A Newsletter With An Eye On Political Media from The American Prospect
 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

View this email in your browser

A NEWSLETTER WITH AN EYE ON POLITICAL MEDIA

The Times Investigation of Tucker Carlson Was Superb-but ...

It endorses most of the GOP representatives who voted to overturn the
Electoral College results-but not pro-Israel hawk Liz Cheney.

Over the past week, The New York Times offered up Nick Confessore's
(deservedly) much-praised three-part, multimedia investigation into the
influence of Tucker Carlson within Fox News, the alt-right, the
Republican Party, and the larger media landscape. It tells us much that
is worth knowing and usefully puts it all in one place. I highly
recommend your taking the time for all three parts: here
,
here
,
and here
.
(There is also a cheat-sheet version here
.)

It recalls this three-part, multimedia deep dive from Jonathan Mahler
and Jim Rutenberg, also in the Times back in 2019: here
,
here
,
and here

(with a cheat sheet here
).
That one illustrated the global machinations of the Murdoch family. It
demonstrated the manner in which its members have poisoned political
discourse in countless countries simultaneously, increasing racism,
promoting violence, destroying any hopes for saving the planet, and
worsening life for the most vulnerable people everywhere, purely because
it makes the Murdochs more and more money, when they already have more
money than any group of people their size could spend in a dozen
lifetimes. These pieces are in some ways more remarkable than the Tucker
Carlson series because of the (mostly realized) ambition of their reach.
These articles should most definitely be treated as prerequisites for
the Carlson pieces, the way English 101 is a prerequisite for English
102.

Aye, but there's the rub. As I discussed recently regarding the
retirement of Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and his replacement by
Joseph Kahn, here
,
the Times does these wonderful, extended pieces of long-form
investigation breaking news of crucial national import, and deserves
great credit for having done so, as they are hardly money-earners. But
once the paper is done promoting them, they tend to fall into a
metaphorical black hole. The forgetting is actually crucial to the
paper's understanding of its job, which (not-so-shockingly) is to
produce "news," a word that (savvy readers may have noticed) is
composed of the word "new" with just an "s" attached to it.

But while these larger efforts are much appreciated by those willing to
invest the considerable time and effort necessary to read them, they are
not enough to achieve what really ought to be the journalist's
ultimate ambition, which is to create an informed citizenry, capable of
carrying out its democratic responsibilities. For that, the shocking
revelations contained in these stories would have to be attached to-or
at least re-raised-in every story to which they might be relevant.
Times reporters, like most reporters, believe that "bothsidesism" is
the only context an article needs. Actually, more than anything,
what's needed is the relevant history-with a strong emphasis on who
can be expected to profit from the developments being described.

I first noticed this problem literally 37 years ago, when I read one of
those multipart investigations the Times does about Ronald Reagan's
proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, or, as it was popularly known,
"Star Wars" program. Anyone who slogged through the entire
thing-you can find the first part here
-could
not have helped but conclude that the program was just a
gazillion-dollar boondoggle for the Pentagon and its military
contractors. It could not possibly have defended the United States in
the event of a nuclear attack. This would not have been a shock at the
time-my very first MSM publication appeared on the Times op-ed page on
this very topic

back in July 1985-but neither was this news included in many of the
countless stories the Times published when the program came up. Those
pieces were often characterized by the mindless bothsidesism that has
since become so familiar to all of us, allowing those who profited from
the program to spew their propaganda alongside the scientists and
physicists able to judge it. Eleventy bazillion wasted dollars later,
the program remained "science fiction
."

This treatment has become the norm, alas. And just as there ain't no
cure for love , I don't
imagine there is any cure for journalists who resist contextualizing
their reporting with the relevant knowledge necessary to make informed
judgments about its meaning and significance. To be fair, given the
hysterically dishonest and purposely malevolent interventions of Tucker
Carlson and his comrades at Fox (and other Murdoch and alt-right
"news" outlets), it's hard enough even to report what one knows to
be true.

[link removed]

I attended a wonderful lecture by Annette Gordon-Reed
in
celebration of CUNY's Leon Levy Center for Biography
on Wednesday evening, and it got me
thinking about what hard (and usually unremunerative) work biographers
do. This is one reason that, while I believe The New York Review of
Books to be one of the great publications in the history of the English
language, I wanted to point out how bizarre I found this long article by
Jed Perl
.
In discussing a 640-page biography of the mid-century art critic Harold
Rosenberg by independent scholar Debra Bricker Balken
,
Perl complains, twice, that the author does not make sufficient use of
fictional portrayals of its subject. Balken, he complains, is too
"busy nailing down this or that argument or alliance" and
"doesn't make good use of But Not for Love, a novel by Rosenberg's
wife." Even weirder, he writes, "Balken loses sight of the man whom
Bellow, in his magnificent story 'What Kind of Day Did You Have?,
reimagined as Victor Wulpy, 'a major figure, a world-class
intellectual.' Bellow's eminent art critic hobnobs with financiers
and knows his way around café society."

Hello? Does Perl understand the meaning of the word "fiction"? He
does note that "perhaps there's an element of hyperbole in
Bellow's fictionalization." Well, thanks. Alas, I remember rereading
Bellow's 1984 story not that long ago and thinking that Bellow had way
overshot the degree of eminence that any art critic in America has ever
enjoyed. Rosenberg was not-like Bellow-a Nobel laureate, or a movie
star, or even a movie director. Neither was he an artist. He was merely,
as Perl points out, an art critic who was "on the faculty of a
prestigious university and had a permanent post at one of the
country's most important magazines." Sorry, but this is not really
such a big deal and nowhere near big enough to justify the royal
treatment Rosenberg-as-Wulpy enjoys throughout this novella-length short
story. It is hardly incidental that the story is told from the
perspective of a devoted-and starstruck-housewife with whom the
protagonist has been having a longtime affair.

I've done quite a bit of reading in the world of Harold Rosenberg for
a book I've been researching for years on the history of American
Jewish culture, and Bellow's portrait of-once again-his fictional
art critic, may or may not have made his story more dramatic, but it was
not remotely true to real life. This was a bad habit of late Bellow
fiction. His final novel, Ravelstein, which was inspired by the life of
Cornell professor and noted Straussian
Allan Bloom
,
also goes overboard in the same direction. It's almost as if Bellow,
facing his own mortality, felt a need to advertise his own historical
significance by showing us how important his friends and associates
were. He may have believed it himself, but it surely does not constitute
biographical evidence. Perl sort of admits this at the end of his review
when he notes that Bellow's story contains "a suggestion that the
Rosenberg character is 'nothing but a promoter.' That wasn't
Bellow's view of his friend." Well, which is it? Shall we take the
fiction of Saul Bellow as true-life evidence or not? This issue has long
dogged Philip Roth, who, on occasion, has been held responsible for the
views of the masturbation-obsessed teenagers he created.

Suffice it to say, I've not read the Rosenberg biography in question,
but I plan to. When I do, I will judge its veracity by the evidence it
presents, as well as by the myriad accounts of the lives that were
intertwined with Rosenberg's during the heyday of the New York
intellectuals. If I read something in a novel by someone that is somehow
inconsistent with the memoirs and histories of the period, well, that
won't bother me. After all, fiction writers would be called
"memoirists" and "historians" if it wasn't their (literal)
business to make shit up.

If, like me, you sleep weird hours and yet feel a need to enjoy some
sense of accomplishment for the times you know you are not going back to
sleep anytime soon, I recommend reading short stories and essays that
won't take you that long to finish before trying again. It usually
works for me. To that end, I recommend What Can We Hope For?

by Richard Rorty (to be published May 10) and Old Truths and New
Clichés

by Isaac Bashevis Singer (to be published on May 17). In addition to
being, arguably, the most influential philosopher of the past
half-century , Rorty was also
an eminently sensible and unapologetic liberal. I was pleased to see the
inclusion in this book of an essay I commissioned and edited, "First
Projects, Then Principles," for The Nation back in 1997, but there is
a wealth of timeless wisdom in this book. As for Singer
,
well, who'd have thunk there was more water in that well? Read this
delightful memoir recently published in The New Yorker

(and included in the book) and you'll see there's plenty of writing
here to justify whatever time you end up staying awake.

Music next week.

~ ERIC ALTERMAN

Become A Member of The American Prospect Today!

Eric Alterman is a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn
College, an award-winning journalist, and the author of 11 books, most
recently Lying in State: Why Presidents Lie-and Why Trump Is Worse
(Basic, 2020). Previously, he wrote The Nation's "Liberal Media"
column for 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @eric_alterman

[link removed]

CLICK TO SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER:

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

To receive this newsletter directly in your inbox, click here to
subscribe.

 

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

The American Prospect, Inc.
1225 I Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC xxxxxx
United States
To opt out of American Prospect membership messaging, click here.

To manage your newsletter preferences, click here.

To unsubscribe from all American Prospect emails, including newsletters,
click here.

Copyright (C) 2021 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.
_________________

Sent to [email protected]

Unsubscribe:
[link removed]

The American Prospect, Inc., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC xxxxxx, United States