Thursday, May 31, 2007

Myth making.

This article is interesting, not because of what it says, but because of the after-action myth making that is ensconced in it. No one needs to explain victories. Had Gore won in 2000, this article would never have been written, because there would be no need to explain why he lost. Since he lost, an explanation is needed. And, as always, when there is blame to be placed, it is always best to place blame on someone other than yourself. Furthermore, if you can place the blame on a virtue, you're still better off. Why'd we lose? Cuz we're too smart. Gee, if that's not an explanation that'll take the sting off a loss I don't know what will.


Blogger Karl said...

Why'd we lose? Cuz we're too smart.

What do you mean we? It's not that Milbank and Gore are on the same team and Milbank is comforting himself by saying his candidate was too smart for the electorate. Milbank doesn't like Gore because he acts like he's smarter than himself, Milbank:

"MILBANK: You know what it is, Howie, I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that’s sort of the worst thing you can be in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he’s better than us—he’s better than everybody, for that matter, but the sense that he’s better than us as reporters. Whereas President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us—he’s probably right—but he does not convey that sense. He does not seem to be dripping with contempt when he looks at us, and I think that has something to do with the coverage." (on TV, via Bob Somerby)

The start of Somerby's column today has a short criticism of one paragraph in Milbank's article -- and a lot of examples of why he never imagines that the national press corps and the Democratic Party are all on the same team.

10:55 AM  
Blogger Karl said...

I should have given a permalink to the column I was discussing since Somerby updates every day.

7:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home