Maureen Dowd: Entertainment or Journalism?
Tina Nguyen
Last Updated: 12/6/08 Section: Athenaeum
As a writer who loves opinion editorials and making fun of people, I was positive that Maureen Dowd's Athenaeum visit would be an opportunity to learn from the master. Sure, Miss Dowd leans left and yes, she's unabashedly polemic; but she's a widely read, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorialist from The New York Times. I figured she would talk about her work, her life, and the reason she does what she does.
Dowd is undeniably funny: she is good at what she does. And yes, the copies of "Are Men Necessary?" - her book tackling feminism in her trademark flippant style - left me a little wary. But I was left feeling uncomfortably unsure of the direction of the new media, as she represented it: a world where news and entertainment skipped hand in hand down the corridors of D.C.
When Ms. Dowd took the podium at the Athenaeum on November 14th, she brought up with her a sheaf of papers she self-deprecatingly described as her "War and Peace." "I'm a terrible public speaker and I don't give speeches very often," she murmured, her voice both nasal and charmingly disarming. But if the Ath believed that they were about to hear an insider's narrative and analysis of the epic and tumultuous relationship between journalists and the forces of government, the snarkfest that began must have shocked everyone: she promised Tolstoy and delivered a Yakov Smirnoff routine.
Pulling largely from a collection of columns she'd written about the election over the past year and assembling them into a semi-coherent narrative, Ms. Dowd fueled the crowd with witty observations and tried-and-true potshots. Unsurprisingly, the Athenaeum loved her, whether she'd inflicted multiple scab wounds on Bill Clinton's character, or divulged a fantasy in which she and Barack Obama engaged in a Jane Austen-esque verbal joust, tinged with over-mannered sexual tension.
No one was safe, not even the audience, whom she subjected to a screeching caribou-attracting machine. I'm actually surprised Ms. Dowd could manage to make Obama funny, considering she has all but declared her infatuation with him and his effect on the nation. "For the first time in my life," she said, "I saw blacks and whites all over Washington try to connect and make awkward small talk." Later she elaborated on a Sarah Palin action film concept, which ends with an epic showdown on the Bering Straits with Vladimir Putin. Every turn of phrase cued a crescendo of laughs and "ooooooohs" of schadenfreude. If the entire evening could be summed into one phrase, it would be thus: Oh no, she did-n't!
In short, Ms. Dowd entertained us. But did she inform? More importantly, does she inform at all? Technically, Ms. Dowd was to discuss her experience covering politics in Washington, and she did delve a little into it during the Q and A. Overwhelmingly, however, she spoke about her fascination with the human condition: she studied literature, not journalism, in college; she characterized John Edwards's political career as a Greek tragedy. "Human nature leads to amazing stories," she noted, after someone asked her about the future of journalism. As long as these stories exist, she believed, journalism would continue to thrive.
Alone, this sentiment is nice, certainly true, and perhaps cute. Coupled with her thoughts on the distinction between a good journalist and a good comedian - "I don't agree with this distinction" - one must wonder where the future of journalism lies. Here's a hint: it's not in comedy, or, at least, it should not be. Bringing up The Daily Show as an example of excellent journalism does not work: Jon Stewart has no pretensions of being a journalist. His comedy may be painstakingly based on carefully vetted truths, but ultimately, as he puts it, he doesn't have a responsibility to the public as the news media does. Whether or not he wants it, however, he and his comedy-verite have begun to replace journalism. Other replacements include up-to-the-minute RSS feeds, reactionary blogs, and screaming talking heads, a sort of kneejerk journalism rather than thoughtful analysis. Where, O where has that gone?
I wonder whether Ms. Dowd knows where she lies in the spectrum of the media: as an editorialist, her job is to provide insight into the issues. As far as most can tell, her verbal blows, though they hurt, merely glance and never kill. But she does a disservice by willfully muddling the distinctions between entertainment and journalism.
There's a great article in the October 2006 Rolling Stone where she interviews Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Before she meets them, she wonders what they'll think of her: "I thought Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert might be a little nervous to meet with me. I was the real news commentator, after all, and they were the mock. They threw spitballs at presidents; I interviewed presidents before throwing spitballs at them. I had crisscrossed the globe to cover news stories, while these guys just put on dark suits and threw up imported backgrounds on a green screen. No doubt they would try to impress me with some weighty discussion about world affairs or the midterm elections."
Perhaps she should dump the pretension and join them. There aren't enough women on The Daily Show, after all.
Tina Nguyen is a sophomore at CMC and an art editor and staff writer for the CI.
Dowd is undeniably funny: she is good at what she does. And yes, the copies of "Are Men Necessary?" - her book tackling feminism in her trademark flippant style - left me a little wary. But I was left feeling uncomfortably unsure of the direction of the new media, as she represented it: a world where news and entertainment skipped hand in hand down the corridors of D.C.
When Ms. Dowd took the podium at the Athenaeum on November 14th, she brought up with her a sheaf of papers she self-deprecatingly described as her "War and Peace." "I'm a terrible public speaker and I don't give speeches very often," she murmured, her voice both nasal and charmingly disarming. But if the Ath believed that they were about to hear an insider's narrative and analysis of the epic and tumultuous relationship between journalists and the forces of government, the snarkfest that began must have shocked everyone: she promised Tolstoy and delivered a Yakov Smirnoff routine.
Pulling largely from a collection of columns she'd written about the election over the past year and assembling them into a semi-coherent narrative, Ms. Dowd fueled the crowd with witty observations and tried-and-true potshots. Unsurprisingly, the Athenaeum loved her, whether she'd inflicted multiple scab wounds on Bill Clinton's character, or divulged a fantasy in which she and Barack Obama engaged in a Jane Austen-esque verbal joust, tinged with over-mannered sexual tension.
No one was safe, not even the audience, whom she subjected to a screeching caribou-attracting machine. I'm actually surprised Ms. Dowd could manage to make Obama funny, considering she has all but declared her infatuation with him and his effect on the nation. "For the first time in my life," she said, "I saw blacks and whites all over Washington try to connect and make awkward small talk." Later she elaborated on a Sarah Palin action film concept, which ends with an epic showdown on the Bering Straits with Vladimir Putin. Every turn of phrase cued a crescendo of laughs and "ooooooohs" of schadenfreude. If the entire evening could be summed into one phrase, it would be thus: Oh no, she did-n't!
In short, Ms. Dowd entertained us. But did she inform? More importantly, does she inform at all? Technically, Ms. Dowd was to discuss her experience covering politics in Washington, and she did delve a little into it during the Q and A. Overwhelmingly, however, she spoke about her fascination with the human condition: she studied literature, not journalism, in college; she characterized John Edwards's political career as a Greek tragedy. "Human nature leads to amazing stories," she noted, after someone asked her about the future of journalism. As long as these stories exist, she believed, journalism would continue to thrive.
Alone, this sentiment is nice, certainly true, and perhaps cute. Coupled with her thoughts on the distinction between a good journalist and a good comedian - "I don't agree with this distinction" - one must wonder where the future of journalism lies. Here's a hint: it's not in comedy, or, at least, it should not be. Bringing up The Daily Show as an example of excellent journalism does not work: Jon Stewart has no pretensions of being a journalist. His comedy may be painstakingly based on carefully vetted truths, but ultimately, as he puts it, he doesn't have a responsibility to the public as the news media does. Whether or not he wants it, however, he and his comedy-verite have begun to replace journalism. Other replacements include up-to-the-minute RSS feeds, reactionary blogs, and screaming talking heads, a sort of kneejerk journalism rather than thoughtful analysis. Where, O where has that gone?
I wonder whether Ms. Dowd knows where she lies in the spectrum of the media: as an editorialist, her job is to provide insight into the issues. As far as most can tell, her verbal blows, though they hurt, merely glance and never kill. But she does a disservice by willfully muddling the distinctions between entertainment and journalism.
There's a great article in the October 2006 Rolling Stone where she interviews Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Before she meets them, she wonders what they'll think of her: "I thought Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert might be a little nervous to meet with me. I was the real news commentator, after all, and they were the mock. They threw spitballs at presidents; I interviewed presidents before throwing spitballs at them. I had crisscrossed the globe to cover news stories, while these guys just put on dark suits and threw up imported backgrounds on a green screen. No doubt they would try to impress me with some weighty discussion about world affairs or the midterm elections."
Perhaps she should dump the pretension and join them. There aren't enough women on The Daily Show, after all.
Tina Nguyen is a sophomore at CMC and an art editor and staff writer for the CI.
Be the first to comment on this story