One topic that is bond to come up as a prompt for some essay is the rise of entertainment in the news. I can see it now; Daily Show this and Colbert that. I know these are valid examples, yet I don't believe any has been taken on in a worth wild fashion. But an example that can, and will, be used is the satiric newspaper The Onion, written up in Reason Magazine by Greg Beato. Billed as the "America's Finest News Source" it is an apologetically crude and hilarious paper. In print or online there is an interesting story behind the print. It is one of the few newspapers to have grown 60% in the past three years and boasts a subscription of over 700,000 a week, more than The Denver Post.
The story here might be the downright honesty in the newspaper. It's offensive headlines and mocking stories have never backed down and delivers week jabs to otherwise sacred cows. Reason argues that it is not anything high tech. While cable news shows have news crawls, flashy segways between stories, and endless video, The Onion provides little in the way of technology. There is no user feedback, few sections and few pictures. Yet the stories are consistently entertaining and compelling. What it supplies is something that must be glossed over in cable news, "candor, irreverence, and a willingness to offend."
There is one argument that is left open in this article, which is humor the enemy of seriousness? For now, yes. Humor is what gets a person to read the news, not understand it. It draws them to it and allows them to stay, not to understand. Jon Stewart might be credited with drawing a new generation to government, but there is nothing that says he has made them understand more, or that they didn't understand in the first place. If he has, it is because he has always had an agenda.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
On Heroism
A recent article in The New Atlantis caught my eye on heroism, which soon lost me on Modernism. James Bowman's piece, Heroism, Modernism, and the Utopian Impulse talked about the complexity of heros. While important to oppose evil, heroes can trample the group mentality but that law and order is a utopian myth without them.
Bowman points to a book about Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvannia. Can all the passengers aboard that plane be considered heroes? No so according to some passengers families. The families of the most notorizable passengers whom resisted their captors say it does disservice to the truth to claim that others are equal to those who struggle and acted more heroically. The hero is a figure, a lone figure who stands up amonst a crowd to do what others may be capable of but notheless do not have the foresite to do so.
This reminds me of a piece a while back in the New York Observer piece that trailed the 2004 election as well as the hit movie The Incredibles. It's Super Bush comtemplates that Republicans appear more like the heros of televison today than their more liberal counterparts. The Incredibles movie follows a family of superheros forced into hiding in suburbia to raise a family, depressing job and potbelly. But their is still a draw to fight crime, which lures the family out of hiding. Take that with the GOP in 2004, seen as the superheros in exile. Cheney and Rumsfeld growing older as they see the world crumble under Clinton, awaiting the day when they can reclaim their seat in the Pentagon or a new desk in the Exectutive branch. Superheros were seen as those unwilling to use their power, but did so out of a calling, if not outcry for their heroics.
So here is where we have come. Superheros , or just simply heros, are those like Todd Beamer or Jeremy Glick who are mild-manner and rise to the occasion like Superman, or Spiderman. Yet now in a politically correct world we cannot view them as anything more. All passengers are heros, Beamer and all those aboard. I would say right here yes, but does that mean we cannot single out a few? Must we downplay the contributions of a few so much that Todd Beamer should be forgotten as just one of the many on Flight 93? Do the superheros contributions mean so little or belittle so many that they must go into hiding?
Here is a good part of the Observer piece.
"That's how a lot of liberals feel," Mr. Pollack explained. "A lot of those are archetypes that came out of the 60's: the Incredible Hulk, Fantastic Four, the X-Men. Things have changed a lot in comics. Spider-Man is a good archetype for a liberal hero-he wants to give up his powers, he wants them back, he's conflicted, he's trying to hold down a job, he wants the girl. Whereas a conservative superhero just wants to fight evil."
Sounds much like liberals today; unwilling to fight, conflicted on whether to do so, preoccupied with other issues like global warming. Whereas Republicans today are widely seen as just wanting to fight evil, maybe wanting to do so at the beginning of his administration. Hillary Clinton meet Spiderman, Rudy, meet Mr. Incredible.
But I digress from the original Bowman piece. What is happening culturally is the same as the Incredibles also. Political correctness and the victim culture get the best of the hero as an ambulance chaser gets a hold of a train derailment victim to sue Mr. Incredible. Neck brace and all, he claims that by being too powerful, he has injured the innocent. Despite the fact that he would be dead without him, it is the feelings that count. Thus the demise of the hero's career and conservatism. Is post-modernism liberalism?
Bowman points to a book about Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvannia. Can all the passengers aboard that plane be considered heroes? No so according to some passengers families. The families of the most notorizable passengers whom resisted their captors say it does disservice to the truth to claim that others are equal to those who struggle and acted more heroically. The hero is a figure, a lone figure who stands up amonst a crowd to do what others may be capable of but notheless do not have the foresite to do so.
This reminds me of a piece a while back in the New York Observer piece that trailed the 2004 election as well as the hit movie The Incredibles. It's Super Bush comtemplates that Republicans appear more like the heros of televison today than their more liberal counterparts. The Incredibles movie follows a family of superheros forced into hiding in suburbia to raise a family, depressing job and potbelly. But their is still a draw to fight crime, which lures the family out of hiding. Take that with the GOP in 2004, seen as the superheros in exile. Cheney and Rumsfeld growing older as they see the world crumble under Clinton, awaiting the day when they can reclaim their seat in the Pentagon or a new desk in the Exectutive branch. Superheros were seen as those unwilling to use their power, but did so out of a calling, if not outcry for their heroics.
So here is where we have come. Superheros , or just simply heros, are those like Todd Beamer or Jeremy Glick who are mild-manner and rise to the occasion like Superman, or Spiderman. Yet now in a politically correct world we cannot view them as anything more. All passengers are heros, Beamer and all those aboard. I would say right here yes, but does that mean we cannot single out a few? Must we downplay the contributions of a few so much that Todd Beamer should be forgotten as just one of the many on Flight 93? Do the superheros contributions mean so little or belittle so many that they must go into hiding?
Here is a good part of the Observer piece.
"That's how a lot of liberals feel," Mr. Pollack explained. "A lot of those are archetypes that came out of the 60's: the Incredible Hulk, Fantastic Four, the X-Men. Things have changed a lot in comics. Spider-Man is a good archetype for a liberal hero-he wants to give up his powers, he wants them back, he's conflicted, he's trying to hold down a job, he wants the girl. Whereas a conservative superhero just wants to fight evil."
Sounds much like liberals today; unwilling to fight, conflicted on whether to do so, preoccupied with other issues like global warming. Whereas Republicans today are widely seen as just wanting to fight evil, maybe wanting to do so at the beginning of his administration. Hillary Clinton meet Spiderman, Rudy, meet Mr. Incredible.
But I digress from the original Bowman piece. What is happening culturally is the same as the Incredibles also. Political correctness and the victim culture get the best of the hero as an ambulance chaser gets a hold of a train derailment victim to sue Mr. Incredible. Neck brace and all, he claims that by being too powerful, he has injured the innocent. Despite the fact that he would be dead without him, it is the feelings that count. Thus the demise of the hero's career and conservatism. Is post-modernism liberalism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)