Cable news, everybody’s favorite purveyor of mindlessly mediocre journalism, has been roundly beaten about the head for yesterday’s balloon-a-palooza festivities. At her eponymous Web site, media impresario and versatile pundit Arianna Huffington laments that her scheduled appearance on The Ed Show to discuss Afghanistan was sidetracked into a balloon boy discussion.
But maybe the problem with cable is not that it became obsessed with a story that—however trivial it may be in the grand scheme of things, and however slipshod the reporting may have been—really did capture people’s attention. Maybe the problem is, instead, that when cable wants to have a discussion about Important Things like the war in Afghanistan, it turns to someone like Huffington in the first place.
Nice insight. I've never tuned into "The Ed Show," but the clip of Huffington berating the host for wanting a comment on the story that had just dominated the previous hours didn't exactly have me raising my fist in solidarity. While there is the issue of whether or not the news cameras had a purpose for showing the balloon chase (seemed like they could only hope to capture a child's demise at that point) - it was riveting, unlike watching the same few pundits debate the same issues over and over again. It's not like balloon boy was usurping any insightful documentaries on the hardships of U.S. troops, strategists or civilians over in Afghanistan.
#1 Posted by David, CJR on Sat 17 Oct 2009 at 04:48 PM
Aren't you a little condescending, there, Greg?
Why disdain Arianna Huffington's opinion on Afghanistan when pundits like William "The Bloody" Kristol, Thomas "Suck. On. This." Friedman, George "Global Warming Denier" Will and others from the right are allowed to spew forth on matters of war to satisfy their Foreign Policy Manhood? They have so far proved always, always wrong, knowing exactly NOTHING more, and probably MUCH less about the subject than Huffington. And then let's look at those ethically challenged retired generals like Barry McCaffrey, who make big big bucks advocating for war on television while working for defense contractors. their business connections never disclosed, of course.
The reason she was invited on was because she wrote a controversial blog post about Joe Biden's position on Afghanistan. One thing missing from the conversation on cable are views on foreign policy matters from the center, such as Huffington. Now, I don't agree with her premise that Biden should resign over this, but why shouldn't she be heard, without patronizing attitudes like yours? What, only men are allowed to pontificate on Afghanistan, right or wrong? The Little Woman shouldn't worry her Pretty Little Head about Important Things like war. Is that what you meant, there, Greg?
Maybe the problem is, instead, that when cable wants to have a discussion about Important Things like the war in Afghanistan, it turns to someone like Huffington in the first place.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 18 Oct 2009 at 07:07 PM
Uh...yeah, he was clearly making a comment about her gender, not her status as a socialite/pundit with nothing like expertise in most of the areas she pontificates on, like virtually all of her cable companions. He was obviously making a sexist comment.
#3 Posted by Richie Cunningham, CJR on Sun 18 Oct 2009 at 08:21 PM
Right. He clearly only singled her out because she is a "socialite/pundit" with "nothing like expertise in most of the areas she pontificates on." Clearly "socialite/pundits" have nothing of interest to say on cable, even "socialite/pundits" who own a vast new media platform about politics that outranks the Washington Post. This is contrasted with those other, pants-wearing, non-slash-designated pundits, who by the way attend all of the glittering cocktail parties on the beltway circuit. such as.
Huffington, the "socialite/pundit," stated "I was asked to do the Ed Show tonight to discuss my post about Joe Biden and Afghanistan." Clearly her controversial post was a more interesting topic than Balloon boy, and was a legitimate topic of political discussion. I don't think the "socialite/pundit" was invited to talk about Afghan War strategy, since the Ed Show is a political show.. The "socialite/pundit" clearly has some expertise on the politics of it.
I don't disagree with Greg's assessment of cable's "mindlessly mediocre journalism" however.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 18 Oct 2009 at 09:02 PM
Hi James --
Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting. I disagree with your premise, though. I would find a cable news discussion with Will or Kristol just as unlikely to be illuminating as one with Huffington (more so, actually, especially in Kristol's case). Friedman might be a little better -- he's actually been to Afghanistan -- but he'd be far less valuable than any number of journalists or experts who have made a serious study of the region and the war. One of those journalists is the British reporter Christina Lamb, who's been reporting on Pakistan and Afghanistan since the 1980s. I conducted an interview with her last week, and we'll have it on the site as soon as I get a chance to transcribe and edit it.
As for your point that it was to be a "political" discussion about the war -- true enough, and Huffington is as equipped to be a part of that discussion as any number of other people. But I don't understand why a discussion of the war's politics shouldn't involve someone who really knows the war itself.
#5 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 11:10 AM
Hey, nobody was slagging your right to be entertained by Huffington's latest provocative blog post, but you read like a pompous windbag when you declare people sexist because they dare write about a female pundit in a negative light. It's an awful lot more condescending to say that any unflattering mention of a female media figure must be balanced or substituted by a jab at one of her male counterparts.
Unless, of course, you think a poor, defenseless lady can't handle any criticism. Huffington is a great businesswomen who can both dish it out and take it, James.
#6 Posted by Potsie, CJR on Mon 19 Oct 2009 at 12:02 PM