Comments on: Politics and anyone under 35

By: Michael Powell

Michael Powell — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:22:52 +0000

This is also an interesting analysis in lieu of Scott McClellan’s new book, which hit the newswire yesterday. The former Bush Press Secretary gives us a portrait of a leader who deceived even himself and a bunch of cronies who fed the press misinformation. It seemed like such a dated way of approaching the press (i.e. the old version/paradigm of marketing) that I almost couldn’t believe the administration would pursue such a strategy. It will be interesting to see if Obama can stick to a more contemporary form of marketing and if so, to what result. Clearly, he will be subject to critique from Jon Stewart & The Onion, but that’s to be expected. The real question will be, how will he respond: Deception or transparency?

By: Irene

Irene — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:00:51 +0000

“it’s precisely because you appear to think we cannot see the artifice here that we must point it out and make you pay”

This perfectly describes the sort of celebrity gossip practiced by TMZ, Defamer, etc. It’s brutal and mean because it’s a reaction to the packaged, fawning, flack-approved entertainment news featured on Access Hollywood or E! TV shows.

This also sorta explains the appeal of Kathy Griffin’s act.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 29 May 2008 09:00:48 +0000

I’m under thirty five, and this post reminds me of sitting around my college apartment watching comedy central smoking pot and realizing, whoah man, the comedy channel is the only place where they tell the truth on television. I’m not claiming this was an impressive insight, what with the jester in the kings court goes back to time immorial, but reading anything more into “it’s only funny because it’s true” is a bit of a stretch.

It’s funny for the people who read the onion, hardly a majority of the under 35 crowd. But it seems anyway that you don’t really read the onion much. The idea of the stories is the headline itself — this is what is pitched and debated about when doing the story. That’s the idea, which then is backfilled with story — and this point of this is to see how long you can sustain the underlying artifice. While it takes the form of a newspaper story, the structure is in fact opposite: headlines in the news are written after the story to summarize the content, while onion stories are written in order to expand the absurdity of the headline.

A good example is this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28498

And more about how the onion works: http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=348

In short, I certainly laughed, but it’s not talking about Obama in the way that you think it is.

By: jkh

jkh — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:10:37 +0000

american politics is a laugh. – but a pretty serious one. – like the weather.

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:07:39 +0000

And so, now, we have reached the point at which it is impossible for anyone who spends sufficient time in the scrutiny of the media to say or do anything, move, glance or gesture in any manner which will not be interpreted as affectation. All may, truly, be lost!

By: Olumide Abimbola

Olumide Abimbola — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:53:41 +0000

Hmm… Are politicians these well-practiced and well-coached? I mean up to the point that they learn particular looking-into-the-future poses?