DISPUTATION: Alex Wagner got it right!

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2024

Disputation within the tribe: Sometimes, representatives of two warring parties may engage in disputation.

During the long-abandoned "Crossfire era" of American broadcast news, that was the familiar nightly practice on American "cable news."

Some member of the Republican Party would appear on a program like Crossfire. That person would then debate—or would perhaps pretend to debate—some member of the Democratic Party.

Often, these events were pseudo-discussions—mere imitations of life. Basic issues never got settled, and they very rarely got clarified.

(In a good solid year of such disputations, our news orgs were unable to settle the major dispute from the Gingrich/Clinton years: Was the Republican Party recommending "cuts" to the Medicare program? Or was the party simply slowing the rate at which the program would grow?)

(A solid year of such discussions led to zero clarity. Our journalists are often severely lacking in basic skills—an obvious fact which flies in the face of the things we're encouraged to imagine.)

Still and all, it's easy to understand the logic behind some such format:

 Political Party A says X, but Political Party B says Y! Let's bring these warring parties together and let them pretend to debate!

It's easy to see the logic behind that type of disputation. But how about disputation within some party—within some nation or within some political tribe?

How about disputation within the clan? That's an alternate form of disputation, one with a long human history. Consider what happens right in Book One of The Iliad, the ancient poem of war,

Agamemnon, lord of men, had flown into a fury. He has stolen the daughter of a priest to serve as his sexual slave. But now the gods have intervened, in a way which suggests that he must give this young woman back, if only for a fine ransom.

Agamemnon, lord of men, doesn't want to do this. Trembling, Calchas—a seer who reads the flight of birds—rises within a tribal council to challenge, question or dispute Agamemnon's view of the matter.

Calchas doesn't want to dispute the view of someone so powerful. Before he explains the will of the gods, he seeks protection from Achilles:

"Achilles, dear to Zeus—
you order me to explain Apollo's anger,
the distant deadly Archer? I will tell it all.
But strike a pact with me, swear you will defend me
with all your heart, with words and strength of hand.
For there is a man I will enrage—I see it now— 
a powerful man who lords it over all the Argives,
one the Achaeans must obey. A mighty king,
raging against an inferior, is too strong.
Even if he can swallow down his wrath today,
still he will nurse the burning in his chest
until. sooner or later, he sends it bursting forth.
Consider it closely, Achilles. Will you save me?"

And the matchless runner reassured him: "Courage!
Out with it now. Calchas. Reveal the will of god,
whatever you may know. And I swear by Apollo
dear to Zeus, the power you pray to, Calchas,
when you reveal god's will to the Argives—no one,
not while I am alive and see the light on earth, no one
will lay his heavy hands on you by the hollow ships."

It's no fun to dispute someone within the tribe or within the clan, let alone someone as powerful as Agamemnon. That said:

Thus reassured by the mighty Achilles, Calchas reveals the will of the gods. The ensuing disputation continues on into the night, with various warriors rising in council to state their view of the matter.

Agamemnon, Achilles and Calchas are all men on the Argive side in this ancient war poem. They're part of the party which has spent ten years laying siege to Troy—but all through the pages of The Iliad, we see acts of disputation within the Argive ranks.

In Book Nine, the headstrong young Diomedes hotly disputes Agamemnon, who has suffered an emotional meltdown; Nestor is forced to intercede to bring Argive factions back together. 

But these are all men of the Argive side. Their disputations are taking place in nighttime councils—nighttime councils within the tribe.

In the world of modern day "cable news," such exchanges rarely occur. On the Fox News Channel and on MSNBC, a certain hiring regime obtains:

Everyone hired to appear on these channels will agree with the views expressed by rest of their "dear friends."  Whatever Pundit A has just said, Pundit B is expected to start by saying this:

"That's exactly right."

After swearing this loyalty oath, Pundit B will proceed to make the same point—or will perhaps engage in a bit of embellishment, making the point even more convincing for the channel's tribal viewers.

During the Crossfire era, disputation was the norm on this nation's "cable news" programs. But in our modern era, the cable news channels are now almost wholly "segregated by viewpoint."

Fox News belongs to Red America; MSNBC belong to Blue. It's very rare to see people on either one of these channels cable who hail from the other side.

It's also rare to see disputes break out between members of the prevailing tribe. Pundits are paid to give voice to the tribe's mandated views. Few people risk their well-paid jobs by introducing some point of nuance or disagreement.

Way back when, on February 2, Alex Wagner broke out of this low-IQ rut on her nightly MSNBC program, Alex Wagner Tonight. 

Good lord! Wagner brought Andrew Weissmann, a highly credentialed legal expert, on the show to talk about emerging charges against Fani Willis. But she also spoke with Clark Cunningham, a law professor or from Georg is State, and Cunningham was allowed to state a view which plainly differed, in several respects, from the views expressed be Weissmann.

This is simply never done! Meanwhile, please understand:

Cunningham wasn't defending Donald J. Trump as he critiqued, and even criticized, Willis and her assistant, Nathan Wade. One week before, he had offered a guest essay in the New York Times, in which, despite its offensive headline, he had closed his essay as shown:

Why Fani Willis Should Step Aside in the Trump Case in Georgia

[...]

To be clear, I say this as someone who has generally approved of the way Ms. Willis has handled the case. And I believe that the indictment against Mr. Trump and his co-defendants has a solid factual and legal foundation.

For Ms. Willis, taking a personal leave need not be considered an admission of wrongdoing. This is the most important case in Georgia right now, arguably the most important case in the nation, and potentially of historic significance.

Choosing the option that has the best chance of keeping the case on track, even at a personal cost, is the right decision for Ms. Willis to make as a public-spirited official.

So he'd said in the New York Times. In the later discussion on Alex Wagner Tonight, Cunningham differed with Weissmann's views in several different ways, with Weissmann offering his own view of Cunningham's critiques. 

To watch that whole segment from Wagner Tonight, you can just click here. It's very rare to see exchanges of this type on the Fox News Channel—or on MSNBC.

Wagner let a bit of nuance enter the picture that night. In our view, Alex Wagner got it right!

Within our modern journalistic world, repetition isn't just the title of a puzzling 1843 book by Soren Kierkegaard, the most depressed person in Europe. Within our journalistic firmament, repetition is a pseudo-journalistic way of life.

Each pundit repeats what the last pundit said. This next pundit may even jack the mandated claim up a tad.

Never is heard a discouraging word! This is a very unhelpful framework, even among "dear, dear friends."

We've slid a long way, baby! Calchas was allowed engage in disputation with Agamemnon, lord of men.  

Today, our cable news hosts are even more mighty. No one disagrees with them!

Tomorrow: Bill Maher (and his guests) gets it majorly right