Specially protected slime?

Maureen Dowd is upset about male authority figures:

The networks don't even give lip service to looking for women and blacks for anchor jobs - they just put pretty-boy clones in the pipeline.

"I think we're still stuck in a society that looks at white males as authority figures," Mr. Brokaw conceded.

Bill Carter, a TV reporter at The Times, agreed: "Katie Couric may be a much bigger star and even more experienced than Brian Williams. But when the next 9/11 happens, it'll be Brian, not Katie, in the central role. The attitude still seems to be, 'We want a daddy in that chair.' "

As noted by Jim Geraghty, to be an "authority figure" (at least, to be on more than an equal footing with "someone in a bathroom with a modem") one must not only be male, but one must have the right facial appearance:
...you work in a medium where you would still be doing the traffic report back in Elmira, N.Y. if you looked like Dennis Kucinich. In other words, you've got your job because you're pretty. I'm not sure you should be shooting your mouth off about other people's qualifications to do the news. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)
So, it's not just daddy the masses are looking for; it's pretty daddy!

It's interesting that pretty daddy Williams' bathroom attack was launched shortly after Bill O'Reilly called Dan Rather a victim who'd been "slimed." Not that I like ad hominem attacks, but Rather was not attacked for being Dan Rather (which, after all, he's been for decades), but for adamantly refusing to do what any blogger would do if he relied on forged documents: admit and correct his mistake.

But wait a minute! No true "authority figure" is ever supposed to admit making mistakes! Not even pretty daddies.

This may touch on a crucial distinction between bloggers and the MSM. By launching his latest attack on the blogosphere, O'Reilly makes clear that it is not attacks per se that he is against; indeed, how could this quarrelsome, pugnacious man oppose attacking others? Rather, his quarrel is over who should get to do the attacking. O'Reilly thinks that only the anointed -- what used to be called "the authorities" -- should have such privileges.

As Eugene Volokh (via Glenn Reynolds) made clear in today's New York Times, these so-called authorities should enjoy no special privileges. Yet they do. It's one thing for someone to be hired because he has a pretty face, or has an authoritative "look" which might assist in bringing bigger network ratings. But when special legal privileges are granted exempting the pretty daddies from the same rules which apply to everyone else, that's unelected power. I can't think of a worse form of tyranny than actually making a real authority figure out of someone hired largely because of his appearance. Where is the accountability? Are doctrines of Constitutional Law henceforth to be driven by network ratings?

Worse yet, once exemptions from the law are created, the authority figures will want them extended. Bill O'Reilly has it in for the blogosphere because they repeatedly dared to criticize him. This, he feels, is unfair, because only he and similarly situated "authorities" should be allowed the First Amendment right to criticize. By implication, O'Reilly imagines that bloggers are "immune" from criticism and the tactics of "sliming" he condemns. He forgets that bloggers are all in the same playing field. They can just as easily be criticized -- and have their jobs threatened -- as can Bill O'Reilly or Dan Rather. (More here from Joe Gandelman, via Glenn Reynolds.) The difference is that in the blogosphere, while there may be unfairness, there's no anointed, unaccountable class. It's pretty much a level playing field and a meritocracy.

That's something many of the Old Media authorities and like-minded people would love to change. How? Installation of gate-keepers was proposed back in 1999, but never implemented.

I suppose the "authorities" could always orchestrate a vast "sliming" of individual bloggers, but the blogosphere has already shown itself to be pretty resilient.

Many of us are accustomed to being slimed . . .

Besides, as O'Reilly himself admits, we can't be fired!

MORE: As a typical example of what distinguishes blogging from MSM reporting [in this case, opinion writing], in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Monica Yant Kinney attempts to target SUV drivers for shame/blame in the context of the recent Delaware River oil spill:

Seventy percent of the oil that winds up in Northeastern SUVs first makes a pit stop along the Delaware.
Ms. Kinney surely reads her own newspaper, and so she must be charged with knowing that the spilled oil was headed for a CITGO asphalt refinery. Asphalt goes into roads and roofs, and has little or no relationship with SUVs. Scolding SUV drivers with such statistics is, under the circumstances, disingenous, although I don't expect anything like a correction.

(More below on the oil spill.)

posted by Eric on 12.02.04 at 10:22 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1782






Comments

"My Country, 'tis of thee
Sweet Land of Authority,
of thee I sing...."

"Authority, Authority,
From sea to shining sea...."

Authority. When I think of Authority, Authority figures, many things come to my mind. Many pleasant memories, many fascinating fantasies. Thomas Molnar once wrote a book "Authority and Its Enemies". That was during the Nixon era. Authority: Nixon, Agnew, Haldeman, Ehrlichman.... Authority. I think of certain teachers I had. Mr. Teal, Mr. Bearse, Mr. Drill, Mr. Newkirk.

My Grandpa (Cato the Mighty) once asked my Dad: "The police sure are reactionary, aren't they?" And my Dad (a professor of history) replied: "Yup. Law and Order. Authority."

"We must Obey Those in Authority! We must Conserve the Laws and Institutions of Our Society! Law and Order must be Conserved around the Clock!.... I say SUBBHPPHORT THAT LAW! SEND THEM TO BBBBHPPPRISON! ....SUBBHPPORT THE BBHPPRESIDENT AND THE BBBHPPPOPE!"
-Chief Justice George Immanuel Bork (conservative, fat, evil)

Do I have an Authoritarian Personality?

And, now, increasingly, the two opposing centers of ideational Authority: the University vs. the Cathedral. The President of the University supporting wicked Wanda (atheism, evolution, science, relativity, license, promiscuity, the metric system) vs. Bishop de Bey supporting holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma (polytheism, creation, myth, absolutes, discipline, Total Commitment marriage, the Gothic system). Who will win?....

Around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows....

(Mr. Teal, Mr. Bearse, Mr. Drill, Mr. Newkirk -- fat, male [Transcendental Science?], conservative, all these men taught "social studies" and they were also sports coaches.)



December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits