NO SALVATION FOR THE STANDARD: In recent
postings Andrew Sullivan taunts the Weekly
Standard for having given no coverage to the recent pederasty
scandals in the Catholic Church. For a self-professed defender of
tolerance and freedom, that’s a weird tack to take. Andrew Sullivan
as intellectual bully? Besides, while he’s mocking “Mr. Enron, I
mean [Standard editor Bill] Kristol,” for not pursuing the
story, his real target is the weekly’s book editor, J. Bottum, a
well-known conservative Catholic. “Or is [the Standard’s]
religious coverage deputed to Opus Dei?” Sullivan asks, reveling in
the cheap shot. (Why not go all the way and call him an associate
of Robert Hanssen’s?)
For backup, Sullivan quotes from a reader’s e-mail, which
complains that a recent issue of the Standard devoted “AN
ENTIRE COVER STORY on religion in America today [and] mentions the
Catholic priest scandal NOT ONCE!” Sounds bad? No, not when a quick
look at that “cover story” reveals it consisted of three reviews of
serious theological and historical works. In other words, they
weren’t written “off the news” at all.
Sullivan’s useful e-diot continues: “These McCainiacs are
outrageous! Why isn’t the rest of the media calling them on it?”
Won’t John McCain be surprised to learn he’s being blamed for
softness on pederastic Catholicism! More interesting, though, is
the appeal to the media to act according to what’s known as its
herd mentality. He who doesn’t go along must be taught a lesson!
And to think Laura Schlessinger was teased in Washington’s other
paper yesterday for praising the Washington Times at its
20th anniversary dinner for putting out a paper that goes “contrary
to the herd mentality.”
Finally, in view of Sullivan’s own special Catholic agenda —
anti-celibacy, pro-openly gay priests, pro-ordination of women —
perhaps he should be thankful the Standard isn’t spending
its time shooting down his arguments. Or is he running out of straw
men?
DRUDGE MATCH: It’s one thing to criticize what’s
actually been written, quite another to demand that someone write
according to the critic’s dictate. It appears that our staunchest
defenders of free expression forget that that right also includes
the right to remain silent. The left has long argued that pressure
from right-wingers forced the mainstream media to cover certain
Clinton scandals. Now its activists pursue orchestrated e-mail
campaigns in efforts to force the media to attack its chosen, say,
Bush-connected targets. Or, in the case of David Brock, the left
has tried to entrap conservatives into reviewing a book that has
all the markings of a work written entirely in bad faith and thus
would only enjoy unmerited status if conservatives paid it serious
mind.
Until recently, the Drudge Report went along with this tendency
to ignore Brock’s book. But then it linked to Christopher Hitchens’
smart dismissal, and soon after previewed a Bay Area investigation
into Brock’s shaky account of his college journalism. Now Drudge
has dropped the big one, reporting that Brock had a breakdown and
was committed to a psychiatric ward of a Washington hospital last
summer.
Tapped, the American Prospect Online’s hot new
blog,
attacked the report as old (but apparently not new) Brock-style
“sleazy attack journalism,” and suggested it’s possible Drudge
“made it up entirely” — a rather odd claim given that Drudge
writes that Brock, “reached by phone in Washington late
Tuesday…strongly denied [that] the hospitalization and breakdown
in any way affected his ability to recall events depicted” in his
book. How can something be made up if the target himself confirmed
the accuracy of its main points by denying they had any impact on
the content of his book?
If Tapped has trouble reading a simple Drudge item,
it’s hopeless when assigned a book to read, or so it seems from
Tapped’s calling Brock’s book on Anita Hill a “prime
example” of sleazy attack journalism. Written carefully and calmly,
and based extensively on the public record and on-the-record
sources, The Real Anita Hill is the last thing one might
term attack journalism, let alone sleazy. If Tapped wants
to practice counterattack journalism, it’ll have to load its guns
with something stronger than blanks.
Sadly, Tapped ends its item by threatening to think
more highly of Brock’s book if the conservative publications don’t
attempt a “thorough review-debunking.” Now there’s an interesting
intellectual twist — a frank admission that one’s reading is
colored by politics and not by one’s own ability to reason.
FAN DEPRECIATION:Presumptuousness is the bane of
our times, and hardly limited to the world of make-believe
politics. An excellent recent example is the treatment recently
accorded Luciano Pavarotti, the greatest tenor imaginable, when at
the last minute he canceled what apparently would have been his
farewell performances at the Met. At age 66, his voice far past its
prime, he felt somewhat ill and apparently concluded he couldn’t
perform in passable fashion. That alone angered some who’d paid top
dollar for a chance to hear him a final time. But what really
rankled was Pavarotti’s decision not to appear before the
disappointed audience to make the announcement in person. One would
think an understanding New York audience would be sophisticated
enough not to impose on an artist experiencing a deeper
disappointment than theirs. If he were interested in cheap
celebrity he would have showed up to bathe in their sympathy. But
there must have been something more serious going on, and in such
times even great figures might feel a compelling need to be left
alone — or simply to end on a note of aloofness or mystery.
Fans come in all sizes. A few weeks ago Washington Post
sports columnist Thomas Boswell described the return of long-time
favorite Oriole/now Indian Brady Anderson to Baltimore and the
welcome he received from some old fans. Boswell interviewed a
father and daughter who had their picture taken with Anderson this
time. They said he’d remembered them from last season, when they
had waited two and a half hours after a game to receive a promised
autograph from him. “There are still good guys in the game who
appreciate the fans,” the father later told Boswell. Then he added:
“But they should. They work for us, basically.”
Huh? It was creepy enough when Bill Clinton used to insist he
needed to get back to work for the American people. Apparently,
some people took him at his word, and now apply that democratic
conceit to other walks of life. These days one cannot appreciate an
exceptionally great talent without somehow assuming he’s got
nothing on you, no way.
