Here's part of a screenshot of cnn.com from immediately after tonight's debate:
Why, you might ask, is someone from VH1 being linked next to stalwart pundits like Begala and Novak on CNN's front page in the immediate aftermath of one of the campaign's biggest events? I don't fucking have a clue. The link goes to the blog of one Jessi Klein, which contains this editor's note:
Klein, for her part, says this, among other things:
Bush, on the other hand, seemed pretty baffled for a lot of it, and there were some moments when he paused for so long before speaking that I thought I was going to have a nervous breakdown.
Watching Bush talk always gives me that feeling like when you're watching an alcoholic uncle give a toast at a wedding - you're just kind of hoping he'll get through it without messing up too bad, but he inevitably does.
None of this takes away from the fact that I still can't picture John Kerry and Teresa actually kissing.
Fuck you, CNN. Fuck you, VH1, for not getting Viacom to step in and stop this inter-corporate madness. Fuck you, news-consuming public for going back over and over to the same poisoned troughs. And fuck you, Jessi Klein, for this:
Your feigned impartiality sickens me, and is enabling these undecided morons to remain the focus of the able-minded among us. Get bent.
Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra ::: 2004:09:30:22:35
I second that emotion! Shame, shame, shame on you Central News Network and Video Hits 1. Not only shame, but fuck off!
Um, hi, if you knew anything about Jessi Klein, you would know that she's not an idiot. She graduated from Vassar, and obviously that means she can't be the dumbass you think she is. She's an educated comedienne who is probably a democrat. Big frickin' whoop. Get over your-fucking-self. A little laughter wouldn't kill you, you know. And just FYI, the more education you get, the more leftist you get. It's a goddamned fact.
George Bush graduated from Yale -- what's your point? Unintelligent creatures spring forth from our centers of "wisdom" every May and December; it's not that hard to smooth-talk your way into a BA in any humanities or liberal arts offshoot. I should know -- I did it!
And BTW, you don't get "more leftist" "the more education you get it." Correlation does not equal causation. More educated people tend to hold more liberal positions, but it is by no means proven to be a *causal* relationship, nor is it a universal function. And frankly, I don't give a damn if she's "probably a democrat," she's fucking up the public discourse. Paul Begala's fucking it up too, but at least he has basis on which to do it. "Educated comediennes" do not.
And as an addendum, I never called her an idiot -- reread the post. I think she knows exactly what she's doing, and she doesn't care, because she thinks this is entertainment first and a matter of cultural, societal and national import second.
blah blah blah. can't a person make a freakin' joke? she's being funny. it's her job. but you stuck-up bitches wouldn't know shit about that. and yeah, a little laughter wouldn't kill you. go "get bent."
Blah blah blah. "Sam?" "Sarah?" Which is it? I can see your IP address, smart guy.
uh, hi, is it possible for two people to own a computer? yes, apparently so.
good point about bush, though.
i think this will be my last comment on this post because i think "internet arguments" are a little lame. and it's not as if I am going to convince you or you are going to convince me. everyone is entitled to their own opnion. so, um, yeah, whatever. i just want to apologize for trying to force my opinion on you and being so rude about it. you have made valid points, and your arguments are cogent. you obviously know what you're talking about. i respect that, and you can write whatever you want on your website, because you have that right.
i also just want to explain myself a little further rather than attacking you. i don't believe the people who read jessi klein's cnn blog are going to be affected by her blog, other than getting a good laugh. they have their minds made up already. they're not in it for the in-depth report on the presidential debates, they want to humour about the debates. they aren't reading it for cultural, societal and national import; they're reading it for entertainment. i mean, what's the big deal? can't we laugh at it once in a while?
she's funny. she's not offensive; she's not being a bitch; she's not being stupid. she's not changing peoples' minds crazily with her blog posts. and she's entitled to her opinion. she's also free to share it with whomever she pleases, including the readers of cnn.com. if her opinion is "this debate is pathetic. i'm going to make fun of it," then by god that's what she'll do. and she can do that. she has that right. you have that right. i have that right.
just now, i was again tempted to say something along the lines of "relax" but i won't. i'll just say,"would you consider just looking at her blog a little less seriously?" i'm just trying not to be an ass about this. i really think that maybe if you took a step back and maybe saw it for what it is -- a humorous blog about how idiotic and silly some of the things the candidates say are -- maybe you would find it funny. and maybe you wouldn't. i don't know. i just think that "oh, fuck her for sharing her goddamned opinions on cnn," is a bit harsh.
i honestly do apologize for being such a jerk early on. i'm attempting to make amends for it with this post. and i hope that if i happen to comment on this website later on, you won't hold it against me. i also apologize on behalf of my sister sarah. she's only trying to help me out. so, apparently, i must be a bad influence. ha.
also, that is my actual e-mail address. it's a token of my apology, i suppose. i didn't give it earlier because i did not want you to harrass me there. i'm sure you won't, but feel free to do as you like.
anyway, you're not my enemy, and i am not yours. so, i am sorry. republicans are the true enemy.
i hope you accept my apology.
Don't worry, this is not freerepublic -- I have no interest in harassing commenters.
Ultimately, there are two things that my post boils down to which maybe didn't come through as clearly as they could have.
The first is that CNN shouldn't be running this stuff. I don't have any problem with humor (although I will add that I don't find Klein to be funny, primarily because I didn't find the material to be funny when Wonkette did it first -- I need more than just an ironic pose) but I do believe certain venues need to be reserved for serious discussion of serious matters. There are a lot of dumb people out there, and how are we to expect them to take this election seriously when even CNN -- the cable NEWS network -- is running "Oh this stuff is so silly" stories alongside its headline reporting? I'm a TA in a large journalism department, and one of the most commonly used books in our intro to mass communication class is Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I don't agree with everything Postman says, but I do agree with his central premise that the mass media (primarily TV) have done away with the wall between serious and silly and that our society is the worse for it. Here the fault lies with CNN -- when you say that Klein is free to share this stuff with "the readers of cnn.com," that's only true so long as CNN lets her do it.
The second fault lies with Klein herself. Like I said, people are dumb. They look for cues from the mass media when they form opinions. Look back to the first debate in 2000 -- the instant polls said Gore won by about nine points, but after several days of pundits going on about his sighing, people changed their minds and decided that Bush had won. This year, when persuadable people visit cnn.com to find the punditry they love so much, they find Begala peddling what I assume was a soft load about how Kerry's really great but those heartlanders sure love Bush's straightshooterosity. They find Novak probably outing Kerry as an undercover CIA agent. And they find Klein doing what she sees as humor, but what they see as character analysis. She can't imagine the Kerrys kissing? Now some idiot is thinking the same thing, and thinking they don't want non-kissers in the White House. You said before that Klein's "probably a Democrat." I disagree -- I think she's obviously a Democrat, and that's what makes it all the more frustrating. Conservative humorists make fun of liberals, and liberal humorists... make fun of liberals also. It's great that we can laugh at ourselves, but we're helping the undecided morons decide to vote for the other guy. Klein's clearly a Kerry supporter, so what's the value in pretending to be impartial?
Like I said, this isn't a broadside against humor -- The Onion, SNL, The Daily Show, anywhere but with the important stuff is fine. Jon Stewart's diatribe on Crossfire was absolutely right: news and theatre can't mix. It is to society's detriment when they do.
And BTW, thanks for taking the time to expand on what you were getting at -- this is actually the first conversation we've had in the comments here, which is probably a reflection on my lack of posting and promotion than anything else. :)
Thank you for clarifying. I can honestly say that I really see where you are coming from. However, I still think Jessi Klein is hilarious.
Maybe if you hear some of her other stuff... the stuff that has nothing to do with politics.
And I don't know if this is true for Jessi Klein, but I know that I have feigned impartiality to a slight extent in order to appear more... well, credible. For instance, instead of saying, "Bush is a complete dumbass; He can't even speak English. I hate his fucking guts," I say,"Although I do not agree with Bush's policies, I do not think he is a terrible president." And maybe I'll list some good things he's done in the past. (whatever those are.)
I don't exactly know how to articulate this clearly. Do you kind of know what I'm saying? I feel that more people will listen to me if I speak that way. I won't turn off all the conservative or slightly conservative to me. Maybe they'll listen and gain a bit of insight into a more liberal point of view. Do you know what I mean?
I don't know. I feel as if I'm being completely ambiguous at the moment.
By the way, what school do you go to?
The biggest problem with our public discourse right now, IMO, is that we don't have one. We deliberately put up roadblocks whenever possible to keep people from discussing substantive policy issues. We've spent the last quarter-century moving into a sort of epistemology of nihilism -- we no longer believe in the relevance of factual messages, only in the impeachability of the messengers. It's an ironically Marxist way of looking at things -- whether or not someone has a motive to lie becomes strong circumstantial evidence that someone is lying. The result is that most of us retreat from the idea of public discourse, stop attempting to persuade and even stop acknowledging when the facts favor one position over the other. "Candidate X announced today that he believes the sky is blue, and said that if elected, he will push for the teaching of blue sky theory in public schools. Meanwhile, the Y campaign responded by saying that many scientists disagree on the issue and that X has a 100% voting record from the National Blue Sky Foundation. And now, Tom, with snooker highlights."
This is ultimately the problem that this trivialization and obfuscation leads to. Granted, Klein is a very small part of it (the bulk of the blame should be laid at the feet of those who so feared being called "liberal journalists" that they stopped being journalists altogether) but her piece (or more accurately, CNN's running of her piece as part of their headline debate coverage) was the last straw on a night where the packaged debate coverage was as silly as it had ever been, in an election where even the voters seem to have figured out that this is serious business. (That's the most jumbled sentence I've ever written.) We've got to get back taking serious concerns seriously, and we've got to get back to holding and sharing opinions.
And I'm at the University of Wisconsin, BTW. I'm finishing up my Master's work between now and May, and then launching straight into the PhD, then hopefully a decent teaching/research position somewhere. We've got journalism and political science departments here that are both among the nation's best for research and the stuff I've had a chance to get involved with has opened my eyes quite a bit.