I intently watched the numerous Jon Stewart-Bill O'Reilly interviews, because they were fascinating and two men with differing worldviews sitting down and having a give-and-take. It was a chance for both to show a little self awareness, have an honest discussion, and truly reveal themselves a bit when presented with a proper foil — a literary term for contrasting opposite. (Note: The perils of parallel construction: USA Today beat me to this comparison.)
So it was with the same sort of curiosity that I watched Trevor Noah interview The Blaze host and conservative firebrand Tomi Lahren. The full interview goes on for 26 minutes, and I've watched it several times. I've read as many views about the Lahren-Noah interview as I can. Some saw it as a star turn from Trevor Noah, revealing his unique perspective as a product of apartheid South Africa. Some on the right saw it as Lahren rising above Noah and his bias or that Noah had bad intentions. Some said Noah "destroy[ed]", "skewered," "fried," "obliterated" her and one that said she "eviscerated" him (I had a link, but lost it). CNN called the interview "fiery," which is a gross mischaracterization of the interview. Some called the interview a "failure." I don't think any of those are true.
After reading all of these perspectives and more, I think it was an attempt for one side to understand the other, but it was not reciprocated. I don't think anyone was shamed or disemboweled or that it failed — every bridge begins with a first step toward the other, which this interview resembled. It was civil in that neither talked over the other. I can appreciate a good dialogue. I liked this perspective by The Ringer about the inconsequential nature of the debate, but thought it missed some of the importance. I thought this was an interesting perspective that the debates the two had were on issues that were relatively inconsequential for white people, but a matter of severe importance to minorities. Here's another perspective by The Ringer that made me rethink everything.
On one hand, I was sad, because the two were ready for two different events. Noah came looking for a conversation while Lahren came for a fight. For as much as those like Lahren feel they've been misunderstood by the left, they have a hard time understanding the views of the left. Throughout the interview, I feel that Noah was trying to understand. Several times he repeated back what she was saying in a "Am I stating your views right?" sort of way. An interviewer holds a lot of power: Think of it as playing as the white pieces in chess. He was quieter, listened more, and offered answers when Lahren would throw out rhetorical questions. Afterward, he praised her on Twitter and thanked her for coming on his show — an olive branch. But I don't think Tomi Lahren and her kind (punditry) are interested in meeting halfway. She reacted to the interview with an anger-filled segment about how right she is and how wrong the liberals are.
Originally, I wrote many paragraphs analytically breaking down the interview. After some reflection, I decided that wasn't the right tactic. I've been wrong in the way I react to these events. Breaking them down analytically becomes post-game analysis, as though politics — with its effects on people and their lives — is a sport to be won. They're wrong and we're right, and we're only happy when we win and they lose. That's unhealthy outside of sports.
I'm trying to figure out what I want this space to be and how I want to use my voice as a writer. The purpose has already changed since it began, but I haven't found satisfaction with the path I'm on. Nietzsche once wrote "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." I fear that in my own battles with partisanship, I've become the monster I was fighting.
I've been trying to come up with some guiding questions for this blog, and I don't quite have them nailed down yet. But I do have a few thoughts that are shaping my development of those questions.
The first is an adage I don't know where I heard and I can't find in any book, but is easily verified by basic research. Demolition costs a fraction of the cost of new construction because it's easier to tear down than build something new. It's harder to build than tear down, and I want to be in the construction business. Construction means safety, security, and a path forward. Construction is more important because it is harder.
But construction has its costs. In order to build, you have to be willing to sacrifice something: land, time, money, etc. Politically, this has its meaning, too: Everything comes with sacrifices and trade-offs. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to build? Building a new path doesn't come without its costs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for this site: What is the hard work that deserves more attention? If I want to value the difficult, unpopular construction of compromises and trade-offs, then I need to actually value that work.
I don't know what this will look like yet. Construction isn't easy. But I hope you'll help me build.
Do News Values Create More Harm than Good?
I've been thinking about the purpose of journalism these days. When I was in journalism classes, we learned the (usually 6-9) factors in newsworthiness/news value/news judgment. Some expand the factors to 12.
One of those news factors has garnered most of my attention: conflict. I think journalism is very good at conflict. It's the reason sports pages do well and the reason politics is so highly covered. It's why, whenever there's an argument or a Twitter fight between famous people or disagreement, that conflict is in the news. Journalists are great at describing this side v. that side. Prosecution v. defense. Liberals v. conservatives. Rural v. urban. Chiefs v. Raiders. This side has these qualities and these arguments and that side has those qualities and those arguments.
But it's interesting that conflict's is among the factors, but resolution is not. Journalists don't do resolution very well. They almost never offer solutions, the ending to battles is less newsworthy than the battle itself, and most arguments tend to fizzle out, which doesn't make for great stories. Conflict is newsworthy, but resolution is necessary.
I'm worried that this focus on conflict is harmful. It's the unhealthy aspect I noted earlier. If journalists value conflict more than resolution, they're sharing that subconsciously with their readers: Resolution's not worth our time (and therefore yours).
Summary Judgments
Loved this story on Mike Schur (who's created many of the best comedies on TV right now) and how he creates cold opens. • • • Every year, I read the "Hater's Guide to the Williams-Sonoma Catalog" with gusto. It's immature, I know, but I love every bit of it. Alyson and I wait and read it together because it's usually so ridiculous. Our favorite of all time is the acorn-shaped kitchen twine holder. So luxurious. So useless. • • • SAVE THE GIRAFFES! • • • I'm not eating particularly well lately. It's the holidays, which is my excuse. And I've yet to make Christmas cookies, so that's not great. But at least I'm not drinking as much pop as I used to, so... win? • • • Christmas cookie plans: Puppy chow, icebox cookies, rice krispie treats, sugar cookies. NOMNOMNOM • • • We have had a mouse problem lately. After two weeks of setting multiple traps and baits out, a trap in our silverware drawer (Ew...) finally got him. As the man of the house, I had the job of removing the dead mouse from the house. I won't act like I was particularly brave or not-grossed-out by this. But you can pretend I was! • • • Mom asked me what the kids think of Christmas/Santa. It's hard to tell with kids with a limited vocabulary, but they understand Santa is a thing, but don't quite know what Christmas/Santa means. Roland's said "Jesus' Birthday" a few times, but he's also confused Santa with Jesus, so I don't know what he thinks.
No comments:
Post a Comment