Crushing Your Spirit Friday

Posted: April 2, 2009 in Threat Quality

You people are clearly too happy for your own good, so let’s bring you down a bit.

michelle-obamaI’m not going to bother talking about how much the media is covering Michelle Obama’s wardrobe, since The Daily Show/Colbert Report does it much better with larger resources. But tonight’s closer caught my notice, as one commentator talks about how silly it was that the media focuses so much attention on such a trivial aspect of it, and then in a clip days later, is doing the same thing herself.

As much as we’d all like to believe otherwise, many of these media figures are not actually idiots. They are probably very reasonable, thoughtful people, doing the best they can in a job that’s a bit beneath their capabilities. They are likely aware that they’re directly contradicting themselves, but…hey, the airtime’s gotta get filled somehow.

So my question to you is: Considering these people KNOW what they’re reporting is pointless and a bit insulting to themselves, their audience, and the first lady, and yet do it anyway…doesn’t that make you sad?

Follow-up question: And if so, by what degree would you characterize your sadness?

A)     A bit sad

B)      Terribly, terribly sad

C)      (Muffled sounds barely audible from your fetal position), or

D)     “Look, I’m taking action, and that’s all I can say about it for now. Just…keep your eyes on the news.”

Please answer in the form of a long, rambling diatribe.

  1. braak says:

    (D)–Like I said, I can’t talk about it just yet. But you’ll find out, soon enough. Oh, you’ll find out.

  2. V.I.P. Referee says:

    I don’t know how capable I am of delivering a long, rambling, unecessarily flowery, disconnected–oops, there it goes, being connected again!–diatribe, but I’ll try with all my heart. I’d answer; c). This is the fundamental problem with pursuing creativity in a pragmatic society; you’re compelled, for survival, to do something with all that artsy stuff that can be applied in a materialistically tangible way. This is the reason people who imagined creating something like “Guernica” for society, end up designing ads to sell “Bratz” to pre-adolescent girls. From Reason…to Romance…to selling stuff…to people not having enough money to buy such stuff = very discontent people. Art fully breathes (in my opinion) outside these boundaries and allows an avenue for meaning beyond the mechanics of daily life. When artists are conditioned to only create what others will buy, there’s fewer to turn to for moments of insight separate from translation by currency.

  3. V.I.P. Referee says:

    I should’ve mentioned that I think many of those reporters would rather be writing or reflecting on news stories.

  4. V.I.P. Referee says:

    Ok, I digressed quite a bit there. Sorry. Not that any underlying frustration surfaced in the process, or anything like that. I meant: People have ideals, sometimes they pursue them and find their abilities panned for gold, while the rest of what they have to offer is thrown back into the river. This is especially true for people who work in any areas of expression, ideas and communication.

  5. Braak says:

    All that is going to change once I start setting things on fire.

  6. Braak says:


    But, perhaps I’ve said too much!

  7. Jeff Holland says:

    @VIP: All good, salient points. That won’t do at all. Can you make them a bit more…I dunno, is “mouth-frothy”?

    @braak: No no – with vague words like ‘things’ and ‘fire,’ all you’ve done is whet our appetites!

    I…probably shouldn’t encourage this so much.

  8. V.I.P. Referee says:

    Be warned that I will submit a complaint to the “American Family Coalition” for such a flagrantly bodice-ripping usage of the phrase “mouth-frothy”. Seeing how this is a rare offense from an otherwise pure, morally decent blog, I shall let it pass…this time.

    However, Braak’s desire to start a cultural revolution by way of lighting things on fire, seems perfectly acceptable!

  9. B) Terribly, terribly sad.

    When I was studying broadcast journalism, we were taught to write our own copy and research our own stories. Now these talking heads have teams that do that, and they just repeat what’s on the TelePrompter ( they don’t see the irony in reporting about TelePrompter-gate by reading a teleprompter, but I digress…). Very few ‘anchors’ seem to have the balls to say “Hey, this is stupid, I’m not reporting on this!” because that might jeopardize their paychecks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s