By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
I don’t think most people who read the news are too
stupid to understand the news. I think they are too dishonest.
I am frankly embarrassed that we’ve found
it necessary to append a note to Zachary Evans’s report on anti-Semitism to
emphasize that quoting a person to illuminate his sentiments does not
constitute an endorsement of those sentiments. That’s obvious. Every mentally
functional adult is able to understand as much. But because there are people
who want to smear National Review for political purposes, they pretend
that an article about anti-Semitism written by a veteran of the Israeli
military is itself an exercise in anti-Semitism. I have a hard time believing
that is an honest error, because people dumb enough to make an error like that,
and make it honestly, can’t read.
We get this a lot around here. National Review
publishes a lot of different writers with a lot of different views. National
Review also has influence and market share that is coveted by also-rans in
right-wing media trying to punch their way up to Fox News contracts. And so
what I think about x, or what Jay or Rick or Jason or somebody else
around here thinks, becomes “National Review endorses x.”
(Never mind that they don’t
even get x right, most of the time.)
National Review recently has started literally labeling
certain positions as dissenting (“To the Contrary,” we call it) because Rich
Lowry does not want to spend the next eleven months explaining that Ramesh
Ponnuru’s views on impeachment are not those of National Review
corporately. Again, I find it hard to believe that there is anybody reading NR
(or reading anything else) who is actually dumb enough to need that explained
to them, but it is useful to certain people to pretend otherwise. I know that
NR gets a lot of grief over my work, because I am less inclined to follow the
party line on Trump and on much else. I do not work for politicians and am not
running for office; party lines are not my thing.
The servility of so much of conservative media in our
time is astounding. I understand that there are partisans in the audience who want
NR and other publications to function as party organs, but I am surprised and
embarrassed by how abject and obedient conservative media has largely become.
One America News Network (it is a real shame that the appropriate acronym ONAN
doesn’t quite work there), which hopes to displace Fox News, runs commercials
in which it boasts of the president’s “love” for the outlet.
Another commercial for a conservative television channel
boasts, “President Trump says he likes
us!” and notes that he has tweeted praise of them. I don’t remember
whether that’s a One America ad or an ad for a different product, but it’s on
the radio constantly.
Implied presidential endorsements are now part of a
common marketing strategy in conservative media. Talk-radio hosts include words
of praise from the president in their opening audio montages. “You wouldn’t
believe the shows I’m turning down to be on your show,” Trump will say, or,
“You’ll notice I walked over here very quickly!” I’m not making these up. That
disgraceful stuff is what talk-radio hosts are actually bragging about in 2020.
Of course most of them are smart enough to know that Trump says the same thing
to everybody; they just think their audiences don’t know or don’t care.
Even making allowances for the fact that we are talking
here for the most part about opinion programming, this goes well beyond what
self-respect allows. Sean Hannity is for all practical purposes an arm of the
Trump campaign. That’s not the same thing as hosting an opinion-oriented talk
show.
It’s shameful.
It’s also unwise. When you are as all-in on a politician
as, say, Hannity is with Trump, it is very difficult to forthrightly criticize
him when he does wrong—and
nobody takes you seriously when you praise him for doing right. Hannity is
an especially slavish figure when he is trying to get out in front of a parade,
and it was great fun watching him try to thread the needle in the primary when
it wasn’t clear whether Trump would pull it off. But once it was clear, Hannity
could not grovel hard enough, even as he criticized fellow entertainers for
lacking independence of mind. Really—he did that. Remember Hannity’s
tirade about Jon Stewart and Barack Obama? “I’ve never seen anybody kiss an ass
like you kiss his. And now you’re sucking up to him, putting your head up
Hillary’s ass and sucking up to her, too.” Is there any way in which that is
not a perfect description of Hannity’s approach to Trump?
What A has to do with B here is that if media outlets
don’t want to be treated like an arm of a political party or a campaign
committee, then they should stop acting like an arm of a political party or
a campaign committee. And this is, I think, especially true of the most
partisan kind of conservative media, which in its subservience to the current
administration and in its abject need to stand close to political power far
exceeds the worst and most cartoonish aspects of, e.g. the New York Times
opinion pages—and that’s saying something, because the New York Times
opinion pages constitute one of the most insipid excuses for journalism that
the English language can provide.
The awful thing is: That pathetic pandering works. There
is a big market for servility.
We need better media, but we need better media consumers,
too.
No comments:
Post a Comment