Just curious, for those of you paying attention...
When did the NewsHour become unwatchable?
Was it a gradual process? Or did it happen overnight?
I think I tried tuning in a few times last November but couldn't get into a routine of watching it every day. I tried again over the past ten days or so. There's something really tedious about the amount of time being spent discussing Trump's extramarital affairs and while I expect that sort of thing from the for-profit networks, well, it's not that I even hold PBS to a higher standard as much as I don't enjoy watching people who act as if they have already achieved this higher standard failing to achieve said standard and not noticing. Or maybe my standards are wrong. It's not talk bullshit yes, talk bullshit no, but talk bullshit how. Talk bullshit to who.
(I tend to think that the moral corruption that people are locating in Trump is actually found in said people's own willingness to gossip about him behind the veil of moral superiority. And you may be saying to yourself, well, it's not about the sex, it's about the money, it's about the contracts, the lawyers, the shady dealings, but those things are made necessary by the gossip, by your gossip, not the other way around. It's not that I like Trump. Let's just say instead that I remember the 2000s. I remember how pathetic it was when W. Bush was dropping literal bombs on people and other people were like: haha he mispronounces words and I don't.)
I tried watching PBS on election day in 2016. That was the worst. The overuse of demographics in predicting and describing the results of elections got me more than a bit angry. What's weird about people who are into a certain type of identity politics is that they seem to find it perfectly satisfactory to talk like: women will vote this way and men this way and if you are a Spanish-speaking first-generation immigrant you must do this unless you were born between years X and Y and then you will probably do this other thing but if you are black you have no choice at all regardless (of whether slavery three hundred years ago or Ethiopia in 2005) and why didn't you do what I said to do after all I am one of you and you are supposed to do what I say because we are all the same, aren't we (except that I get to be on TV and disappointed with you and you don't)?
I wish I could write that last paragraph better. Anyways.
Hey. I miss you all and I miss doing this. I hope everyone is doing as well as possible .
Since September 2016, I live in New York. It's ok. Whereas in earlier parts of my life, I would have moved here to be a part of something, now I am here because I don't want to be part of anything. It's very easy to be independent here if one can afford rent. Right now, I can.
Mine is a very modest life. Boring, not satisfying, but, given the social and political context, I think, smart. Selfish maybe, but then again, I can't help but think that the world is exactly what most people want it to be. Not only because of the willingness of those who benefit from the present situation to persist in maintaining said situation, but also because those who are in opposition to the present situation seem to be primarily concerned with the preservation of the precession of their interpretative frameworks. It may seem selfish to drop out, but then again, isn't it also selfish to think of trying to change a system that so many people seem to want?
Years ago, in a political science class, I argued that tacit consent was a weak basis on which to predicate and assume the coherence of social and political structures and institutions. My comments were met with either indifference or incomprehension (the ability to present the latter as the former is surely the only true prerequisite for sophistication). I feel vindicated and dissatisfied at feeling vindicated.
It's annoying to me that the phrase "fake news" has been monopolized by the right. Every time I try and "get back into" contemporary music and read another mis-informed think piece, more hysterical praise of mediocre "underground" music, another self-serious analysis of commercial pop music (did anyone dream in those heady days of arguing for Missy over Neutral Milk Hotel that the end result would be a successful "career" of having to parse Taylor Swift's social media presence in the stodgy voice of an establishment New York media outlet?), I can't help feeling profoundly alienated. Any time I try and figure out what, for instance, exactly, is going on with the Trump administration and Russia, I can't seem to get any unbiased reporting, just leftist denunciations of liberal hysteria, liberal hysteria (are we, like, supposed to go to war or something?), under-reported "objective" journalism, and the self-serving denials of the Republicans. I'm exhausted by the Internet, exhausted by the constant editorializing, and, even better/worse, the constant editorializing on other editorials. I am doing my best to resist the temptation to hold opinions on that which I know nothing about, and feel resentful at the idea that that is my only option these days, the only condition to be met, to the exclusion of all others, that would allow me to participate in the present discourse.
Yes, the usual caveats about the limits of objectivity as an ideal and a possibility apply, but why I'm breaking my inadvertent silence is simple: I'm looking for advice on how to end my reliance on the Internet when it comes to staying informed about the state of the world. I'd appreciate your answers to this simple question: if you had to go completely back to print news only (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that this is a feasible option), what would you read?
I'm open to being wrong, but here are my thoughts so far, limited to periodicals I have read with frequency at various points in my life:
The Economist - I used to read this magazine regularly, and I never minded the "house ideology" as it was always presented transparently and coherently, the interpretations discernible from that which was being interpreted. I am tempted to try again unless things have changed.
The Atlantic (Monthly) - They seem to do good work occasionally, but I don't think I have ever allowed them to recover in my estimation since their support for the Iraq war. I check the website sporadically, and the quality of the work there seems to exist in inverse proportion to the significance of the subject covered.
Harper's - I haven't checked them out in a while. I appreciate that they retained at least some sense of critical distance during Obama's presidency.
Newsweek/Time - I seem to vaguely recall a time (no pun intended) when these weren't USA Today with higher word counts. Alternately: the boundaries between objectivity and obliviousness.
New York Times - please tell me there is something else - between the increased lifestyle coverage, the pathetic editorial section, the desire to chase the Internet for scoops, the pompous cluelessness of the house style, and the decreased metro NYC coverage, I just really can't quite bring myself to pay for this thing again. Every time they try and "adapt to a changing world", they seem to rid themselves of more of the characteristics that would make them necessary within it. That their readers seem to think they are reading the same paper they always have shows the level of critical insight within the American elite. Then again, wasn't the justification, in the end, always conformity?
Washington Post - see above, only with parochial haircuts, and (just a reasonable guess on my part), decreased metro DC coverage.
The Guardian - what an embarrassing collapse - I hate that I still go to this website first thing in the morning out of habit.
The New Republic - should have self-immolated with profound apologies to the world sometime in 1997 (or maybe earlier - I'm not old enough to really know)
The New Yorker - at best, the best, but, often, not (these words within parentheses are meant to allow the seven words that precede them to remain distinct from the words that follow, and the closest I will ever come to auditioning for the role of a capable writer) and yet, I live, in New York, so maybe?
As an aside, I've tried, both in earnest and in jest, to Google phrases such as "most objective newspaper" or "best daily newspaper" and have gotten a lot of poll results and financial/circulation numbers. In other words, Family Feud, George W.S. Trow, capitalism, as always and again.
A reminder: this wasn't meant to be another editorial. The questions remain, I hope you will answer.
Just wanted to remind the handful of people who read this blog and who may have forgotten or even never knew that this record exists and was released in another universe around 25 years ago, give or take. Really, though, another universe. Can you even imagine the culture that could imagine this to be a good idea? Wasn't this a number one record in 1994? Fuck.
I work at this place now. It's a mess, a story for another time. I must be a writer somewhere deep down in my soul because I keep finding myself in these fucked-up situations that I can only deal with through "creative distance" otherwise my head would fucking explode.
My clientele is a buch of faux-sophisticated new money-types who can't help but order the most debased shit from me with varying degrees of unearned-ostentation.
On the weekends, there is a cover band, and they dance. I am no ageist, but there is something ludicrous, still. A bunch of parochial aspiring-WASP uneducated fucks drinking crappy, sugary drinks while dancing badly to Earth, Wind and Fire.
What are they worth?
A good line, sadly unusable in most contexts:
"A dance floor full of failed skincare regimens."
An evocative image only to anyone who has ever been there, I guess.
I still love you, even if you didn't want me to. Maybe especially because. Sadly. Or not.