interest.
Conservatives also point to the strength of the players’ union as a major cause of baseball’s woes. Baseball’s financial success as a sport coincided with the steroid era, and in the face of steroid revelations, that players’ union refused to support a drug testing policy unless it was so watered down that it would make a mockery of the concept.
But baseball is not merely a sport on which political disputes can be projected, nor is it simply a reflection of American capitalism of the last twenty years. Baseball’s greatest changes were reflections of America’s steps towards greatness decades ago. Walter O’Malley and Horace Stoneham were baseball manifestations of Lewis & Clark, discovering life west of Chicago and opening the game to new markets in new time zones. Tony La Russa’s vision of using left-handed pitchers only against left-handed batters and of saving his second or third best pitcher on the roster for the last inning to close the game made him baseball’s Henry Ford; this specialization has led to more secure job creation and provided rescue rafts for a handful of the sport’s most prestigious players. Of course, not all of America’s advances have received unanimous support, and that is true of baseball: the introduction of the designated hitter in the American League in 1973 remains controversial to this day.
Despite its seemingly low television ratings, baseball is still remarkably successful, particularly in average attendance. That should make sense: baseball’s position as the nation’s preeminent sport occurred before the mass appeal of television took hold, and people had to go to the games to get the full picture. Baseball is a live sport, and baseball’s recent success can partially be attributed to the construction of new fan-friendly ballparks. Since the opening of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in 1993, twenty franchises have opened new home stadiums, and four others have made significant renovations to their existing homes to placate consumers. Of the remaining six, one franchise has a new ballpark ready to open next year, and two others remain beloved by their fans for either its history (Chicago’s Wrigley Field) or the fact that the fan experience at the ballpark rivals that of even the newest constructions (Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium).
Despite this, football has seemingly surpassed baseball in America’s national conscious. That’s only natural, because football represents what America idealizes about itself, while baseball represents America as it actually is.
Football is America looking at a magazine cover; baseball is looking in a mirror.
It’s easy to overlook the unofficial start of summer when football has posted record ratings. Football is uniquely suited to take advantage of technological advances such as high-definition television and instant replay, which accentuate the violent collisions and highlight exceptional passing plays like never before. In recent seasons, the NFL has combined these technical innovations with soap-opera level storylines involving interesting and flawed personalities such as Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and Brett Favre. Football has become America’s ultimate reality show.
As a sport, baseball cannot compare with football’s brutality; as George Carlin humorously noted, baseball is a pastoral game with a seventh inning stretch in which the defense initiates play and the only way to score is to be safe. The lack of an organized clock locks the potential viewer into an open-ended situation, and the rise of both advanced sabermetrics, which has led to an increase in strikeouts and walks, and bullpen specialization has lengthened the game and made many casual viewers believe the game to be boring.
It seems that America’s national pastime has been overtaken in America’s national imagination. Yet in the last twenty years, baseball has been more American than ever before.
In baseball, offensive statistics rose dramatically beginning in 1993, eventually shattering all sorts of records and shifting the paradigm of economic success before the sport was humbled by the revelation of unenforced laws in the late 2000s, which coincided with baseball’s economic bubble bursting.
Stop me if you’ve heard that before.
It should not be a coincidence that baseball almost exactly mirrored American capitalism, because baseball best reflects America’s economic structure. Both political liberals and political conservatives have reasons to complain about baseball, much as both complain about America.
Liberals decry the lack of a salary cap that allows baseball to avoid the parity trend of other sports and field dominant organizations. The New York Yankees are the symbol of unfettered capitalism, throwing dollars around with such wanton disregard that smaller market teams have little chance of signing an enticing free agent that the Yankees desire. Other big market teams, such as the Boston Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies, can compete, but there is seemingly little chance for a small market team to win a championship unless they aim to win one year and then sell off their assets immediately after their victory.
In response to this, baseball executives instituted a luxury tax that financially penalized teams spending above a certain fixed amount; that financial penalty would then be spread out among the small market teams to help them compete. The Yankees are the primary target of this virtual bill of attainder, but other organizations have paid miniscule amounts in the past.
Yet the results of this tax have angered conservatives, who invoke the specter of Ronald Reagan’s fictitious “welfare queen” in light of recently released documents that show the owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Florida Marlins, among other small market teams, pocketing the tax revenues rather than investing it in their teams. Conservatives also point out that the Steinbrenner family and their limited partners that own the Yankees are not even close to the wealthiest owners in sports, and that the Yankees are successful because the owners are willing to risk unprofitability in order to sport a successful team on the field. The Yankees’ primary sources of income in the last few years have been their new television network (a risky investment) and their almost unparalleled attendance figures (spurred on by the winning team fans come to see). The Yankees have proven that investing in successful teams will eventually lead to great consumer interest.
Conservatives also point to the strength of the players’ union as a major cause of baseball’s woes. Baseball’s financial success as a sport coincided with the steroid era, and in the face of steroid revelations, that players’ union refused to support a drug testing policy unless it was so watered down that it would make a mockery of the concept.
But baseball is not merely a sport on which political disputes can be projected, nor is it simply a reflection of American capitalism of the last twenty years. Baseball’s greatest changes were reflections of America’s steps towards greatness decades ago. Walter O’Malley and Horace Stoneham were baseball manifestations of Lewis & Clark, discovering life west of Chicago and opening the game to new markets in new time zones. Tony La Russa’s vision of using left-handed pitchers only against left-handed batters and of saving his second or third best pitcher on the roster for the last inning to close the game made him baseball’s Henry Ford; this specialization has led to more secure job creation and provided rescue rafts for a handful of the sport’s most prestigious players. Of course, not all of America’s advances have received unanimous support, and that is true of baseball: the introduction of the designated hitter in the American League in 1973 remains controversial to this day.
Despite its seemingly low television ratings, baseball is still remarkably successful, particularly in average attendance. That should make sense: baseball’s position as the nation’s preeminent sport occurred before the mass appeal of television took hold, and people had to go to the games to get the full picture. Baseball is a live sport, and baseball’s recent success can partially be attributed to the construction of new fan-friendly ballparks. Since the opening of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in 1993, twenty franchises have opened new home stadiums, and four others have made significant renovations to their existing homes to placate consumers. Of the remaining six, one franchise has a new ballpark ready to open next year, and two others remain beloved by their fans for either its history (Chicago’s Wrigley Field) or the fact that the fan experience at the ballpark rivals that of even the newest constructions (Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium).
Despite this, football has seemingly surpassed baseball in America’s national conscious. That’s only natural, because football represents what America idealizes about itself, while baseball represents America as it actually is.
Football is America looking at a magazine cover; baseball is looking in a mirror.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Critic who Can't Be Criticized
We have come a long way from Walter Cronkite.
“Uncle Walter,” as he was affectionately known as, was America’s most trusted newsman, and in the turmoil of great societal change, Cronkite seemed to be a steady rock. Of course, Americans at the time had only three major broadcast networks to choose from; today, we have limitless choices thanks to the internet and satellite television and radio.
It should not come as a complete surprise, therefore, that many Americans have moved away from traditional sources of news and have turned against politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. The main beneficiaries in the last few years have been a standup comedian and a shock jock radio host who have become more politically minded, less afraid to rock the boat by making controversial statements, and who are more inclined to have their finger on the pulse of a sector of a deeply divided American discourse.
It is no coincidence, then, that Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck each held rallies on the National Mall last year that drew over 200,000 people. Stewart’s Daily Show tenure has seen him expose the hypocrisy of both politicians and the media, delve through dense government documents and meandering testimonies on Capitol Hill to create context and shine a light on falsehoods, and give young people an outlet in which to express their frustration with business as usual. The fact that Stewart’s show is a comedy show has not deterred many Americans from naming him as one of the legitimate journalists they most admire. Stewart may have been at his sharpest in exposing the Bush Administration for its many sins, but he has thrived in the age of Obama: since January 2009, he has interviewed the President, the First Lady, the Vice President, six of the President’s Cabinet members, and a few of the President’s key advisors.
Glenn Beck may edge towards some comedy on his nationally syndicated radio show, but on his main outlet, Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel, the events taking place under Obama’s reign are no laughing matter. Armed with a chalkboard, a red phone, and the usual array of Fox graphics, Beck has turned himself into a cross between an Old Testament prophet and Howard Beale of Network, and conservative viewers have flocked to him. Despite airing in a timeslot when most people are still in traffic, Beck has the one of the three highest rated news programs on cable. His only rivals are Bill O’Reilly and the aforementioned Stewart.
There is something else, aside from the high cable ratings, extremely devoted fans, and rallies on the National Mall, that tie Stewart and Beck together. Both make loud proclamations and call out others for their sins, but at the same time, strive to inoculate themselves from criticism. Stewart and Beck take different routes to achieve the same goal, and the method that Stewart uses works as a double criticism: the original disparagement is followed by a response from the target that acts as a second condemnation of the target. Beck is not quite as successful in using his defense as a second attack.
Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show in 1999, and the show became almost completely political during the 2000 election, but it was not until an appearance on CNN’s Crossfire on October 15, 2004 that Stewart threatened to become a serious commentator and debuted what some writers have called the “clown nose” defense.
On Crossfire, Stewart ripped into hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being “partisan hacks”, which “[helped] the politicians and the corporations” at the expense of the people. Stewart argued that while shows such as Crossfire were perhaps originally intended to keep politicians honest, the shows became so cliché and predictable that they did more harm than good, becoming “part of [the politicians and corporations’] strategies”. Carlson countered by reading a list of softball questions that Stewart had asked John Kerry in a recent Daily Show appearance, but Stewart stated that it was not his responsibility, as a comedian, to hold Kerry’s feet to the fire. “I didn’t realize – and maybe this explains quite a bit – that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity”.
While the Crossfire hosts explained that they invited Stewart on to promote his book, Stewart instead took the opportunity “to confront you” because the media was not doing its job, yet he also stated, “If your idea of confronting me is that I don’t ask hard-hitting enough news questions, then we’re in bad shape”. Stewart stated that Crossfire was pure theater and that Begala’s comparison of Crossfire to a legitimate debate was like saying “pro wrestling was a show about athletic competition”. Yet again, when Carlson challenged Stewart about Stewart’s apparent hypocrisy in calling them partisan hacks, Stewart retreated to familiar comedic territory: “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls”. Yet even after that, he again turned into a serious commentator, telling Carlson and Begala, “You have a responsibility to the public discourse and you’ve failed miserably”.
This marked the first appearance of Stewart’s “clown nose” defense:
Say he's not funny; he tells you he's a concerned citizen. Try to engage him on the point, he tells you he's a comedian; […] Of course he's able to have sincere positions. I just wish he would defend them. "We're a comedy show!" is, in that context, a copout. He's trying to have it both ways.
The Crossfire appearance would not be the last time that Stewart engaged in a very public debate in which he employed this defense.
In 2010, Stewart held his Rally to Restore Sanity, which drew over 215,000 people to the National Mall. Despite never shading his political views on his program, he stressed that this rally was not in support of a partisan side, and launched into an impassioned speech urging politicians and media personalities to be more civil and not to dehumanize each other. It was clear that Stewart was speaking from the heart without a hint of irony or sardonic humor, but when he criticized by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow for his speech, he again used comedy as an attempt to deflect the criticism. He filmed a black and white vignette featuring himself as a boxer getting pummeled in slow motion to play after each clip of criticism before switching back to a serious address of the criticism: "Contrary to what people may believe, I do believe the rally was about something, just not what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about."
That mixture of the serious and the unserious is part of Stewart’s playbook, but the fact that he actually addressed their criticism in a serious manner suggested, to the show’s viewers, that Stewart had evolved in his views and recognized his role in the political discourse. Unfortunately, an interview of Stewart by Rachel Maddow a week later showed that Stewart still resorted to the “clown nose” defense when pressed on his responsibilities.
Stewart labeled his program as satire and said, "I feel more of a kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than I do to […] CNN or NBC in that he is able to articulate an intangible” in a way that people who had previous grasped at certain straws could put things together." Maddow countered: “But what I know of your process] seems very similar to the way that I put my show together”. Stewart responded, “We have to, because we’re parodying a news organization […] but the process the material goes through is not a news process”. Maddow pressed him, saying that “a lot of people who watch your show and who watch cable news think of what we do as not that different,” regardless of how they come to such an end. Stewart, though, identified himself as “on solid ground with the footsteps of my ancestors” such as the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher – comedians “who, with political and social concepts, criticizes them from a haughty yet ultimately feckless perch”. Stewart compared himself to Roger Ebert, who critiques movies but does not make movies of his own. Stewart has defended his approach in the past by saying, “I haven’t moved out of the comedian’s box into the news box; the news box is moving towards me”. That, of course, has fueled much of his denigration of the news business.
Stewart said in the Maddow interview that his rally was an attempt to “deflate a bubble,” and he stressed that he had a chance to “get in the game” with the rally but did not, instead preferring to “stay on the sidelines;” this he contrasted with the news business, who he felt was “on the field”. However, a man who has met with much of the Obama Administration on the air and the Secretary of the Treasury privately is not somewhat without skin in the game. Also, it is worth noting that the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher, among other “ancestors,” did not take on the outward appearance of a news show when delivering commentary on the news. The closest ancestor to Stewart is the “Weekend Update” portion of Saturday Night Live, but unlike SNL, one-third of Stewart’s nightly program consists of an interview with (usually) a newsmaker or political figure. Stewart may prod lightly in tone depending on who is on the show (as Carlson pointed out about Stewart’s interview with John Kerry), but the interviews are quite substantive, and both President Obama and CNBC host Jim Cramer have been on the receiving end of a tough Stewart interview; indeed, Obama’s press secretary noted that “Jon Stewart is about as good an interviewer as there is in the public domain right now”. Stewart may think of himself as only a comedian, but the format of his show renders it impossible for him to keep himself “out of the game.” Stewart’s comparison to Roger Ebert is flawed as well; a more accurate analogy would be if “Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of” special effects. With all of this in mind, it is disingenuous for Stewart to use the “clown nose” defense.
Despite his shock jock background, Glenn Beck does not consider himself a comedian, so he does not use the “clown nose” defense. The onus of Beck’s on-screen personality is one of a history teacher who educates his audience about the creeping forces of socialism that have been ignored recently but have been attempted in the past. Somewhat ironically, Beck seeks to counter criticism of his history lessons and his overall message through the ignorance defense.
The best examples of Beck’s ignorance defense revolve around his Rally to Restore Honor, which took place on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial. Even casual students of history could probably inform you that Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech took place at the Lincoln Memorial on an August 28 years before Beck became politically active (1963, the same year Beck was born). Yet Beck, who admits that he is “a college dropout [and] a self-educated guy”, did not realize the trouble:
We picked August 28th; it was open in my schedule, it was open in the park. […] When I announced it, the New York Times blogged immediately that this was MLK Day, and I immediately said, ‘Oh my gosh!’ [….] We would have never made the connection to Martin Luther King if everyone else hadn’t made the connection to Martin Luther King.
Beck then pivoted to a defense of his rally being on the same spot because he was looking to bring the same solutions to America today that he thought Dr. King was attempting to do in the 1960s:
Now what everyone’s bringing up Martin Luther King: what was his solution to the civil rights? Content of character; to be God-driven honorable people of character; well, that’s a universal answer! So does it have anything to do with his speech? No, but is his speech right? Yes: for not just civil rights, but all rights of mankind.
Beck attempted to illuminate the point by inviting Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, to speak at his rally, and his rally was indeed nonpolitical, urging a return of religious values to American life. Beck convinced himself that this was in line with Dr. King’s thinking, but when he was confronted about Dr. King’s full solution to the civil rights issue on a radio program the day of the rally, Beck again pleaded ignorance:
MADISON: You do not believe President Obama is a racist? […]
BECK: I misunderstood — this I just said the other day — I misunderstood his philosophy and his theology, which is liberation theology.
MADISON: Which was King’s philosophy. Big time.
BECK: Didn’t know that. I’ll talk to Alveda today about it.
MADISON: Oh, talk to his father. You know who you should talk to? Talk to Walter Fauntroy, who grew up with King. That was his philosophy — it was the theological philosophy of social justice.
BECK: Right. I am not a fan of social justice.
MADISON: That’s where we really part. I am a big fan of social justice. […] Maybe we have different definitions of social justice.
The problem with Beck is that he makes grand pronouncements about history without knowing the full scope of history, and he when he is confronted on that fact, he pleads ignorance. In a sense, Beck is a tutor who has elevated himself to the level of professor.
Take a minute for this mental exercise. In some states, fourth graders are evaluated by state governments on their proficiency in American history. Imagine for a second that, during the school year, fourth graders were not taught by accredited adults teaching from state approved textbooks, but they were instead taught by an eighth grader. The eighth grader may be advanced, self-taught, and hungry for knowledge, but the eighth grader is not an adult recognized by the state as proficient enough to teach elementary school. Still, your fourth grade history final hedges upon the knowledge you absorbed from that self-taught eighth grader.
That is Glenn Beck. That is why he is able to successfully plead ignorance when challenged, although unlike Stewart, his defense does not have the added benefit of acting as a second attack on his target. Yet Beck’s defense is doubly effective in regards to his target audience, because despite his enormous financial success, his defense is rooted in anti-elitism. He is able to say, through his ignorance, that he is “one of you.”
Stewart and Beck’s strategy has had varying degrees of success over the years in blunting the criticism of others in the future. Beck has been less successful, as a boycott has robbed his television show of almost all of his sponsors and a liberal website, Media Matters, has been devoted almost exclusively to recording outrageous statements made by Beck and other conservative broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh. Stewart managed to keep himself isolated from major criticism through his “clown nose” strategy for years, but a number of factors have made his defense less effective. The rest of the mainstream media has effusively exalted Stewart over the last three to four years, and several polls showing that a significant portion of young people get their news primarily from Stewart and his protégé, Stephen Colbert, have made his stature hard to deny. The change from a Republican establishment more indebted to the Christian conservative movement and seniors to a Democratic majority of government led by the first African-American president has also made Stewart more important by proxy; as mentioned previously, Democrats looking to turn out younger viewers have to make the obligatory pilgrimage to Stewart’s program. Stewart’s rally, regardless of his intentions, was also a key moment in shattering his defenses against criticism.
Despite this, Beck and Stewart’s attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism have been very successful in rallying their supporters around them and increasing the intensity of that support. Beck, in particular, has cultivated a bunker mentality in which criticism of him often feels gratuitous. Stewart’s defense strategy has made his supporters question the mainstream media even more, which makes them more likely to rally around Stewart. His ratings have soared in the last few years, and, combined with the repeat airings on Comedy Central, Stewart’s numbers have become competitive with Jay Leno’s and David Letterman’s.
Beyond Stewart and Beck, however, is the possibility that their attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism may become more widespread. The shift from an objectivity-based paradigm guided by broadcast television and radio to a new frontier based upon on the anonymity of the internet and Fox News’ attempt to become a visually stimulating newspaper, along with the objective news’ shift into “the comedy box”, may serve as an inspiration for other news personalities to shield themselves from the invective of all opponents without attempting to respond to more rational criticisms. It may not be completely successful from a macro perspective, but as Stewart and Beck have shown, it can generate more intensity from previous supporters and inspire passive independents to tune in to see what the all the fuss is about.
Today we find ourselves in a media climate where personalities do not engage in dialogue but talk through each other. Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in a media climate where our flaws become seen as virtues and all criticism is placed together. Ignoring all criticism in that case will be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“Uncle Walter,” as he was affectionately known as, was America’s most trusted newsman, and in the turmoil of great societal change, Cronkite seemed to be a steady rock. Of course, Americans at the time had only three major broadcast networks to choose from; today, we have limitless choices thanks to the internet and satellite television and radio.
It should not come as a complete surprise, therefore, that many Americans have moved away from traditional sources of news and have turned against politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. The main beneficiaries in the last few years have been a standup comedian and a shock jock radio host who have become more politically minded, less afraid to rock the boat by making controversial statements, and who are more inclined to have their finger on the pulse of a sector of a deeply divided American discourse.
It is no coincidence, then, that Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck each held rallies on the National Mall last year that drew over 200,000 people. Stewart’s Daily Show tenure has seen him expose the hypocrisy of both politicians and the media, delve through dense government documents and meandering testimonies on Capitol Hill to create context and shine a light on falsehoods, and give young people an outlet in which to express their frustration with business as usual. The fact that Stewart’s show is a comedy show has not deterred many Americans from naming him as one of the legitimate journalists they most admire. Stewart may have been at his sharpest in exposing the Bush Administration for its many sins, but he has thrived in the age of Obama: since January 2009, he has interviewed the President, the First Lady, the Vice President, six of the President’s Cabinet members, and a few of the President’s key advisors.
Glenn Beck may edge towards some comedy on his nationally syndicated radio show, but on his main outlet, Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel, the events taking place under Obama’s reign are no laughing matter. Armed with a chalkboard, a red phone, and the usual array of Fox graphics, Beck has turned himself into a cross between an Old Testament prophet and Howard Beale of Network, and conservative viewers have flocked to him. Despite airing in a timeslot when most people are still in traffic, Beck has the one of the three highest rated news programs on cable. His only rivals are Bill O’Reilly and the aforementioned Stewart.
There is something else, aside from the high cable ratings, extremely devoted fans, and rallies on the National Mall, that tie Stewart and Beck together. Both make loud proclamations and call out others for their sins, but at the same time, strive to inoculate themselves from criticism. Stewart and Beck take different routes to achieve the same goal, and the method that Stewart uses works as a double criticism: the original disparagement is followed by a response from the target that acts as a second condemnation of the target. Beck is not quite as successful in using his defense as a second attack.
Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show in 1999, and the show became almost completely political during the 2000 election, but it was not until an appearance on CNN’s Crossfire on October 15, 2004 that Stewart threatened to become a serious commentator and debuted what some writers have called the “clown nose” defense.
On Crossfire, Stewart ripped into hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being “partisan hacks”, which “[helped] the politicians and the corporations” at the expense of the people. Stewart argued that while shows such as Crossfire were perhaps originally intended to keep politicians honest, the shows became so cliché and predictable that they did more harm than good, becoming “part of [the politicians and corporations’] strategies”. Carlson countered by reading a list of softball questions that Stewart had asked John Kerry in a recent Daily Show appearance, but Stewart stated that it was not his responsibility, as a comedian, to hold Kerry’s feet to the fire. “I didn’t realize – and maybe this explains quite a bit – that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity”.
While the Crossfire hosts explained that they invited Stewart on to promote his book, Stewart instead took the opportunity “to confront you” because the media was not doing its job, yet he also stated, “If your idea of confronting me is that I don’t ask hard-hitting enough news questions, then we’re in bad shape”. Stewart stated that Crossfire was pure theater and that Begala’s comparison of Crossfire to a legitimate debate was like saying “pro wrestling was a show about athletic competition”. Yet again, when Carlson challenged Stewart about Stewart’s apparent hypocrisy in calling them partisan hacks, Stewart retreated to familiar comedic territory: “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls”. Yet even after that, he again turned into a serious commentator, telling Carlson and Begala, “You have a responsibility to the public discourse and you’ve failed miserably”.
This marked the first appearance of Stewart’s “clown nose” defense:
Say he's not funny; he tells you he's a concerned citizen. Try to engage him on the point, he tells you he's a comedian; […] Of course he's able to have sincere positions. I just wish he would defend them. "We're a comedy show!" is, in that context, a copout. He's trying to have it both ways.
The Crossfire appearance would not be the last time that Stewart engaged in a very public debate in which he employed this defense.
In 2010, Stewart held his Rally to Restore Sanity, which drew over 215,000 people to the National Mall. Despite never shading his political views on his program, he stressed that this rally was not in support of a partisan side, and launched into an impassioned speech urging politicians and media personalities to be more civil and not to dehumanize each other. It was clear that Stewart was speaking from the heart without a hint of irony or sardonic humor, but when he criticized by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow for his speech, he again used comedy as an attempt to deflect the criticism. He filmed a black and white vignette featuring himself as a boxer getting pummeled in slow motion to play after each clip of criticism before switching back to a serious address of the criticism: "Contrary to what people may believe, I do believe the rally was about something, just not what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about."
That mixture of the serious and the unserious is part of Stewart’s playbook, but the fact that he actually addressed their criticism in a serious manner suggested, to the show’s viewers, that Stewart had evolved in his views and recognized his role in the political discourse. Unfortunately, an interview of Stewart by Rachel Maddow a week later showed that Stewart still resorted to the “clown nose” defense when pressed on his responsibilities.
Stewart labeled his program as satire and said, "I feel more of a kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than I do to […] CNN or NBC in that he is able to articulate an intangible” in a way that people who had previous grasped at certain straws could put things together." Maddow countered: “But what I know of your process] seems very similar to the way that I put my show together”. Stewart responded, “We have to, because we’re parodying a news organization […] but the process the material goes through is not a news process”. Maddow pressed him, saying that “a lot of people who watch your show and who watch cable news think of what we do as not that different,” regardless of how they come to such an end. Stewart, though, identified himself as “on solid ground with the footsteps of my ancestors” such as the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher – comedians “who, with political and social concepts, criticizes them from a haughty yet ultimately feckless perch”. Stewart compared himself to Roger Ebert, who critiques movies but does not make movies of his own. Stewart has defended his approach in the past by saying, “I haven’t moved out of the comedian’s box into the news box; the news box is moving towards me”. That, of course, has fueled much of his denigration of the news business.
Stewart said in the Maddow interview that his rally was an attempt to “deflate a bubble,” and he stressed that he had a chance to “get in the game” with the rally but did not, instead preferring to “stay on the sidelines;” this he contrasted with the news business, who he felt was “on the field”. However, a man who has met with much of the Obama Administration on the air and the Secretary of the Treasury privately is not somewhat without skin in the game. Also, it is worth noting that the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher, among other “ancestors,” did not take on the outward appearance of a news show when delivering commentary on the news. The closest ancestor to Stewart is the “Weekend Update” portion of Saturday Night Live, but unlike SNL, one-third of Stewart’s nightly program consists of an interview with (usually) a newsmaker or political figure. Stewart may prod lightly in tone depending on who is on the show (as Carlson pointed out about Stewart’s interview with John Kerry), but the interviews are quite substantive, and both President Obama and CNBC host Jim Cramer have been on the receiving end of a tough Stewart interview; indeed, Obama’s press secretary noted that “Jon Stewart is about as good an interviewer as there is in the public domain right now”. Stewart may think of himself as only a comedian, but the format of his show renders it impossible for him to keep himself “out of the game.” Stewart’s comparison to Roger Ebert is flawed as well; a more accurate analogy would be if “Ebert reviewed films by directing video commentaries with a $100 million budget and plenty of” special effects. With all of this in mind, it is disingenuous for Stewart to use the “clown nose” defense.
Despite his shock jock background, Glenn Beck does not consider himself a comedian, so he does not use the “clown nose” defense. The onus of Beck’s on-screen personality is one of a history teacher who educates his audience about the creeping forces of socialism that have been ignored recently but have been attempted in the past. Somewhat ironically, Beck seeks to counter criticism of his history lessons and his overall message through the ignorance defense.
The best examples of Beck’s ignorance defense revolve around his Rally to Restore Honor, which took place on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial. Even casual students of history could probably inform you that Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech took place at the Lincoln Memorial on an August 28 years before Beck became politically active (1963, the same year Beck was born). Yet Beck, who admits that he is “a college dropout [and] a self-educated guy”, did not realize the trouble:
We picked August 28th; it was open in my schedule, it was open in the park. […] When I announced it, the New York Times blogged immediately that this was MLK Day, and I immediately said, ‘Oh my gosh!’ [….] We would have never made the connection to Martin Luther King if everyone else hadn’t made the connection to Martin Luther King.
Beck then pivoted to a defense of his rally being on the same spot because he was looking to bring the same solutions to America today that he thought Dr. King was attempting to do in the 1960s:
Now what everyone’s bringing up Martin Luther King: what was his solution to the civil rights? Content of character; to be God-driven honorable people of character; well, that’s a universal answer! So does it have anything to do with his speech? No, but is his speech right? Yes: for not just civil rights, but all rights of mankind.
Beck attempted to illuminate the point by inviting Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, to speak at his rally, and his rally was indeed nonpolitical, urging a return of religious values to American life. Beck convinced himself that this was in line with Dr. King’s thinking, but when he was confronted about Dr. King’s full solution to the civil rights issue on a radio program the day of the rally, Beck again pleaded ignorance:
MADISON: You do not believe President Obama is a racist? […]
BECK: I misunderstood — this I just said the other day — I misunderstood his philosophy and his theology, which is liberation theology.
MADISON: Which was King’s philosophy. Big time.
BECK: Didn’t know that. I’ll talk to Alveda today about it.
MADISON: Oh, talk to his father. You know who you should talk to? Talk to Walter Fauntroy, who grew up with King. That was his philosophy — it was the theological philosophy of social justice.
BECK: Right. I am not a fan of social justice.
MADISON: That’s where we really part. I am a big fan of social justice. […] Maybe we have different definitions of social justice.
The problem with Beck is that he makes grand pronouncements about history without knowing the full scope of history, and he when he is confronted on that fact, he pleads ignorance. In a sense, Beck is a tutor who has elevated himself to the level of professor.
Take a minute for this mental exercise. In some states, fourth graders are evaluated by state governments on their proficiency in American history. Imagine for a second that, during the school year, fourth graders were not taught by accredited adults teaching from state approved textbooks, but they were instead taught by an eighth grader. The eighth grader may be advanced, self-taught, and hungry for knowledge, but the eighth grader is not an adult recognized by the state as proficient enough to teach elementary school. Still, your fourth grade history final hedges upon the knowledge you absorbed from that self-taught eighth grader.
That is Glenn Beck. That is why he is able to successfully plead ignorance when challenged, although unlike Stewart, his defense does not have the added benefit of acting as a second attack on his target. Yet Beck’s defense is doubly effective in regards to his target audience, because despite his enormous financial success, his defense is rooted in anti-elitism. He is able to say, through his ignorance, that he is “one of you.”
Stewart and Beck’s strategy has had varying degrees of success over the years in blunting the criticism of others in the future. Beck has been less successful, as a boycott has robbed his television show of almost all of his sponsors and a liberal website, Media Matters, has been devoted almost exclusively to recording outrageous statements made by Beck and other conservative broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh. Stewart managed to keep himself isolated from major criticism through his “clown nose” strategy for years, but a number of factors have made his defense less effective. The rest of the mainstream media has effusively exalted Stewart over the last three to four years, and several polls showing that a significant portion of young people get their news primarily from Stewart and his protégé, Stephen Colbert, have made his stature hard to deny. The change from a Republican establishment more indebted to the Christian conservative movement and seniors to a Democratic majority of government led by the first African-American president has also made Stewart more important by proxy; as mentioned previously, Democrats looking to turn out younger viewers have to make the obligatory pilgrimage to Stewart’s program. Stewart’s rally, regardless of his intentions, was also a key moment in shattering his defenses against criticism.
Despite this, Beck and Stewart’s attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism have been very successful in rallying their supporters around them and increasing the intensity of that support. Beck, in particular, has cultivated a bunker mentality in which criticism of him often feels gratuitous. Stewart’s defense strategy has made his supporters question the mainstream media even more, which makes them more likely to rally around Stewart. His ratings have soared in the last few years, and, combined with the repeat airings on Comedy Central, Stewart’s numbers have become competitive with Jay Leno’s and David Letterman’s.
Beyond Stewart and Beck, however, is the possibility that their attempts to inoculate themselves from criticism may become more widespread. The shift from an objectivity-based paradigm guided by broadcast television and radio to a new frontier based upon on the anonymity of the internet and Fox News’ attempt to become a visually stimulating newspaper, along with the objective news’ shift into “the comedy box”, may serve as an inspiration for other news personalities to shield themselves from the invective of all opponents without attempting to respond to more rational criticisms. It may not be completely successful from a macro perspective, but as Stewart and Beck have shown, it can generate more intensity from previous supporters and inspire passive independents to tune in to see what the all the fuss is about.
Today we find ourselves in a media climate where personalities do not engage in dialogue but talk through each other. Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in a media climate where our flaws become seen as virtues and all criticism is placed together. Ignoring all criticism in that case will be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Monday, January 24, 2011
President Obama on President Reagan
President Obama's USA Today essay celebrating the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan is, on the surface, a stirring tribute to the man. But that's merely on the surface.
Quarreyman News has exclusively obtained the first draft of Obama's essay. The changes made to the original draft are in grey, with the parts taken out put in green.
Barack Hussein Obama Ronald Wilson Reagan was a believer. As a husband, a father, an entertainer, a senator a governor and a president, he recognized that each of us has the power — as individuals and as a nation — to shape our own destiny. He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.
No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Obama Reagan— and I certainly had my share — there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America.
President Obama Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change — putting our nation on a bold new path toward both. And although he knew that conflicts between parties and political adversaries were inevitable, he also knew that they would never be strong enough to break the ties that bind us together. He understood that while we may see the world differently and hold different opinions about what's best for our country, the fact remains that we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else.
It was a philosophy that President Obama Reagan took to heart — famously saying that he and Republican Speaker John Boehner Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, with whom he sparred constantly, could be friends after 6 o'clock. It's what led him to compromise on issues as contentious as Social Security and tax cuts. And it's what allowed him to work with leaders of all political persuasions to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and security around the world, including reducing nuclear weapons and imagining a world, ultimately, without nuclear weapons.
But perhaps even more important than any single accomplishment was the sense of confidence and optimism President Obama Reagan never failed to communicate to the American people. It was a spirit that transcended the most heated political arguments, and one that called each of us to believe that tomorrow will be better than today. At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything.
When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Obama Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.
Quarreyman News has exclusively obtained the first draft of Obama's essay. The changes made to the original draft are in grey, with the parts taken out put in green.
Barack Hussein Obama Ronald Wilson Reagan was a believer. As a husband, a father, an entertainer, a senator a governor and a president, he recognized that each of us has the power — as individuals and as a nation — to shape our own destiny. He had faith in the American promise; in the importance of reaffirming values like hard work and personal responsibility; and in his own unique ability to inspire others to greatness.
No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Obama Reagan— and I certainly had my share — there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America.
President Obama Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change — putting our nation on a bold new path toward both. And although he knew that conflicts between parties and political adversaries were inevitable, he also knew that they would never be strong enough to break the ties that bind us together. He understood that while we may see the world differently and hold different opinions about what's best for our country, the fact remains that we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else.
It was a philosophy that President Obama Reagan took to heart — famously saying that he and Republican Speaker John Boehner Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, with whom he sparred constantly, could be friends after 6 o'clock. It's what led him to compromise on issues as contentious as Social Security and tax cuts. And it's what allowed him to work with leaders of all political persuasions to advance the cause of freedom, democracy and security around the world, including reducing nuclear weapons and imagining a world, ultimately, without nuclear weapons.
But perhaps even more important than any single accomplishment was the sense of confidence and optimism President Obama Reagan never failed to communicate to the American people. It was a spirit that transcended the most heated political arguments, and one that called each of us to believe that tomorrow will be better than today. At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything.
When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Obama Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Party Like It's 1999
I guess the Birthers finally succeeded in overturning Obama's election. Here's the swearing in of our 45th President - the 42nd.
Saturday Night Live usually piggybacks on things, but they envisioned this five years ago:
Saturday Night Live usually piggybacks on things, but they envisioned this five years ago:
Monday, November 22, 2010
Quarreyman Video: Postmodern Politics
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the struggles of Barack Obama with the public despite great legislative victories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
