PDA

View Full Version : “Snark.” Suddenly, it’s a shame we’re so ODS sarcastic "



megimoo
02-14-2009, 10:53 AM
Suddenly, They Don’t Want Us To ‘Snark’:Video .

Over the last eight years, when the MSM was engaged in one, long Chimpy-Bush-Hitler-Darth Vader of a sneer, do you recall any liberal media member writing to complain of the coarsening of dialogue? Neither do I.

But now that Barack Obama is occupying the White House, David Denby of the New Yorker has written “Snark.” Suddenly, it’s a shame we’re so sarcastic. Denby appeared on Tavis Smiley’s PBS show last night to lament the decline of civility. But the only politicians he cited as victims of over-the-top snarkiness were Democrats: Barack Obama, Hillary and Al Gore.

At one point, it seemed as if Smiley was seeking to bring some balance, lamenting that Dick Cheney was constantly portrayed as Darth Vader. But as it turned out, Smiley could care less about the former veep being insulted that way. His concern was only that such mocking might unintentionally elicit sympathy for Cheney. Even that was too much for Denby, who said he couldn’t be friends with someone who wouldn’t mock the former VP over the shooting incident. A chastened Smiley acknowledged “touché.”

So does Denby really care about elevating civil discourse–or is he just trying to lay down a Maginot line for Barack Obama and Co.?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author/author-148/

David Denby (film critic)

Denby began writing film criticism while a graduate student at Stanford University's Department of Communication. He began his professional life in the early 1970s as an adherent of the film critic Pauline Kael—one of a group of film writers informally, and sometimes derisively, known as "the Paulettes."Denby wrote for The Atlantic and New York magazine before arriving at The New Yorker in the middle 1990s; at present, Denby splits his film duties with Anthony Lane, trading off week-by-week. The schedule allows both writers to explore a broad range of critical topics in the body of the magazine.

Books
Denby's Great Books (1996), is a non-fiction account of the Western canon-oriented Core Curriculum at his alma mater, Columbia University. Denby reenrolled after three decades, and the book operates as a kind of double portrait, as well as a sort of great-thinkers brush-up. In The New York Times, the writer Joyce Carol Oates called the book "a lively adventure of the mind," filled with "unqualified enthusiasm."[3]Great Books was a New York Times bestseller. In "The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century," Peter Watson called "Great Books," the "most original response to the culture wars." The book has been published in 13 foreign editions.

In 2004, Denby published American Sucker, a sort of "Great Shocks" book: the memoirs details his investment misadventures in the stock market of the silicon boom, along with his own bust years as fledgling divorcée from the writer Cathleen Schine, which had had led to a major reassessment of his life. Allan Sloan in the New York Times called the author "formidably smart," while noting this paradox: "Mr. Denby is even smart enough to realize how paradoxical it is that he not only has a good, prestigious job, but that he is also in a position to make money by relating how he lost money in the stock market."


http://finkelblog.com/index.php/2009/02/14/suddenly-they-dont-want-us-to-snark/

Gingersnap
02-14-2009, 11:14 AM
I would love to see snarky comments confined to blogs and other personal opinion venues. Seeing it permeate the MSM and all the entertainment outlets is awful. I don't care who the politician is or what side he or she is on. It degrades the office and eventually it degrades anybody who holds that office.

It's just too late, though. We have an entire generation who grew up calling oral sex a "Lewinsky" and who listened to late night comics making fun of a president who vomited on a dignitary. That's not even counting the BDS of the last 6 six years. :(

megimoo
02-14-2009, 11:33 AM
I would love to see snarky comments confined to blogs and other personal opinion venues. Seeing it permeate the MSM and all the entertainment outlets is awful. I don't care who the politician is or what side he or she is on. It degrades the office and eventually it degrades anybody who holds that office.

It's just too late, though. We have an entire generation who grew up calling oral sex a "Lewinsky" and who listened to late night comics making fun of a president who vomited on a dignitary. That's not even counting the BDS of the last 6 six years. :(If we wallow in the mud and slime long enough we tend to behave as pigs !

Sonnabend
02-14-2009, 02:58 PM
That's not even counting the BDS of the last 6 six years.

Eight.

AmPat
02-17-2009, 04:17 AM
It is amazing watching these "journalists" who suddenly discover that media is snarky and mean spirited. It is especially illuminating because it is precisely the same people who have made media in the U.S.A. a laughing stock.

Our "free" media has become a useful tool of LIBERAL ideas. Now that our government is firmly in the hands of liberals, how exactly is our media different than government controlled media?:confused:

Odysseus
02-17-2009, 03:13 PM
It is amazing watching these "journalists" who suddenly discover that media is snarky and mean spirited. It is especially illuminating because it is precisely the same people who have made media in the U.S.A. a laughing stock.
Our "free" media has become a useful tool of LIBERAL ideas. Now that our government is firmly in the hands of liberals, how exactly is our media different than government controlled media?:confused:
A government-controlled media must print what it's told to print, or the editors and writers will be fired or worse. A liberal media will print what it's told to print by the liberal party because it truly wants to. The liberals don't have the excuse that they will be fired or executed, although they like to pretend that they do.

I would love to see snarky comments confined to blogs and other personal opinion venues. Seeing it permeate the MSM and all the entertainment outlets is awful. I don't care who the politician is or what side he or she is on. It degrades the office and eventually it degrades anybody who holds that office.
Which was the intent when it was Reagan, Bush or Bush in the White House. The goal was to degrade the holders of the office when the media didn't approve of them. When the media has one of their own in power, then they are suddenly concerned about the lack of respect for the institutions of our government.

AmPat
02-17-2009, 06:48 PM
A government-controlled media must print what it's told to print, or the editors and writers will be fired or worse. A liberal media will print what it's told to print by the liberal party because it truly wants to. The liberals don't have the excuse that they will be fired or executed, although they like to pretend that they do.

Which was the intent when it was Reagan, Bush or Bush in the White House. The goal was to degrade the holders of the office when the media didn't approve of them. When the media has one of their own in power, then they are suddenly concerned about the lack of respect for the institutions of our government.

This is my point. If the results are the same, what makes ours so different? The liberal gov't is aided and abetted by the liberal media. The only difference is, for the time being the gov't doesn't pay the media as employees.

Who knows, once the population gets tired of the lies and outright partisanship of the media, they will stop buying (NYT/ERR-Amerika, etc). It wouldn't be a stretch to see bailout money going to purchase, er, buy, er "assist" the failing media. That would amount to government owned media. :eek:

Odysseus
02-17-2009, 09:52 PM
This is my point. If the results are the same, what makes ours so different? The liberal gov't is aided and abetted by the liberal media. The only difference is, for the time being the gov't doesn't pay the media as employees.

Who knows, once the population gets tired of the lies and outright partisanship of the media, they will stop buying (NYT/ERR-Amerika, etc). It wouldn't be a stretch to see bailout money going to purchase, er, buy, er "assist" the failing media. That would amount to government owned media. :eek:

Actually, the way that liberal politicians and media personalities change places, the issue of government paying the media is moot. The government and the media elites swap job whenever it's convenient. Look at how many liberal political fixers have become media talking heads (Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Bill Moyers), and how many talking heads are moving into political punditry and from there, to political appointments or elected office.

The real difference is that a government-controlled media might rebel, but a liberal media will always be a lapdog.