<http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi_3/documents/04731991.asp
>
from which:
Nonetheless, the paper of record, with its condescending cultural exoticism, once again dwells lovingly on behavior and culture rather than on cold economic facts. Leonhardt mentions the gruesome inequity that, thanks to the Bush administration’s recent cuts to the Pell-grant program, "high-income students, on average, actually get slightly more financial aid than low-income students." But apart from some vague discussion of the emerging vogue for need-conscious class-based affirmative action, he can’t connect the obvious dots here: that without universal, federally funded support, the prospect of a full tour in the world of higher education ranks somewhere alongside winning the lottery in the pantheon of plausible working-class life outcomes.
[...]
==========================
I love this essay. For so many reasons.
Something hit me just now -- Doubtless I'm not the first (nor, I suspect, the best) to observe this but what can you do? Stuff comes to the fore and you put it out there.
A huge amount of the output of media machines like the NYT or National Public Radio is actually quite stupid and useless but receives, like the falling down drunk antics of a billionaire heiress, an automatic perceptual paint job to appear brilliantly bright, fresh, new and important.
NPR, for example, fairly regularly broadcasts stories about poor people -- stories stinking of an extraordinary class consciousness, travelogues of exotic people who don't exercise as they should or make 'good life choices'. They're almost never really good if, by 'good', you mean illuminating.
But because these throw-away bits of ego reinforcement for the 'there but for the grace of god go I' set appear in what's supposed to be an 'intelligent' media outlet (and aren't they constantly reminding the faithful during pledge drives that by supporting NPR they're displaying their intelligence and good taste?) we're obliged to believe that something very important has happened.
In a way, the NYTs and NPRs benefit from a symbiotic relationship with lowlier organizations. We pick up the Times and compare it favorably to whatever else is on the stand that seems less Queen Victoria, 'we are not amused' serious. And NPR, which competes on the dial with deader than Abe Lincoln and endlessly replayed 'classic rock', sterile corporate hip hop and screaming talk shows is able to grimly warn listeners (but in a strangely happy, 'here are a mug and umbrella to thank you for your generous pledge' way) that without NPR's presence they'd be adrift in a sea of awfulness.
But in so many ways they both suck. Yes, they suck as much as George Lucas and like Lucas, depend upon the fumes of reputation and special effects to hide the suckiness.
.d.