Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Crawlling out of a bottle.

I see that the New York Press' Matt Taibbi is attempting to discredit Tim Aaron's boyf (that would be Christopher Hitchens) by throwing ye olde charge"He's a drunk! He's a drunk!" at him. Then the article drifts off into a general media critique blah blah blah.

This is, of course, in defense of He Whose Name We Shall Not Mention, a man he describes as "an ass, and impossible to like as a public figure, and a little loose with the facts, and greedy, and a shameless panderer. But he wouldn't be necessary if even one percent of the rest of us [journalists] had any balls at all."

Amen to that.

6 Comments:

At 11:14 AM, Blogger Dashiell said...

I think it is a great article. I don't think that Mr. Taibbi will forfeit his NYP check anytime soon, but it is a good response to Hitchens' article.

 
At 11:43 AM, Blogger Ben said...

But that's the thing. It's not an explicit response to Hitchens piece. It's bait and switch. It hooks you with some Hitchens sniping and then turns into a general "the media sucks" piece. Youl'l notice that, aside from calling Hitch a drunk (which is so passe... Gore Vidal was doing that shit in, like, '02), mocking his "snobby" vocabulary and bitching that the piece was written in the first place, he doesn't take the actual content on.

 
At 11:57 AM, Blogger Dashiell said...

It is a response, not directly related to Hitchens', I shall correct myself, to Hitchens-like people. I just found it to be a nice little soap-box piece in response to the types of articles Hitchens that ilk are writing.

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Yawn.

If journalists are all cowards and should be pushed into wood chippers, their remains sprayed over the state of Arizona, why do I care what another journalist has to say about his profession's failings? (And, why the hell would Matt be surprised if CNN isn't showing every bit of carnage from the war? They weren't telling you anything about the carnage within Iraq while Saddam was in power. That would've damaged their connections to sources...remember?) And Matt seems to be quite the proponent for dissent...I mean, as long as he agrees with it or if it doesn't come from journalists or if it's less verbose or literary or is presented with class and honesty, but not too much class or something like that. (One more thing...the Microsoft dig is weak...who does Michael Moore cash his checks from? Who gives him all those SUVs to get to book signings? Is the size of the company that owns your publication now the barometer for your journalistic or intellectual merit? Oh, Matt's so indie. I bet his checks come on recycled paper.)

And, yeah, Michael Moore found the time to put down his fifth Big Mac of the day to make a movie. Gosh, what a critique!

 
At 5:29 PM, Blogger Dashiell said...

So it is good to go to war in Iraq because of the horrors that Saddam perpetrated...would you have supported a US military action in Rwanda? Kosovo?

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Why are your questions phrased in what seems to be the hypothetical? There was U.S. military involvement in Kosovo (someone needs to brush up on their Bowling for Columbine) and Rwanda. And, to answer your question (the point of which is still kind of unclear to me), yes.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home