Do you think O'R himself presents the show as "journalism" or as "entertainment"? It seems to me like it's a bit of both, but I'm not sure I have all the necessary context. Partly that's because there's a more local context than I'm confident saying anything about, and partly because -- in that context -- the distinction seems to be changing (again).
Catherine
Quoting Kelley <the-squeeze at pulpculture.org>:
> At 03:22 AM 3/7/03 +1100, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
>
> >But, anyway, sure he's a circus, but he's not the same kind of circus.
> That
> >matters, I think, hence the question.
> >
> >Catheirne
>
> I think it would be impossible to gather how it's rec'd by asking this
> gang. We're receiving it like a car wreck: you just can't stop watching it
> or you turn away in horror. I like to observe the way the news gets spun.
> O'Reilly and the rest on Faux news are like really bad entertainers who
> foreground their next moves. It's like the WWF in that sense. For instance,
>
> someone here recently forwarded a link to a document revealing that Shrub
> doesn't really think there's a direct connection between 9.11 and Iraq. If
> you watch Faux news, and O'Reilly in particular, this was the drum they've
> been banging for quite some time.
>
> Anyway, I know of one person who watches it because it's "no spin"--the
> father of a friend. He really takes that seriously. O'Reilly bills himself
> as someone who doesn't side with any political position. And, occasionally,
>
> he'll reveal something interesting along those lines. Not too long ago,
> fr'instance, I believe O'Reilly defended a more typical liberal position on
>
> gays. This is just enough to make him believable in the context of the
> USofA's narrow political culture.
>
> On a couple of non-political lists I belong to people will mention they
> watched something on CNN and quickly follow that up with something like, "I
>
> don't usually watch CNN, I'm not a Lib'rul...." Faux news, then, is
> positioned against the Lib'rul teevee news.
>
> I don't think that it's read as no spin in the sense that it's objective. I
>
> think it's read as no spin in the sense that there is no pretense of
> objectivity. O'Reilly has a position on a topic. Unlike Connie Chung, he
> doesn't pretend to be a neutral mediator between competing sides. He
> markets himself as someone who asks tough, aggressive questions. I think
> it's read as the underdogs against the whoever's in charge. And whoever's
> in charge is aligned with the Lib'ruls, even when they're not.
>
> I was watching him with David Corn one night and Alterman the other night.
> (They're from the Nation mag.) I don't know whether it comes natural to him
>
> or he's taken lessons, but O'R uses pretty intimidating body language in
> addition to the verbal tactics of interrupting, filibustering, etc.
>
> As for whether people see it as tabloid or serious news, I don't think they
>
> see it as either. It's like the editorial and opposite editorial pages in a
>
> U.S. newspaper in the style of the World Wrestling Federation. It's all a
> big show and it only looks like they're jumping on each other and getting
> hurt, but they really are big and strong and they really could hurt one
> another if they weren't so busy concentrating, trying to remember what
> their next move is.
>
>
> kelley
>
> Drove by Hulk Hogan the other day and he flexed his arms. Good Grief he's
> huge!
>
> P.S. Not up on much in terms of southern lit but I'd recommend anything by
> Dorothy Allison and, for laughs, The Sweet Potato Queens Book of Love and
> The Sweet Potato Queens Big Ass Cookbook. Michael from BAD told me about SPQ)
>
>
>
-- Dr Catherine Driscoll School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry University of Sydney Phone (61-2) 90369503
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/