Eric Alterman is unhappy with Newsweek's coverage of Bill Clinton's book:
MSNBC - Altercation: Media Self Parody: Newsweek (having lost out to Time for the Clinton interview) assigns to review the book .. Michael Isikoff! He complains that Clinton "forces the reader on a joyless march through arid policy debates."
"Arid." Yep. That's Michael Isikoff. Actually talking about what the government does, and how what the government does affects the real lives of real people--that's BORING! And Clinton is a weenie for making people like Isikoff read about it.
Posted by DeLong at June 22, 2004 12:54 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postContrast Tony Blankley last night on Hardball who actually stuck to substantive issues versus Bob Novak on Meet the Press. It seems Novak wanted Clinton to write down every detail of every affair he has ever had. Memo to Novak: let's see all the scummy dirt from your affairs. No scratch that - we'd rather hear who gave you the name of that CIA operative. But props go to Blankley for actually sticking to policy.
Posted by: Harold McClure on June 22, 2004 01:11 PMHarold, you make me wish i had watched blankley, which i normally would never do.
That said, the amazing thing about the likes of isikoff, who is hardly alone, is that he feels no shame whatsoever about hating the very thing he is supposed to cover. If he were an honest man, he would leave newsweek and go to work at people or us, where the kind of thing he likes to cover is the essence of the job.
And there's a long line of people who should follow him over, although, the fact is, many of them aren't as good at that sort of coverage as the regular writers for People and Us are....
Posted by: howard on June 22, 2004 01:13 PMI think Isikoff would better serve his instincts if he worked for "Weekly World News," but that's just me.
Posted by: Basharov on June 22, 2004 01:47 PMIsn’t it possible to write about an interesting subject in a boring way? I haven’t read the Clinton book (and I’m not going to), so I can’t really say if his treatment of policy matters qualifies as “arid.” I think we have to differentiate here between style and substance. Of course Clinton could come up short on both counts.
Posted by: A. Zarkov on June 22, 2004 02:18 PMA. Zarkov, we do have the suggestive evidence of Michael Isikoff journalism, which is the work of someone who regards policy matters as arid by definition....
Posted by: howard on June 22, 2004 02:35 PMA. Zarkov
Is this the a priori book review --"short on both counts" (style and substance)? Do you have one for Bush's memoirs?
Cokie Roberts is just as bad. I remember her making fun of Al Gore for actually (gasp!) referring to specific legislation during his debate with GWB. After all, we wouldn't want a guyu who actually knows legislation to be President!
Posted by: Richard Green on June 22, 2004 02:36 PMI haven't read any presidential memoirs - although I finally plowing my way through the David McCullough biography of Harry Truman, entitled Truman - but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them deal with policy issues. Sure, the book is a reflection on the mens' lives so far as a whole, but they were president for four or eight years, which is why they are getting to print these tales of their damn lives in the first place. And while there may be some interesting personal stories that happened during those years, policy, as Brad would probably agree, gobbles up a huge portion of that time.
Posted by: Brian on June 22, 2004 02:52 PMActually talking about what the government does, and how what the government does affects the real lives of real people--that's BORING!
Thank god CBS didn't make the same mistake--their 60 Minutes interview never strayed far from the sex!
Posted by: Jeff on June 22, 2004 04:08 PMOne of the things I always liked about Clinton was the feeling I got that he used policy wonkism as foreplay with smart women. Sort of gives one hope that being smart might pay off sexually.
Posted by: masaccio on June 22, 2004 07:01 PMMost pundits are clueless about Clinton's policy successes. They still have not discovered why Clinton support was so high among black voters. About as close as they come is "the economy stupid". What was it about the economy under Clinton????
Posted by: bakho on June 22, 2004 09:26 PMmasaccio wrote:
"One of the things I always liked about Clinton was the feeling I got that he used policy wonkism as foreplay with smart women. Sort of gives one hope that being smart might pay off sexually."
Yes, that's the dream, all right.
Posted by: charlie hodge on June 23, 2004 09:00 AM"One of the things I always liked about Clinton was the feeling I got that he used policy wonkism as foreplay with smart women. Sort of gives one hope that being smart might pay off sexually."
Oh yeah, that explains Monica.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 23, 2004 09:28 AMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 02:25 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 10:52 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil uk on July 8, 2004 03:09 PMGet it up mate, it's fun!
Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 08:51 PMEx uno disce omnes - From one person learn all persons (From one we can judge the rest.)
Natura nihil fit in frustra - Nature does nothing in vain
Muppets love Viagra!
Posted by: Viagra UK on July 14, 2004 04:07 AMIt gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!
Posted by: cialis uk on July 14, 2004 11:27 PMThanks for your blog!
Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen mit Bild on July 16, 2004 06:43 AMKeep this info up!
Posted by: Kreditkarten online on July 25, 2004 08:57 PM