Worthn departs from her usual territory today (November 19): "How to Escape from Roy Moore's Evangelicalism," to offer an intelligent and theological analysis of why his supporters stick with him and have lept to his defense. Here is one of the explanations:
"To Ms. Schiess, this is one more sign that a new ritual has superseded Sunday worship and weeknight Bible studies: a profane devotional practice, with immense power to shape evangelicals’ beliefs. This “liturgy” is the nightly consumption of conservative cable news. Liberals love to complain about conservatives’ steady diet of misinformation through partisan media, but Ms. Schiess’s complaint is more profound: Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson aren’t just purveyors of distorted news, but high priests of a false religion."Worthen looks at various alternative to false religion, including Ron Dreher's, "The Benedict Option," belief in the Real Presence (!), and growth in spiritual communities among millenials (otherwise known as "nones").
As I finished reading her, I wondered: Is it only Evangelicals who suffer from the Golden Calf syndrome? Underlying false religion is the propensity for all of us to hang out with, listen to and watch people who agree with us. Though Hannity and Carlson are tagged as the high priests of this particular false religion, is it possible that Rachel Maddow and Jake Tapper are the equivalent sacerdotals for liberals?
Anyway Worthen is worth a read.
I am usually classified as liberal and do not argue about the classification. I am aware of who Rachel Maddow is but have never watched her and wouldn't recognize her if she turned up on the ambo reading St. Paul. I wasn't aware that Jake Tapper is identified as a liberal. And I am not quite sure which one he is anyway.
ReplyDeleteI will admit to sometimes imagining Charles P. Pierce of Esquire in a Roman collar. But that's because, when the subject of arming ushers in church came up, he quoted: "Thou art Peter and upon this Glock I shall build my church."
The people I know who regularly watch Fox News (that doesn't include me!) say that they watch it because it is the only outlet that restores some "balance". Because you know, the news industry is so overwhelmingly liberal. I don't know that I agree with that, but it does seem that the liberal ones are more in number. It doesn't appear, though, that most of them are as extreme about their brand of liberalism as Fox is about their supposed conservatism.
ReplyDeleteI have talked to people who wish their family members would quit watching Fox News because it just makes them angry without the effect of making them better informed.
Maddow is a news analyst with a liberal bent. She is sometimes strident and talks too fast for me to follow, but she pays attention to interesting things. She pointed out the Michigan Legislature's abuse of "emergency legislation." Most of us in Michigan did not realize that bills were routinely being passed this way without the usual lag between passage and effective date, which allows unintended or unforeseen consequences to be discussed and corrected.
ReplyDeleteTapper's role as a journalist is muddled. He anchors a news segment and does straight news interviews, but then there is a segment in which he exhibits his political cartoons which have an editorial slant, usually unflattering to Trump. His role as Walter Cronkite and Ferlinghetti rolled into one troubles me.
A couple of decades ago, James Carville called for more liberal talk shows to compete with Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. I thought this was a good idea at the time as long as we had relatively neutral and stable sources of straight news. But we are losing those stable sources to partisanship, to a preoccupation with celebrity and catastrophe, and to the echo chamber and rumor mill of social media.
I try to read news critically, and I see two problems: 1) a conflation of news and editorializing (as per Tapper) and 2) straight news reporters whose fair and balanced reporting looks anti-Trump because Trump is constantly making nutty statements and changing his story.
In trying to cover Trump voters, reporters often capture only a kind of inchoate anger and frustration with Everything. I sometimes think these stories make Trump voters look stupid. Purposely. Broadcast news reporters invariably go to some diner in the Midwest where a bunch of fat ass old geezers are swilling coffee and wearing John Deere hats. These guys have high blood pressure, bad tickers, and they're disgruntled about social and technological change. I am sick of this story.
I would like to see a story that approaches young people who voted for Trump who could articulate what the prez taps into and gives them hope for the future.
"...young people who voted for Trump..." How young are we talking? I see the ones 35 to 45 pretty much voting for him for the same reasons their elders did. The 20s to early 30s are a different story. They may not have bothered to vote. They are more disengaged from politics, and more centrist(at least the ones I know). They don't have much faith in any politicians to make their lives better. They don't think social security is going to be there when they retire. But they're really just living day to day, paycheck to paycheck. They hope we don't get in a nuclear war.
DeleteDo you? We live in the era of memes and tropes, so there are lits of things we think we know. I have seen few thoughtful and insightful stories about a range of voters who helped elect Trump. If we don't wrap our heads around this and understand it, we can't fight it.
DeleteJean, you hit it on the head with the term "range of voters". Trump was a perfect storm in appealing to this range. And Hillary Clinton was the perfect example of what was wrong with the Democratic Party, running on the premise that although they were thralls to corporate money, they had to beat Trump because they were the lesser of two evils. Apparently, not lesser enough.
DeleteI have friends who voted for Trump because they could not stand Hillary. And it wasn't because she was a woman. It was because she was Hillary. Some of them, in hindsight, felt they made a mistake. Some didn't think Trump would be this bad with the tweets. Some are ideological conservatives who feel (decreasingly so) that he will take direction from conservative legislators. These aren't tiki-torch carriers or guys in the diner, with their general disgruntlement about "furriners" and "minorities" and "the gays."
DeleteI think some people held Bill against Hillary. Which may not be fair, but I believe he should have resigned after his sexual escapades. Monica Lewinsky may not have been a minor, but he was in a position of authority over her.
DeleteI'm reading a book by Rachel Maddow right now ... Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. She's very bright, went to Stanford and Oxford. I watch her MSNBC show most nights.
ReplyDeleteJake Tapper is a CNN news anchor, much as is Anderson Cooper. He's also bright and went to Dartmouth and USC. Has at least 2 shows, The Lead and State of the Union.
The thing about Fox news seems to be that they so often misrepresent the facts.
So if you're bright you're honest and pure? Hmmm.
DeleteIf I want to see someone goad Trump, I'll watch Colbert, the Jimmy's, or Alec Baldwin. And I'll enjoy it.
That's not Tapper's role.
If you've gone to college and your brain works ok then you have a leg up on being able to think critically.
DeleteThen how to explain Tucker Carlson, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all those FOX people who also went to college? Maybe brain not working OK?
DeleteSome of those guys went to the Protestant versions of Ave Maria University ... don't think those count as far as critical thinking goes ;)
DeleteI gave up watching TV news more than 30 years ago, when my kids were small. A lot of stuff on the news is R rated content, and I found that trying to explain the stories while cooking dinner was something I didn't want to take on. Never got back into the habit of watching TV news. The news is too fast and too shallow - essentially, soundbites. The talking head/shouting heads shows not much better. I prefer to take my time, reading numerous sources on issues of interest. So I have never seen Fox News, never heard of Jake Tapper, and, apparently I should give thanks for never having witnessed Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson give out their misleading or downright false information. I don't listen to Rush or any of the other hate radio types either.
ReplyDeleteI once did a comparison though, of online stories by CNN and Fox on the subject of immigrant crime. I found that the CNN story was more factual, and it linked to original sources. The Fox story was mostly anecdotal and provided no links to fact-checkable data. I did this to try to convince someone who depends 100% on Fox for his "news" (IOW, to form his opinions for him) that Fox was to be read with a wary eye (or watched). Didn't work of course.
Never seen Fox? You don't go to many doctors' offices. Fox is what they generously have shouting in my ear while I wait for my wife.
DeleteTom, yeah, some places have a news channel going nonstop, and it qualifies as torture. That's when am MP3 player with ear buds is a godsend. My place of work doesn't have a tv blairing, but people get a little noisy sometimes, and I use my player to block out distractions if I'm writing reports.
DeleteI think it is every American's civic duty to watch this tripe at least once to get a feel for what's out there.
DeleteStudy it. Draw some columns in a sheet of paper and track how many times in an hour you hear the term "fake news" or see an anchor who doesn't look like Barbie (that column will have zero checks).
One reason I trust PBS: They have homely, old, and chubby people occasionally.
When I'm running through the gazillion channels trying to find Sgt. Lewis (and Hathaway his faithful sidekick), I sometimes pass by Fox and its many victims of sexual assault sitting talking with their cleavage bursting forth and their skirts thigh-high--something you'd never see on the Newshour.
DeleteI grant you that women have the right to wear anything--or nothing--in public. That is a long-established constitutional right (Helen Gurley Brown, etc.). Do we think prudence might enter in here, or is that just prudish?
Curious too that the conservative channel is okay with this while the liberal channel does not indulge. Part of the Judge Moore syndrom perhaps.
For what it's worth, Roy Jones' opponent whatzisname, sometimes called Doug Jones seems to be silent on Jones' high school raiding and sticks to policy. I sometimes think these idealistic cases against the 10 Commandments displayed in public places do more harm than good. It made Roy Moore. After all, except for the first two, the 10C are pretty much common sense. People should learn to pick their fights.
ReplyDeleteI meant Moore's high school raiding.
DeleteI don't have tv service but I get all my news from Google news. It allows for news from a ton of different sources and there are often news videos from tv news programs like CNN and MSNBC. My favorite news program (in video) is the PBS NewsHour, which seems pretty balanced.
ReplyDeleteYes, I rely on the NewsHour, too, because they usually get a pro and con person to have a dialogue. And they get a range of experts to explain things. Julie Ravner, the health care maven, is a saint.
DeleteI will have to check out NewsHour. Nice to know there are some that at least try to be balanced.
DeleteA good question is whether Roy Moore's enablers think as they do because they worship Fox or whether they worship Fox because they think as they do. There must be a lot of research on this question that I don't know about. Jean's preference for Colbert et al to the news reminded me that Rush Limbaugh started out being funny but morphed into anger as his default position, and I can't think of any successful right-wing comedians. Is it a case of, if you have a funny bone, you are a liberal, but if life is deadly serious, you prefer the pederast to the Democrat? And is the funny bone genetic? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI don't "prefer Colbert et al to the news"; I must have put that badly. I prefer my news to be news, editorial to be editorial, and satire to be satire.
DeleteI know many hilarious conservatives. I think Lindsay Graham is very witty.
But anger and all the adrenalin that goes with it is a high for some people, regardless of political affiliation. Don't we all enjoy a good stretch of high dudgeon? Isn't that why they call it " high"?
But is Lindsay Graham a conservative? Yeah, he says he is, but where he hangs out the bigger kids would beat him up if he didn't. He also hangs with John McCain, who is no longer beloved by the conservatives because he voted wrong on repeal sort-of and replace sort-of Obamacare. And, also, I agree with him a lot.
DeleteTell me one funny thing Trey Gowdy ever said. Or Paul Ryan. Or Addison Mitchell McConnell (who can hardly crack wise with Sourpuss Barrasso glaring at him).
Yeesh, Charlie Rose walking around naked in front of women now. It's the End Times.
ReplyDeleteFrom the NY Times:
DeleteCharlie Rose: "“I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.”
His arrogance shines forth. But that's what make him such a great interviewer!
A Rose victim: "In one incident, a woman who had applied for a job said that Mr. Rose invited her to his estate in Bellport, N.Y., about 60 miles from New York City, in 2010. That night, he said he needed to change after getting his pants wet in the pool. He returned wearing a white bathrobe left open in front. Mr. Rose wore nothing underneath, the woman told The Post, and eventually tried to put his hand down her pants...."
The woman, speaking on condition of anonymity because she found the experience so traumatic, also described the incident to The Times. In an interview, she said that after sitting by the pool, they went to his bedroom. She said she wept as Mr. Rose tried to put his hand between her legs.
“Baby, oh baby, why are you crying,” she remembers him saying.
She called it “the most humiliating experience of my life.” In the years since, she said she has felt ashamed, and felt she should have done more to get away. “Why didn’t I hit him? Why didn’t I run inside? I was completely racked with guilt and self-hatred.”
Self-hatred is a terrible thing, but so it stupidity. Why did she go to his home at night? Why did she go to his bedroom? Why? Why? Why? Her stupidity shines forth to match his arrogance! They deserve each other.
Real reporters don't have estates in Bellport, N.Y. No doubt Charlie has an agent, too. That is something else real reporters don't have.
DeleteMargaret, I hear you. Prudence is an underrated virtue. Didn't her mother ever do The Dating Talk? You know, the one that said, if you don't know someone well, meet them in a public place or with a group. And if something seems a bit "off", get out of the situation. The only part of this talk which is outdated is the part that said, "Always carry dimes in case you need to call for a ride home." Young people now wouldn't get the connection with dimes. (But they have cell phones.)
Delete"Why? Why? Why?" For the same reason men sell out their friends and do things for the company they would never do for themselves. Power. Which Henry Kissinger (of all social philosophers) recognized as the ultimate aphrodisiac. Charlie Rose -- like those other two babe magnets, Bill Clinton and Donald J. Trump -- had none of the studly qualities men think women want. But they could help you or hurt you, and they didn't even have to mention that fact because it was so obviously there. So (I am projecting as far as the women are concerned) you hope that this time, because of who it is, it won't be what it looks like
DeleteNo woman "deserves" to get hit on because she's stupid.
DeleteWhile it bothers me that the "me too" movement is conflating criminal sexual assault or conduct with boorish behavior, I think that discussions may help women navigate workplace pitfalls better and avoid "stupidity."
My mother was hassled by a longtime family friend and former employer while she, my dad, and the employer and his wife were having dinner. She said to my dad, "Get your hand off my knee!" thus signalling what was going on to Dad (who realized the guy had his hands where they didn't belong), stopping the offender, and sparing the wife embarrassment.
It was what she called "awkward," and she lost respect for the man. She remained friends with the wife. What really made her mad was that the guy never apologized.
I find gropers usually stop when you grab the offending hand off your person, hold it up, and say loudly, "Why is your hand on my Whatever?" This hasn't happed in decades, but most of these creeps depend on your embarrassment and confusion to get away with copping a feel. Turning the tables drives them back to the slime from whence they came.
Of course no woman deserves to be victimized or harassed, stupid or not. I view it the same way I do defensive driving. When we teach our kids defensive driving, we are in no way excusing those who drive recklessly or impaired. And in spite of ones best efforts one can still be involved in an accident caused by those people. But recognizing that they are out there is the first step in self-protection.
DeleteJean: "No woman "deserves" to get hit on because she's stupid."
DeleteRight. But if she went to the police, her going to his house and then up to his bedroom would look a lot like consent.
I think that any younger teenaged girl (under 16 ... and they ARE girls!) who has been warned to look out for 30+ year old men who haunt malls have been sadly abused by their parents. Common sense isn't necessarily enshrined in the developing brain, nor is a moral sense. To play off a long-ago Broadway song: "You have to be taught to think."
Deletes/b "who has NOT been warned ....."
DeleteLike Tom said, in a work situation you almost have to assume the person you work with, often your boss, can be trusted to be a decent person, especially if you haven't heard anything bad about them. If you don't go to the meeting because you fear some kind of trap, how will you explain that to the guy who has the power to demote you or fire you or just ruin you at work?
ReplyDeleteFair point. Especially since we live in an age in which so much work iss conducted away from the office.
DeleteI was groped a couple of times at jobs. One of my first jobs was selling tickets at a movie theater and the manager used to pinch all the girls' behinds. No one reported him because we didn't think it would make any difference and we might lose our jobs.
ReplyDeleteYears later when I was a volunteer at a Planned Parenthood clinic, a doc grabbed my chest when we were alone in the elevator. I told the ladies who ran the clinic and they fired him.
I really wish that these revelations had been trickled on through the years. I'm really nauseated by this sudden dam release of stories and descriptions of slobbering slurpers and dingle danglers. These people deserve everything they get just because they made me suffer this avalanche of sleaze.
ReplyDeleteThe sociology question for the ages: why did #MeToo turn from a trickle to a gusher a year *after* the 2016 election? And politically, does it make Trump un-re-electable in 2020? I truly don't know.
ReplyDeleteTom, having to be a captive audience for Fox News in doctors' waiting rooms would make me feel that there is nothing the doctor could possibly tell me that would be worse. Around here, for some reason it has become de rigeur among doctors' offices to have HGTV on all day in the waiting rooms. I find the endless wheel of house-hunting and house-flipping somewhat soothing, in the same way that the PBS Newshour is soothing - both have me nodding off within five minutes.
I admit I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary. I didn't vote for Trump, either (twice). And every time Hillary has popped into the public eye post-election, I feel a wave of "AAAIIIEEEE - make her go away!" washing over me. I guess I really do have Hillary Derangement Syndrome. Can't explain it. Rationally, I admire her. But she has that effect on me.
Though I am no fan, I voted for Hillary. I think the #MeToo campaign and reminders about Bill Clinton has finished her off for good. I wonder if she hasn't finished off a woman presidential candidate for decades to come.
DeleteJim, if Hillary were elected, Hillary haters wouldn't have to put up with the non-stop media coverage that we Trump despisers have to suffer. Every day, there's that braying ass voice in my ears and that nasty pumpkin face with the grotesque hairdo. Too much to handle.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStanley, I'm sure you're right. Just having the common sense to stay off Twitter would reduce the bray factor by about two-thirds.
DeleteMargaret, I hope you're wrong about women candidates. I'd like to think that the major parties would reach the same conclusion that, by and large, big business has reached: this stuff is too important to trust solely to the White Boys Club; we need the best and brightest, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, sexual preference etc. etc.
Delete... sorry, meant to add: it's by no means established that there is more than one major party at present. It seems to me that there is one, the Democratic Party. And then there are two second-rank parties who have built a shaky coalition of convenience: the GOP and the Donald Trump Party.
Delete