MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2014
Same story told two different ways: Before the week is done, we’re going to talk about metaphor.
Joe Klein used the term last week. Live and direct from Nerdland, the professor shot him down! For transcript and tape, click here.
Whatever! In this morning’s post, did you notice the way our own “progressive” tribe keeps creating the story we need? Did you notice the way we invent the facts we need to create the needed story?
Remember when we hated the Sanford police? We made up the claim that they didn’t tell the Martins that their son had been killed for three days.
That claim was ugly, and it was false. But it generated hate, and so we told it rather widely.
In this morning’s post, we discussed the very same story, invented the very same way.
This time, we want to hate the Ferguson police. And so we invented the claim that they left Michael Brown’s body uncovered for hours and hours. The story got bruited around so much that Van Jones even believed it, and Van Jones is very smart and also very fair.
It seems that claim was false too. But it generated hate, and so we spread it around, though not as much as we did in the initial instance.
Can you see that those are the same stories? That they're driven by the same phony fact, a fact we simply invented in two different forms? Is that the way you ever thought our own lofty tribe would perform?
Reading yesterday’s New York Times, can you see the way this works in the pseudo-journalistic sense? Technically, you debunk the false claim. In actual fact, you write your report in such a way that many readers will walk away thinking you reinforced it!
Do you think that isn’t the way it works? As Al Pacino once thoughtfully said, “Who’s being naïve now, Kay?”