Meanwhile on the International front....

free NYT link

The War That Won’t End: How Oct. 7 Sparked a Year of Conflict

 

It's Weiss' fault for pulling the Hughes quote out of context, I suppose, but the first essay in Coates' book is a lecture about journalism, and here Hughes' critique of it:

In his first essay, “Journalism Is Not a Luxury,” Coates recalls the sentiment that drew him to the written word: the feeling of being haunted. He returns to the word haunted over and over. As a young man he was haunted “by language,” he became obsessed with “what haunted [him] and why,” and ultimately wanted to “go from the haunted to the ghost, from reader to writer.”

I acknowledge the value of being “haunted.” In fact, I quite like the feeling. But my view is that if you want to feel haunted, go listen to Debussy, Radiohead, or Kid Cudi. That way, you will get all of the “haunted” feeling without any of the pretense that you’re learning something of value about the world.

Not everyone would agree that a good journalist needs to be a ghost, or that haunting, rather than informing, is journalism’s primary objective. A contrary view would hold that while a good nonfiction writer can certainly enchant the reader, communicating what is true and useful is a primary part of the job. Put simply, you must give your reader a clear and honest sense of the big picture.

Here’s the crucial test of that metric: If you read nothing about a subject other than this author’s work, how informed would you be? To what degree would you understand the big picture?

On that metric, Coates fails spectacularly. Because Coates is not a journalist so much as a composer—one who uses words not to convey the truth, much less to point a constructive path forward, but to create a mood, the same way that a film scorer uses notes.

 

Sorry, but that's a fake metric.

Also, every writer who ever lived uses words the way a composer uses notes.

 

I'm not sure it's a fake metric if, over 100 pages of an essay about Israel and Palestine, the word "Hamas" never appears.

To be clear, I haven't weighed in on this particular situation much, so this isn't me pressing the case, as it were.

I still need to read the full essay, but the reaction I've seen is basically partisan in nature - a kind of omg yes or wtf is this split.

 

In that spirit:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/07/media/cbs-ta-nehisi-coates-tony-dokoupil-interview/index.html

which gets us to

 

help me understand the point you’re making.

 

The CBS upset over the interview and the Bari Weiss high five for the interview.

 

CBS Rebukes Anchor Over Tense Interview With Ta-Nehisi Coates

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/trump-remove-jew-haters-october-7-event/index.html

 

Perhaps CBS felt like it had to do that to satisfy the progressive rank and file of its news division.

 

Maybe.

Or maybe an opening gambit like "backpack of an extremist" isn't superduper "objective."

 

I watched the interview. I found the question accusatory and unfriendly.

But I'm sure CBS journos have done that quite a few times before without the rebuke because the CBS journos punched at the "correct" people, whoever they may be. When journalists punch left - and the first question definitely was a punch, no doubt - internal consequences ensue because "a group of CBS News employees approached executives with their concerns about Mr. Dokoupil’s handling of the interview."

And here's one area where you and I can agree: Whoever leaked that audio to the NYT and Free Press fully intends to hold CBS publicly accountable for its internal rebuke.