Salon Should Demand Better

by publius

This Camille Paglia column is one of the most rambling incoherent pieces I’ve ever read (for a professional writer). It’s hard to even know where to start.

The most obvious problem – the rambling hordes of lost adverbs in mile-long sentences – isn’t even what most bothers me. What most bothers me is the repeated factual inaccuracies – Salon should demand better than this.

To begin, to the extent the column has a structure, it goes something like this:  First, there’s an extended rant against Democrats that is Hannity-esque in sophistication and accuracy, and that’s mostly about health care.  Then there’s a dream sequence of some kind.  Then there’s a much smaller rant against Republicans.  Then, at the end, she suddenly explains why we should get out of Afghanistan.   I felt some sympathy for the Salon editor who had to come up with a title for all this.

But the larger problem is that the piece is filled with glaring factual inaccuracies. For instance, Paglia writes:

Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform.

Actually, the CBO concluded that the House bill will trim the deficit by many billions. Next, Paglia writes:

But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web -- both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

I would really love Paglia or a Salon editor to explain precisely which “Democrat-sponsored proposal” is threatening to stifle the Web. I assume she’s alluding to the fairness doctrine on talk radio (which has no support, and has been specifically disavowed by the new FCC Chair).  But I have no idea what “the Web” reference is.

Next up:

Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers[.]

Actually, poor people tend to vote for Democrats, and rich people tend to vote for Republicans. There are charts on these things that can be found on the Google. Next, after some praise for Mark Levin, we hear this:

There was a glaring inability in most Democratic commentary to think ahead [about the] consequences . . . of a massive single-payer overhaul of the healthcare system in a nation as large and populous as ours.

That’s not remotely true, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of any of the legislative proposals would know.

And those are just the demonstrably false factual statements. There are other equally ridiculous ones, such as (1) If Obama loses the election, it’s because Pelosi called people “Nazis”; and (2) One example of Obama’s “political amateurism” is that he gave his school speech before New York City goes back to school.  Or something.

The whole thing is just bizarre – and it was pretty clearly phoned in by someone who hasn’t been paying attention to anything, but needed to get a column out. Salon is better than this.

Comments

[Hogan]

Salon is better than this.

Apparently Salon disagrees.

[Chuchundra]

Salon is better than this.

No they aren't. Seriously.

I dropped my Salon subscription last year after Joan Walsh turned it into a propaganda organ for Hillary Clinton. But, in truth, it has been dead site walking for several years.

I subscribed to Salon early on, back when they were offering news, opinion and reporting that was unique and interesting. Now it's filled with warmed-over nonsense and republished junk from elsewhere on the web.

[Marty]

Thanks for letting me know to not waste my time but,

Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers[.]

This is not factual only because it has pretty much always been true. Of course, the unions got left out so it wasn't complete.

[norbizness]

I'm sure this is the fisking that will finally convince Salon of that.

[Slartibartfast]

Hannity-esque in sophistication and accuracy

Ouch. I mean, that's going to require stitches.

[newdome]

I do not recall when Camille Paglia has been coherent whether speaking or writing. This is par for the course with her. Nothing surprising here.

[Madrocketscientist]

in regards to this:

But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web -- both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

Maybe she is referring to HR 848 (from Rep. Conyers - D), outlined here:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/artsandentertainment/entries/2009/05/15/performance_tax_threatens_radi.html

and here

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-848

Maybe?

[Slaney Black]

It's a sad truth, but it's widely whispered in academic circles (among academics who even give Paglia the time of day) that she has a drug problem. I dunno, pills or something. Because her speech and mannerisms in person are just as disjointed as her columns.

[GoodOleBoy]

'Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers[.]

Actually, poor people tend to vote for Democrats, and rich people tend to vote for Republicans'

I interpret this reference to mean those who put themselves forward as spokespersons for poor and dispossessed democrat voters. There also must be some of these types who vote republican (I guess in the south) since progressives frequently lament the fact that so many people are persuaded to vote republican even though it is against their interests (at least according to those doing the lamenting). Perhaps these poor folks have some interests that progressives cannot possibly fathom.

[brent]

I agree with what you are saying publius but honestly, Paglia has been doing this sort of thing for years. As far as I know, the next time she writes a sentence that is both coherent and accurate will be the first time. I am just not sure why this particular column grabbed your attention as opposed to every other piece of crap she has produced going on a couple decades now. You could have, with very minimal adjustment, written this post about any Camille Paglia column that has ever been written.

[cleek]

Dems don't just speak for the poor, all the lower income brackets favor Democrats - at least in the last election, and using Obama as a proxy for "Democrats". CNN exit polls, 2008, breakdown by income:

Under $15,000 (6%)
73% Obama
25% McCain

$15-30,000 (12%)
60% Obama
37% McCain

$30-50,000 (19%)
55% Obama
43% McCain

$50-75,000 (21%)
48% Obama
49% McCain

$75-100,000 (15%)
51% Obama
48% McCain

$100-150,000 (14%)
48% Obama
51% McCain

$150-200,000 (6%)
48% Obama
50% McCain

$200,000 or More (6%)
52% Obama
46% McCain

[Joe Bleau]

Paglia fulfills several important functions for Salon. Primarily, her dreck inspires page upon page upon page of passionate comments - and that equals page hits, which equals advertising revenue.

Also, she serves as the token house contrarian who attracts like-minded cranks and self-loathing "progressives", and acts as a buffer against the charge that Salon is nothing but a journal of the hive mind of the shrill left of the left.

[Uncle Kvetch]

I am just not sure why this particular column grabbed your attention as opposed to every other piece of crap she has produced going on a couple decades now.

Much as I dislike the "This post has no reason to exist" school of blog commenting, I feel compelled to second this. Paglia is a joke, and Salon (which I once subscribed to) has reduced itself to a joke by continuing to carry her.

This is tantamount to a post where you tell us that you really tried, but you just can't make heads or tails of what Glenn Beck said on Fox last night.

[Jacob Davies]

Ditto brent.

If I can be so bold as to suggest some more productive ways to spend your time than reading and responding to a Camille Paglia column, they might include picking out navel lint and photographing it for later reference, debating the various healthcare reform options with your cat, or embroidering a tiny yet perfectly accurate map of the United States onto your underpants.

[Nate]

MadRocketScientist: I haven't read the whole bill yet, just the summary, but what does changing the royalty structure for broadcasting to cover performers, not just songwriters, have to do with threatening talk radio, or the net? I can think of several ways such a bill could be bad, and quite probably would be, given Congress's record on copyright law, and the current law on internet broadcasts, which it looks like this applies to regular radio stations too. But I don't see how that's going to threaten talk radio. Are stations playing pirate versions of Rush Limbaugh's show or something?

And now that I've read the whole (short) bill, I still don't see it. The summary is literally almost exactly the same as the bill, but without the legal formatting.

[Mollie]

I know you alluded to it already, but I love this part enough to quote it directly -- especially since it's also demonstrably false:
If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

No, she didn't. She just didn't. No matter how many times they claimed she did on Fox News, it's simply not true. I mean, there's lousy analysis (which this is), and then there's just being wrong (which this is). You may be resigned to the former, Salon, but the latter is pretty easy to fix.

[Whammer]

Mollie, this quote from Brave New World is really resonating with me these days:

"62,400 repetitions make a truth!"

That summarizes the right wing noise machine perfectly to me.

[Jeremy]

I, too, am a lapsed Salon subscriber. Paglia's absurd cheerleading for Sarah Palin was the final straw in my decision not to renew. What an embarrassment.

I do still visit Salon for two reasons: Glenn Greenwald and Cary Tennis, both of whom are unfailingly worth reading. For the most part, the rest of Salon's content tends to be only a notch or two better than the me-too echo chamber nonsense and gossipy dreck that HuffPo traffics in.

Ugh. Such a shame, Salon used to be really quite good.

[cleek]

i was a long-time Salon subscriber, too. the only on-line news magazine i ever subscribed too, in fact. but this was many years back...

i've never liked Paglia, though. she's just aggressively bad.

[Jay Jerome]

PUB: This Camille Paglia column is one of the most rambling incoherent pieces I’ve ever read (for a professional writer). It’s hard to even know where to start.

It's neither rambling nor incoherent..
It's conversational and pertinent.

When you don't want to hear something you don't like, a common mental strategy is to find negative reasons to dismiss it. And when you look for the negative, surprise -- you generally find it.

Here's what you don't want to hear: Obama's support is waning among people who supported him. And waning in crucial constituencies. Among White Progressives and White Democrats, who previously supported him, his approval rating dropped approximately 10 points this past week. On handling health care, his approval rating is now a disapproval rating, with 52% of those responding in today's Associated Press poll giving him thumbs down.

Paglia is reflecting a consensus of opinion of a growing number of independent and progressive Americans who are coming to the conclusion that Obama is a well meaning guy without moxie -- or as Maureen Dowd defined it today, he may be turning out to be more Spocky than Rocky. She's reiterating some of the same views expressed by Paglia, and I doubt you'll like the literary-ness of her prose either:

"Sometimes, when you’ve got the mojo, you have to keep your foot on your opponent’s neck. When you’re trying to get a Sisyphean agenda passed, it’s good if people in the way — including rebellious elements in your own party — fear you.

Civil discourse is fine, but when the other side is fighting dirty, you should get angry. Don’t let the bully kick sand in your face. The White House should have impaled death panel malarkey as soon as it came up."

and this:

"It was one thing for Obama to delegate freely when he was on the Harvard Law Review, but it’s madness to go play golf and delegate freely to Congress, letting Nancy Pelosi make your case. After signaling that there was nothing he’d fall on his sword for on health care; after dropping Van Jones at the first objection from Glenn Beck — a demagoon who called Obama a “racist” — the president is getting to be seen as an easy mark."

In other words, he's a pussy (and I don't mean cat). Which is more or less what I predicted here, when y'all went into paroxysms of bliss over his candidacy and dumped on Hillary, the only Democrat in the primary race who really had the balls necessary to be an effective president.

[publius]

I don't read her often -- ever, actually. i just saw her link on memeorandum last night laregly b/c of the title, which had virtually nothing to do with the post.

And I was just amazed. I just thought it was an incredibly amateur effort for both the author and the site. But like i said, i've never read her so I have no idea if her previous work is solid

[liberal japonicus]

Given that Jay was the author of this comment, his praise of Paglia is quite understandable.

[Phil]

Perhaps these poor folks have some interests that progressives cannot possibly fathom.

Sure they do! Interests like getting pregnant as teenagers, and dropping out of high school, and disliking homosexuals. Oh, and Jesus.

[Catsy]

In other words, he's a pussy (and I don't mean cat). Which is more or less what I predicted here, when y'all went into paroxysms of bliss over his candidacy and dumped on Hillary, the only Democrat in the primary race who really had the balls necessary to be an effective president.

You know, political correctness annoys me and I'm about the last person on this site to make an appeal to it. But I have to note the irony here: someone who was clearly a Hillary supporter, who just as clearly still feels butthurt over her rejection by Democratic voters, in the space of a single paragraph calling Obama a "pussy" and saying only Hillary "had the balls" to be president.

I'll take inappropriately-chosen sexist idioms for $500, Alex.

[Mike Schilling]

This Camille Paglia column is one of the most rambling incoherent pieces I’ve ever read

Sorry, I've been doing a lot of database programming lately, so this made me think

select * from salon_columns where author='Paglia' and style='incoherent'

> 100,000 rows returned

[Bernard Yomtov]

When you’re trying to get a Sisyphean agenda passed,

You are correct, Jay. I don't like the "literaryness" of Dowd's prose. More precisely, I think giving advice on how to accomplish a Sisyphean task is pretty dumb. Sisyphean itself, you might almost say.

Of course, there may be an infinite regress here. Sisyphean task - advice on accomplishing task - advice that such advice is useless - etc.

[gwangung]

You know, political correctness annoys me and I'm about the last person on this site to make an appeal to it. But I have to note the irony here: someone who was clearly a Hillary supporter, who just as clearly still feels butthurt over her rejection by Democratic voters, in the space of a single paragraph calling Obama a "pussy" and saying only Hillary "had the balls" to be president.

I'll take inappropriately-chosen sexist idioms for $500, Alex.

I doubt this person was ever for Hilary. Just trolling.

[matttbastard]

Aww, publius' first Paglia column -- so KYOOT!

If you're ever feeling masochistic, and teh whips and cuffs (or WND) don't do it for ya anymore, read Sexual Personae. Damn thing doesn't make a lick of sense unless you first drop something psychedelic.

Or so I've heard. Cough.

[Jay Jerome]

Bernard Yomtov: "You are correct, Jay. I don't like the "literaryness" of Dowd's prose."

Bet you liked her when she was knocking the Bushies and the Iraq War, and nicknaming George W. Bush "Bubble Boy" and his cohorts "the Cheney-Rummy-Condi Axis of Anti-Evil..."

The point was this: she was a staunch Obama supporter, who's now having second thoughts, like a lot of other former supporters. And when a public or political figure loses credibility in her mind, she dubs them with a nickname.

'Spockie' may be a start in that direction. But she better not use O-Blah-Blah -- I've got dibs on that.

[KCinDC]

Dowd the "staunch Obama supporter" already had nickname for Obama a long while back: Obambi.

[Turbulence]

The point was this: she was a staunch Obama supporter, who's now having second thoughts, like a lot of other former supporters. And when a public or political figure loses credibility in her mind, she dubs them with a nickname.

Dowd has always been an idiot. She was an idiot when she went completely insane over Clinton's sex life in the 90s. She was an idiot when screamed incessantly and nonsensically about Gore. She was an idiot when she made fun of Bush. And she was an idiot when she praised Obama. She's not just dumb though: she's also a remarkably shallow human being.

Sometimes stupid people say things I agree with. Often because their reasoning is wrong. That doesn't mean they're not stupid. Nor does it mean that I need to start agreeing with the wrong things they say.

[brent]

I don't read her often -- ever, actually.

Ah. Well that makes more sense then. I can see where coming up on something Paglia wrote unprepared would be a little bit shocking.

I first encountered Paglia a long time back when she had just released Sexual Personae and she was writing a bunch of articles about how Madonna was the new face of feminism. She did a lecture at my college which was actually kind of a big deal because she had managed to create quite a stir. She rambled on about some of her unbelievably idiotic theories for an hour and a half and I remember thinking to myself : "this person's brain does not function properly. Someone should stop her self-debasement for pity's sake."

But nowadays I think its not that she's crazy or lacks awareness of how nonsensical her prose and her analysis are. She is just playing a role that pays well. She is a combination of performance artist and provocateur posing as a columnist. In other words, she is a professional troll. My advice to you is to simply ignore her ceaseless, vapid drivel. You'll live longer.

[Ginger Yellow]

Gosh! Dowd feminising a male Democrat and masculinising a female Democrat. There's a surprise.

[Slartibartfast]

Sure they do! Interests like getting pregnant as teenagers, and dropping out of high school, and disliking homosexuals. Oh, and Jesus.

That's quite a generalization, Phil.

[Bill E Pilgrim]

I agree with what you wrote here except for the "Salon is better than this" element.

I think most people on the progressive blogosphere see it more as a complete fluke that Glenn Greenwald and Tom Tomorrow are published by a site that actually provides a platform for the Rush Limbaugh-inspired rantings of Paglia (she admits to being a big fan of Rush, and listens to right wing radio "all day long" in her words.

Molly Ivins famously summed up Paglia as far back as the early 80s, calling her "a twit". Salon is interested more in sensationalism than providing valuable dialog, which is most evident from the fact that they continue to publish Paglia. But they always have, from the start.

[brent]

Molly Ivins famously summed up Paglia as far back as the early 80s, calling her "a twit".

Oh Molly went a bit further than that Bill. To reprise one of my favorite Ivins' quotes which was attached to a wonderful takedown of Paglia's general stupidity:

There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “Poor dear, it’s probably PMS.” Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “What an asshole.”

Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole.

Yeah. That just about sums it up.

[mutt]

"When you don't want to hear something you don't like, a common mental strategy is to find negative reasons to dismiss it. "
Ah. And I thought her "bombing mountains" idea was just .......empty.
I tried parsing her many years ago, when I realized quittin HS in '67 left a lot of blank spaces on the old interior map. So I dutifuly read Paglia, among others, (Hitch, Arendt, Chomsky, Cockburn & so forth)seeking to find the wisdom therein.
Camille offered a few laughs. The others all had something more substantive.
Shes got the same act as Coulter, just a different pack of rubes she's selling to.
For a while, I thought I was just too ignorant to "get it"........nope. No "there" there.

[William Knight]

Like Brent, I saw Camille Paglia lecture at my college. This was only a few years back, but damn if the entire lecture was just a blur of semi-coherent bald assertions ("Greek columns are not phallic symbols because they are not phallic symbols") such that I can hardly remember it. Save for the fact that it had no point and was Two. Hours. Long.

Now it wasn't just intellectually vacuous--I've heard Harvey Mansfield speak about "Manliness" and he was entertaining even if he didn't speak a true word--listening to Paglia was as boring as watching a literary critic ramble stream of consciousness about every unprovable opinion that came into their head. Wait a minute. I think the lecture was on why Kouros sculptures were the pinacle of art and why every other artistic feat of the greeks pale in comparison to stiffly posed pubescent boys. Or something.

My impression from her columns is that she write exactly how she speaks.

What is with 'contrarians?' Judging from her and Hitchens a requirement to join the club is the incapacity to write a coherent English sentence, or at least one that has a purpose beyond showing how brilliant and rebellious you are.

Anyway, here is the entire Molly Ivins piece, it is amazing:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia

[Bill E Pilgrim]

From Brent:

Oh Molly went a bit further than that Bill.

Yeah I know about the "asshole" line, it's from the same article that I was citing.

Oddly, I actually found the "twit" charge more satisfying and more dismissive, especially when seen in its entirety:

"What we have here, fellow citizens, is a crassly egocentric, raving
twit."

Sums it up even better, for me at least.

[publius]

I think contrarianism is sort of a high-risk, high-reward endeavor. If you can actually pull it off, it's very cool. But few can.

i actually think mickey kaus was very good at this back in the day, but he's since grown lazy -- and racist, homophobic, anti-union, etc.