Don’t know why, but I had sort of remembered Dennis Miller as an unmitigated wiseacre who would be likely to be a really edgy sort of interviewer. But he was cool. I, however, slurping my third big coffee of the day as we talked, was a little wired, and realized that I was babbling when he politely said, "Hear that music?" to let me know it was time to wind it up.
Oh, well. I’m that way in person, too, as many can attest. Anyway, this morning’s experience was enjoyable. So one radio gig down, three to go. I just got a request from the Roy Green Show up in Canada. That one will be at 3:20 Eastern, on Sunday. But I don’t think you can get it down our way, unlike the others.
Related Posts
Did you find out why he isn’t funny anymore?
Maybe he’s not that much into funny anymore, I don’t know. I was listening to him on the air before I went on, and was struck by how low-key he was; I didn’t recognize the voice for a moment.
Meanwhile, I just got off the air with Danny Fontana out of Charlotte. He was more what you expect in talk radio — fast-talking, provocative, etc. He didn’t seem to like Edwards much himself, but he said a funny thing — after I mentioned the first couple of anecdotes from my column at his request, he said it seemed like “pretty thin stuff” — but OF COURSE it is! I’m not the one who got all worked up over this column — everybody else did! I’ve just tried to keep up my “end” of a thousand-way conversation, ever since Tuesday. All it was was one guy explaining what had prompted him to say that another guy was a phony. One man’s perfectly subjective, impressionistic viewpoint. But since this thing has been blown up as some great attempted “hatchet job” on my part, everybody’s wondering “where’s the beef?” There is no beef. There is nothing that you could take to a grand jury and get an indictment of first-degree phoniness.
Listen, folks, everybody forms subjective impressions of other people, consciously or unconsciously. Yes, even those pure, objective “news” people out there. Only they keep those impressions to themselves. Sometimes they keep them FROM themselves, to preserve their sense of themselves as objective and above the fray.
But I am a writer and editor of opinion. Worse, and even more disreputably, I am, on the side, a blogger. So if I have an impression, I share it. And when I’m challenged as to how I came to have such an impression, I am sometimes able to summon the conscious memories of the times when that impression was under construction. That’s what I did here. That’s all I did here. Anybody who wants to make more of it than that should ask the doc to prescribe a big chill pill.
But here’s the capper on this story — Danny Fontana LIKED the third anecdote, and considered it of sufficient substance to make up for the other two. Good. OK. I’m happy to meet folks’ expectations, so long as they don’t conflict with my own (another “Godfather” reference there).
But Brad, I don’t think that your impressions are what matters. When you simply tell us about your own unique impressions of Senator Edwards’s behavior, rather than presenting us with some reasonable interpretation of them, you are not telling us about Senator Edwards, you are telling us about yourself. You are telling us that when you look at Senator Edwards, you see things that aren’t there. Now, a student of the media, such as Glenn Greenwald, might take considerable interest in that. A student of psychology might also. But the average reader reads an article about Senator Edwards to learn about him, not to learn about you.
Now admittedly, I do take some interest into your motivations. I do wonder, was your motivation to go on the Dennis Miller show, to be quoted by Fox News, or to take revenge on Senator Edward for beating Lieberman or by achieving more success in his life than you seem likely to achieve in yours? But even for me, the answers to those questions don’t help me to decide whom to vote for.
Brad you just keeping digging your hole deeper and deeper by trying to defend this atrocity. What you did, and what has gotten people so stirred up, is that you wrote a very subjective opinion piece in a large newspaper that was based entirely on very thin anecdotal evidence. You further claimed these 3 very minor incidents were the “steel girders” supporting your opinion. The fact that it appeared on the editorial page of the State gave it legitimacy far beyond what it deserved. To suggest that you never intended for it to get this much attention is intellectually dishonest considering the media where it appeared. Clearly this was, at most, a blog post. Since it was picked up and spun around by the conservative media you have essentially been used by them to gain leverage in their ongoing assualt on left-leaning politicians. In effect your careless use of the editorial page has lost you a great deal of journalistic respect.
Weren’t you the guy that slobbered over George Bush not once, but twice. Your credibility (or lack thereof) seems right at home on the Dennis Miller program. As what point to YOU admit that you were completely wrong about Bush and his program. How do you get held accountable?
Hey, can’t ya’ll give it a break? When someone (even Brad) identifies something as his own opinion (which was done), says it’s subjective, and gives the reason why he/she thinks that, it is nothing more than opinion. It might have sway if one really likes the person, or trusts his opinion. It might cause the reader to react violently the other way (which it obviously has) if the reader commonly disagrees with the writer, or really dislikes him. For the rest of us, its a case of ‘isn’t that special’ and a tendency to wander off to something else. Whatever the reader’s reaction it is only an opinion, and as we all know, everyone has one of those, even editors, and in a free country, having labeled it as such, he is free to publish it. And personally, I don’t know of anyone who listens to talk radio who hasn’t already got his opinions set in concrete.
Will you John Edwards fanboys and girls sober up? Warthen is an editorialist, he writes a blog about why he doesn’t like John Edwards. Too bad for you, get over it. No one asked you to read it. Go write your own blog about how Edwards sacrificed his life to save your grandmothers or something else about him you like. Warthen is under no obligation to like John Edwards, and he isn’t obligated to keep it to himself, either. Just remember that, every time you say to anyone that you hate Bush or Fox News, you are a phony for criticizing Warthen.
Karen, with all due respect I have to strongly disagree. The conservative echo chamber is masterful at spinning benign opinion pieces into major character flaws that if repeated often enough become accepted truths rather than mere opinion. That’s what happened to Al Gore in 2000. Someone took a very benign reference to his role in promoting internet development and made Gore look like a nut. (Even Newt Gingrinch conceded that Gore played a vital legislative roll.) Great damage was done and it probably cost Gore the election. And look what’s happened since. The people really paid for some relatively benign opinion article.
So that brings us to 2007. Brad’s slander piece against Edwards is now being floated in the conservative echo chamber where it’s gaining considerable traction. If we don’t address this gossip nonsense early and with great stridency it could stick and cost the country dearly with the election of another phony Republican pretending to care for the welfare of average Americans. Brad should never have used the power of the press to pass anecdotal gossip along in the guise of a credible piece of journalism.
Bud, If you say that a person’s opinion, stated as opinion, is off limits for anybody, then it must be off limits for you, as well. That is, if you plan to be fair about this. You call them “the conservative echo chamber.” You use much kinder language than I do. I have no use for either side who does that. There’s a vast difference between saying, “I think Al Gore’s crazy, and here’s why,” and going on to state your reasons, and saying “Al Gore is an idiot and liar because he said he ‘invented the internet’.” What I blame on the press, and on anyone who knew the truth and just got mad or kept their mouth shut, is the failure to explain exactly what was meant. For example, Brad said why he thought that Mr. Edwards was a fake, and was careful to label it opinion. He also published Mayor Coble’s retort today. That’s responsible journalism in my book. Fox’s conservative shouting matches are disgusting. I don’t have much use for Howard Stern either. All of us, including Brad and his coworkers, and including us as well, have the responsibility to challenge anything we know to be false. Yes, I know mud rasslin’ attracts more viewers. But anyone who’s willing to look should not see mud only, but truth where it’s straight truth, and opinion labeled as such. Brad, I challenge “The State” to work to sort out the mud slinging, and identify it as mud whichever direction it comes from. Help those of who want to know the truth find it. Give us references so we can check out where you’re getting your facts from. If the media won’t help us we’ll all suffocate in the mud pits!