« In the Magazine | Main | Modes of Transport »

Sportswriting

The other night, I was reading The Origins of Totalitarianism and coping with the tangents that shoot forth from Hannah Arendt's pages like guided missiles. I wonder if the New School offers a course in this book. I'd love to be guided through it by a seasoned professor. Quite aside from the main thrust of Arendt's thesis, there is much historical interest in this book that is about as old as I am. Arendt's contempt for the bourgeoisie, for example, strikes a quaint note. It's quaint precisely because I can remember the prevalence of such an attitude among "thinking" people, among whom bourgeois values and, more vehemently, bourgeois hypocrisy were invoked to explain everything that was wrong with the world.

I can no longer recall just what it was in Origins that triggered a sudden recognition: to wit, that, because the implicit template for journalism in American life is the sportswriter or -caster, reporters will always struggle to reduce current events to some sort of contest between two teams. They will also root for whichever team performs better (not necessarily the winning team). And for the simple reason that sports are value-free - teams have no 'content,' no non-game agenda - media rooting will always tend toward the amoral. Hence today's "liberal" media falls over itself presenting right wing elements in a positive light. Regardless of the programs that Republicans and Democrats stand for, the Republicans are obviously performing better in the "game of politics."

Whoa, you say. Just where did I get that bit about sportswriting as the template for American journalism? Hell knows. M le Neveu would call this another one of my "Egyptian beer" brainwaves. (I was right about that one, though.) But it is difficult to read political journalism without encountering the language of games.

Following a link from Joe-of-Joe.My.God's friend Aaron, I discovered a magnificent term of abuse at Steve Gilliard's The News Blog: "Vichy Dems." (Scroll to the bottom of the entry.) It's brilliant! In an ashen sort of way, of course, given that this is a mid-term election year.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.portifex.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/755

Comments

"Vichy dems" may be clever, but it's not really historically accurate. The Vichyssois were an odd group of reactionaries and technocrats who saw alignment with the Nazis as a pragmatic means to achieve their two main ends: rollback of democratic republicanism in the case of the reactionaries, and establishment of a streamlined state apparatus in the case of the technocrats (e.g., Police Nationale, INSEE). The technocrats' engagement was basically dispassionate, though there were some sinister intersections with the Nazis' and reactionaries' designs (viz. national police force).

I don't think it's accurate to characterize the Democrats as being aligned with the reactionary Republicans. I do agree that they are largely an ineffectual opposition, but I think that scant few of them share Republican goals, crackpots like Zell Miller notwithstanding.

Incidentally, I think you're spot-on with your analysis of the sportscaster view of news.

Nice post! I've been using the term "Vichy Dems" both in comments elsewhere and occasionally on the NeoProgBlog for about six months, and started a site expressly called VichyDems shortly before the Alito filibuster that's been getting pretty good play. You might enjoy visiting. My original statement of why I chose the name is here, and my most recent post on Vichy vs Establishment Dems is here. I'd welcome your participation, whether substantively or just on the etymology of the term!

I am a kottke.org micropatron

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2