"But if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had any idea what the First Amendment would have wrought, they would have canceled it.”

FAIL

FAIL

Agreed. That pretty much discredits everything else he says.

“The younger generation likes the snarky tone,” says Bissinger. “They like the gossip, they like the juice. I don’t think they really appreciate good writing and reporting, and those, to me, are precious arts. . . . It’s all some interactive gangbang.”

My goodness, the more this guy talks, the dumber he seems to get. It's as though each word out of his mouth substracts 5 points from his IQ.

What's that old saying? Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Buzz, dude. Zip it.

How long before someinteractivegangbang.blogspot.com is taken?

But this contrition has its limits. The good blogs, Bissinger maintains, are the exception. The bad blogs — the ones that privilege glib snideness over reporting and analysis — are the rule. They’re also the most popular. And according to him, they represent the future of the medium.

Same thing in newspaper and books. You have good authors, like Posnaski, and then you have bad ones, like Mariotti.

Not that I want to defend Buzz, but what part of the quoted passage do you think is actually incorrect Steve? It seems pretty clear that snark is more in vogue now than it was when we were younger. And it doesn't seem like good writing and reporting is really given tremendous importance.

You have blogs that proudly parade around saying, ‘We don’t need no stinking credibility or stinking information — it doesn’t matter what you say or do if you know how to write.’ They cover themselves under the mantle of the First Amendment.

What a tool. Who are these blogs that "proudly" eschew credibility or information? Does he really think the First Amendment is the only reason there are obnoxious blogs out there? Great Britain doesn't have the right of a free speech like we do - are there no blogs in Britain?

The rest of this quote, about Adams and Jefferson, is better left without comment.

But if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had any idea what the First Amendment would have wrought, they would have canceled it.

Jefferson and Hamilton both started newspapers to push their viewpoints and snipe at the other person. The only reason they didn't have snarky blogs was because the technology wasn't available.

I asked Repoz to post this because Reilly follows up and asks some interesting questions.

I'm most struck by how vituperative the criticisms by guys like Bissinger are. Is he feeling the professional heat, a victim of the proverbial "Who Moved my Cheese?" syndrome?

I think this is a good use for the [yikes] symbol.

It seems pretty clear that snark is more in vogue now than it was when we were younger.

That doesn't seem at all clear to me. I grew up in a culture that loved Mad magazine and the National Lampoon. Gossip rags were just as snarky then as now, and I don't see much reason to doubt that human beings have always loved to be sarcastic. The fact that the internet has opened up a new medium for it doesn't mean that there's anything particularly new about the underlying behavior.

And it doesn't seem like good writing and reporting is really given tremendous importance.

While there is tons of crud on the internet today, there is also quite a bit of terrific writing and reporting, if one goes to the effort to seek it out. And while we tend to see the past as a bastion of great writing and reporting, there was also tons of trashy crud around in those days, too; it just hasn't survived in anthologies. We always see the best of the past because the best is what survives; our grandkids will see the best of today and 90% of the cultural garbage we see around us will be (appropriately) forgotten.

And it doesn't seem like good writing and reporting is really given tremendous importance.

It hasn't for a long time --- long before blogs started appearing on the Internet. It was Bissinger's generation of reporters that allowed the sinkhole to expand greatly. Rather that accept any sort of responsibility, they blame technology and the changing times.

As a history buff, I strongly encourage folks to read the articles published in the late 18th century around topics of the day.

Today's blogs are kids play compared to the rude, caustic insulting and at times completely libelous commentary.

Written by our Founding Fathers no less.

While there is tons of crud on the internet today, there is also quite a bit of terrific writing and reporting, if one goes to the effort to seek it out.

Well, that's kind of the point Steve. It's not that there are no capable writers in existence. It's that we generally don't value that particular skill, and thus we must work hard to seek them out (which many don't do).

As for snark, I respectfully disagree with its place in our culture today compared to previous ones. Mad magazine was generally read by kids (at least where I grew up). Snark seemed the province of the juvenile 20 years ago, rather than something men (generally speaking) of all ages trafficked in.

It's telling that the only people I've ever heard bemoan a lack of "good writing" today are the writers themselves.

Rather that accept any sort of responsibility, they blame technology and the changing times.

Typical Baby Boomer Generation behavior.

It's not that there are no capable writers in existence. It's that we generally don't value that particular skill, and thus we must work hard to seek them out (which many don't do).

Well, who is "we," and what evidence is there that "many" have ever cared to work hard to seek out the best writing?

As for snark, I respectfully disagree with its place in our culture today compared to previous ones. Mad magazine was generally read by kids (at least where I grew up). Snark generally seemed the province of the juvenile 20 years ago, rather than something men (generally speaking) of all ages trafficked in.

Of course Mad was read by kids. Their parents were too busy paying attention to Don Rickles and Tom Lehrer. And, come on, what was Andy Rooney, if not snarky?

I simply don't buy the premise that there's anything the least bit new about snark. Indeed, one of the evergreen quotes is that one by some Roman guy from like 500 BC, ######## about the fact that the problem with kids these days is that they don't have any respect for manners and decorum and so on. It's the oldest gripe in history.

As a history buff, I strongly encourage folks to read the articles published in the late 18th century around topics of the day.

Today's blogs are kids play compared to the rude, caustic insulting and at times completely libelous commentary.

Written by our Founding Fathers no less.

Exactly right. The modern blogger is just a descendant of the colonial pamphleteer. And the stuff they wrote back then was nasty. Probably much nastier. There is actually MORE accountability now I would think because if someone writes a libelous or false blog post, he or she will get called on it within seconds. Whereas pamphleteers I'm sure didn't get their retort for weeks, with a much smaller readership to call them to task.

Ignorant comments like Buzz's make me really wish we taught history better in this country. It can really be quite fascinating, but we bog down our students with trivialities.

#13 is exactly right. Looking back on the late twentieth century, future historians will likely point to the narrow period of time in which journalism attempted (and failed?) to produce something approximating an objective and neutral viewpoint. In particular, professional journalistic codes such as "no voting, no advocacy" will be viewed with the same marvel and skepticism with which we currently perceive medieval scholasticism.

And I'm pretty sure as far as "snark" goes, no one will ever top Voltaire.

I spent a semester in grad school reading auto-biographical narratives written by criminals that were the single most popular form of literature during the Colonial period. It was interesting. The narratives were picaresque and horrendously written but folks loved them back in the day.

what evidence is there that "many" have ever cared to work hard to seek out the best writing?

The virtuous masses who followed Abraham Lincoln's example. Surely they existed; my elementary school teacher wouldn't have lied.

make me really wish we taught history better in this country.

Mythology and propaganda is what is taught in this country instead of history.

Mythology and propaganda is what is taught in this country instead of history.

Making this country differ from other countries how, exactly?

Making this country differ from other countries how, exactly?

I think bads85 was just saying history wasn't taught well, not claiming superiority for any other countries' pedagogical program. (But maybe not?)

Mad magazine was generally read by kids (at least where I grew up).

That's how I remember it, but I was watching Dog Day Afternoon the other day, and I was struck by how much of the Mad Magazine parody I remembered. And it seemed like an odd movie for them to parody, but they actually parodied a lot of movies that kids probably wouldn't have seen. Adults must have been a reasonably big part of their readership for them to be taking on movies like Airport, The Amityville Horror (in the same issue as Airport '79!), Kramer vs. Kramer, and Serpico.

(I got those movies from this great site, which lists all of the Mad movie satires. Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice? Really?)

I remember the Barry Lyndon parody as a kid. Boy, that went over my head.

You guys sure are old.

That's how I remember it, but I was watching Dog Day Afternoon the other day, and I was struck by how much of the Mad Magazine parody I remembered. And it seemed like an odd movie for them to parody, but they actually parodied a lot of movies that kids probably wouldn't have seen. Adults must have been a reasonably big part of their readership for them to be taking on movies like Airport, The Amityville Horror (in the same issue as Airport '79!), Kramer vs. Kramer, and Serpico.

That's true. There were very few movies parodied that I had actually seen. Of course, with the best of them, they were funny on their own merits.

You guys sure are old.

Quiet, you.

I was seven when Barry Lyndon came out. I don't think I read MAD til a year or two later.

The MAD Magazine parody of DEATH WISH was the best one ever. Charles Bronson walks through a park trying to attract a mugger so he sings I'M IN THE MONEY. Let's just say that it works.

“There are some very good blogs dedicated to single subjects,” he acknowledges; his examples include Beerleaguer, dedicated to the Philadelphia Phillies, and profootballtalk.com. They’re very informational. Their goal isn’t to play a snarky game of gotcha, or to be malicious and cruel. They’re great.”

Some of my best friends are black

I vaguely remember the Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice parody.

Star Blech was a classic.

Anyway, the problem with Bissinger's statement is, as several have pointed out, that this has been going on in mainstream media for ages. Where was Bissinger when Jim Rome was at his peak of popularity? Why doesn't he call out Mariotti? Why didn't he have hissy fits over Kenny Mayne, Around the Horn and Page 2?

I don't know what the most popular blogs are or how many hits they get, but they must have fewer readers than Mariotti has readers and viewers by several magnitudes.

The difference? Bloggers call out Bissinger when he's a moron (and no doubt sometimes when he's not) while Mariotti et al don't (just like he doesn't call them out). There's a nice little conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media.

The funniest parody I ever read was when they did Hud. They called it Hood. For those who don't know or who don't remember, gang bangers were called "hoods" back in the fifties and sixties.

Florence of Arabia was pretty good too.

Some of my best friends are black negroes

Fixed.

What’s more, Bissinger admits, he didn’t know as much as he should have before appearing on Costas’s show.

Now there's a real journalist!

The only thing I remember about the "Apocalypse Now" parody was the title: "A Crock o' BLIP Now." That was pretty good.

But yeah, looking back, I have to wonder: Did they expect us kids to have seen "Apocalypse Now"? I'm full-grown now, and I have fallen asleep both times I've tried to watch that movie.

"Dum-Dum Afternoon" and "Serpicool" were classics. I also really liked "Poppicorn."

Jonathan Swift pretty much pegged the snark-o-meter, too.

Florence of Arabia was pretty good too.

They must have taken that title from from Noel Coward's comment that if Peter O'Toole had been any prettier, it would have been called Florence of Arabia.

Agreed. That pretty much discredits everything else he says.

Well, he was being snarky.

He also threw up in his mouth, made the baby Jesus cry, pwn3d teh suxxor, and can has cheezburger.

When would Jefferson have found time to do anything about the Bill of Rights? He was too busy rebutting anonymous Hamilton screeds in which he was accused of wanting to unleash the French Revolution on America and of fathering children by slaves by telling his hired editorialists, paid with public money, to call Hamilton a miscegenated bastard and a tool of a foreign king.

Making this country differ from other countries how, exactly?

It isn't different at all. Wrong is wrong in any country.

I don't think it's correct to say that Mad was generally read by kids back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. During that period it had a lot of adult-oriented political and sociological humor. At its peak Mad's impact and audience was probably similar to that of the National Lampoon and Spy in the 1980s and the Onion today (although the Onion seems to be fading).

Yeah, my mom loved Mad and read it every month. I had to wait for her to finish reading it before I could get a look at it.

But if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had any idea what the First Amendment would have wrought, they would have canceled it.”

Oh, no question. Just as Adams and Jefferson would have canceled the 4th Amend., the 5th Amend., and the suspension (habeas) clause if they'd known that terrorists were going to attack the United States.

It isn't different at all. Wrong is wrong in any country.

Well, yeah. But then what's the point of saying that "Mythology and propaganda is what is taught in this country instead of history"? Why specify the phenomenon as something particular to the US, when it isn't?

MAD publisher Bill Gaines never conducted a readership survey, because he was concerned that once the magazine had identified its largest segment of customers, that they would unconsciously start playing to them. (And also because those internal surveys are designed to lure advertisers, which MAD never pursued.)

In more recent years, Time Warner went for the survey. They found that the readers are mostly male, but otherwise all over the map demographically. This includes age; a sizeable chunk of the magazine's readers are much older than expected.

Why specify the phenomenon as something particular to the US, when it isn't?

I didn't specify as something particular to this country. I said "this country" Because I was responding to someone who wished (rightfully so) that history was taught better in this country. This was is response to a Pulitzer Prize winner stating that Jefferson and Adams would have canceled the First Amendment, which is patently absurd. If history is to be taught better in this country (or any country for that matter), a shift from mythology and propaganda needs to happen.

I included that in my response to you questioning who were the "many" who have ever cared to work hard to seek out the best writing (I was agreeing with you by the way) because the Abraham Lincoln walking through cornfields to find books he could read by dimming light myth is indoctrinated on kids all the time. As a result, many grow up with the impression that "many" people in the past pusured this particular noble endeavor when, in fact, they didn't.

Journalism has its own share of false indoctrinations that are instilled in those who pursue the field, one being that the press in this country comes from completely virtuous roots.

I didn't specify as something particular to this country. I said "this country" Because I was responding to someone who wished (rightfully so) that history was taught better in this country. This was is response to a Pulitzer Prize winner stating that Jefferson and Adams would have canceled the First Amendment, which is patently absurd. If history is to be taught better in this country (or any country for that matter), a shift from mythology and propaganda needs to happen.

Fair enough. But the larger point (which I gather you agree with) is that the presentation to schoolchildren of myth and propaganda about their nation's virtuous past goes on everywhere, in every nation, and always has. The larger point is that there's nothing particularly or even importantly American regarding this phenomenon; it would seem to be a human failing, or perhaps simply a human trait.

But yeah, looking back, I have to wonder: Did they expect us kids to have seen "Apocalypse Now"? I'm full-grown now, and I have fallen asleep both times I've tried to watch that movie.

If the best movie ever made can't hold your attention, what can?

I can think of at least three other Coppola movies that hold my attention just fine.

But if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had any idea what the First Amendment would have wrought, they would have canceled it.

To be a tiny bit fair to Bissinger, John Adams did sign the Alien and Sedition Act when he was President. Which to some extent only goes to point out that "what the First Amendment would have wrought" was the same damn thing in the 1790s as what it's wrought today - only the medium's changed.

Reading my dad's Mad Magazines helped me learn more about American pop culture, culture in general, politics, and media of the 1960s to 1980s (I was born in 1983) then practically anything else I read as I was growing up.

Reading my dad's Mad Magazines helped me learn more about American pop culture, culture in general, politics, and media of the 1960s to 1980s (I was born in 1983) then practically anything else I read as I was growing up.

For me, my older sister's Doonesbury books played that role.

I can think of at least three other Coppola movies that hold my attention just fine.

Jack, Tucker: The Man and His Dream, and Dracula?

:)

"But if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had any idea what the First Amendment would have wrought, they would have canceled it.”

Oh, no question. Just as Adams and Jefferson would have canceled the 4th Amend., the 5th Amend., and the suspension (habeas) clause if they'd known that terrorists were going to attack the United States.

Well, John Adams DID sign The Sedition Act into law. It's hardly a buttressing of the right to free speech.

I have never understood the "playing gotcha" complaining.

Person A makes a faulty argument. Person B exhibits how the argument is faulty. Person B is chided for "playing gotcha," while Person A is vehemently defended.

Makes sense.

To be a tiny bit fair to Bissinger, John Adams did sign the Alien and Sedition Act when he was President.

But Bissinger lumped Adams with Jefferson, which is mind boggling ludicrous and completely ignores what became known as the Second American Revolution -- something with what Bissinger the journalist should be extremely familiar. Also, Bissinger claimed that Adams and Jefferson would have struck down the First Amendment because of credibility issues, which is also absurd. The Alien and Sedition Acts had nothing to do with the credibility of the press.

I can think of at least three other Coppola movies that hold my attention just fine.

At least! The Conversation for all the right reasons and One From the Heart for all the wrong. And then there's Finian's Rainbow ...

Does Hearts of Darkness count?

Does Lost in Translation?

Does Lost in Translation?

No.

If the best movie ever made can't hold your attention, what can?

Maybe an Orson Welles movie. Or an Ann-Margret movie.

But doesn't our mythology tell us that Jefferson would have defeneded the 1st Amendment until his last breath even if it meant exercising his 2nd amendment rights and laying waste to Hamilton and his cronies?

Without the powerful mythology behind the bill of rights, I'm not sure it would have survived this long. The 3rd and 7th amendments plus the horribly under-rated 9th amendment bask in this reflected glory forever.