IMITATIONS: Will something of consequence happen tonight?

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2024

The Times sells the latest cheap fake: Will something of consequence happen tonight?

We can't answer your question! But as a matter of basic anthropology, the New York Times has already provided the day's key object lesson.

We refer to the famous newspaper's classic Debate Day Digest. It appears on page A21 of this morning's print editions.

The piece was written by a young reporter—by a youngster who's currently part of the newspaper's fellowship (intern) program. In his piece, the youngster shows that he has ingested the lore of the mainstream press corps guild.

By long tradition, our "journalists" provide similar pieces every four years at this time. Today, the digest appears beneath the dual headline shown below. 

Also, the piece is pure anthropology—anthropology all the way down:

A Look Back at Memorable Presidential Debate Moments
Almost every televised debate, since the first one in 1960, has had a singular quip, gaffe or exchange that sticks in public memory.

Sad! In fairness, pieces like this—concerning quips and glorious gaffes—appear every four years at this juncture.

In such pieces, the imitations we think of as journalists offer their guild's fictionalized accounts of great debates of the past. In today's version of the old chestnut, the intern in question recalls five (5) such "memorable moments," several of which never happened.

Briefly, let's be fair! To his credit, he didn't include the mandated chestnut in which it's said that Candidate Nixon won the polls of people who listened to the first debate with Candidate Kennedy on the radio. 

As far as we've ever been able to see, there is no evidence that any such thing ever happened. That said, so what? Our "journalists" will be repeating that treasured old chestnut until the end of time.

This morning, the youngster offers a standard account of five different "memorable moments." Sub-headline included, here is one of the five magic moments—and no, this never occurred:

A stalking vibe: Trump vs. Clinton in 2016

Donald J. Trump changed the landscape of debate etiquette in 2016, ratcheting up the use of ad hominem attacks and made-for-TV one-liners. But it was perhaps his body language during a debate with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that generated the most attention.

At one point, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, addressed the audience, turning away from Mr. Trump, her Republican opponent. Mr. Trump walked closely behind her, giving a pained or scornful look to the camera or to Mrs. Clinton.

Many observers said it looked as though Mr. Trump were a predator looming over his prey. The point was accentuated by their respective height difference. Mrs. Clinton, the first female presidential nominee of a major party, stood at about 5-foot-4, while Mr. Trump, at 6-foot-3, towered over her.

In her memoir written after her loss, Mrs. Clinton said she should have been more aggressive during the debates.

One of the hopefuls was 6-foot-3. The other was only 5-foot-4! And not only that:

The taller hopeful "walked closely behind her," thereby creating a "stalking vibe!" Many observers said it looked as though he was a predator looming over his prey!

Many observers have said such things, including Candidate Clinton. Over here in Blue America, the imitations who pose as journalists enjoy repeating that tale. 

That said, the alleged event in question never actually happened. Nixon didn't win in some specialized survey, and we're sorry but Candidate Trump didn't stalk Clinton that night.

In our half of the United States, we love the bathos involved in that tale. But it's based on a bit of misleading videotape. You could almost say that this standard tale is based upon a "cheap fake!" 

The youngster is describing a meaningless moment from the second Trump-Clinton debate. To see the entire episode, you can click here for the tape of the full debate. After that, you should move ahead to minute 24, or to minute 29.

For the full transcript of that debate, you can just click this. Here's what you'll see if you're willing to take The Imitation of Human Life Challenge:

That second debate was conducted in standard "town hall" fashion. A group of citizens enveloped the "stage." The discussion was built around questions asked by some of those audience members.

The candidates had each been equipped with a lectern and a stool on the "stage." These resting positions weren't far apart, as you can see at any point on the videotape.

During the memorable moment in question, the candidates were responding to a question from a citizen seated to the far left of Candidate Trump's lectern and stool. (Candidate Clinton's lectern and stool were on the right side of the stage.)

As you may recall, that question came from "Kenneth Karpowitz, UNDECIDED VOTER." The question concerned the cost of health care. You can see him ask his question at minute 24 of the videotape.

Karpowitz was seated stage left, over beyond the Trump lectern. In responding to the question, Candidate Clinton walked over to speak with Citizen Karpowitz face to face. 

That was a perfectly sensible thing to do. That said, in doing so, she unavoidably placed herself directly in front of Candidate Trump's lectern.

There's no reason why she shouldn't have done that. Doing that was standard behavior at a town hall debate. 

But because Candidate Clinton was now standing directly in front of the Trump lectern, a camera angle was created in which the larger Trump loomed up behind her at minute 29, during her second response to the original question.

As you will see if you watch the tape of the whole episode, Candidate Trump actually didn't "walk closely behind her" during this memorable moment. He certainly wasn't "stalking" here, though that's the story the chimps we trust in Blue America are still eager to tell.

If you watch the entire chunk of tape, you'll see that Candidate Trump is standing by his lectern, where's he's supposed to be, during the entire sequence. 

At one point, he moves one or two steps away from Candidate Clinton, then returns to his initial spot. But no, he doesn't "walk closely behind her," and he certainly didn't stalk her. 

He also didn't disappear through a trap door in the stage. That's the only way he could have avoided creating the misleading bit of videotape in question.

We're sorry, but that was an utterly meaningless moment—except as part of our own Blue America's silly, childish lore. Over here in Blue America, it's now one of the five most memorable moments generated by sixty years of presidential debates!

Watching the relevant videotape, you may be able to see what happened—or then again, you may not. Given the wiring of our brains, we're all inclined to "see" the things we want to see—and that's even true of us in Blue America, where the voters are all above average.

That said, we invite you to watch the extremely small chunk of videotape to which the New York Times links today. Ironically, but unmistakably, it's a classic "Cheap Fake!" 

The tape is edited in such a way as to give a misleading impression. Clownishly—for any normal standard, inexcusably—it even includes a menacing "horror film" musical backdrop, silly music designed to drive home the preferred tribal misapprehension.

Anthropologically, this is who and what we actually are on this Planet of the Humans. Here on this Planet of the Journalists, this is pretty much all we have.

In the broader sense, our lore about great debates of the past is filled with such tortured narrations. As the poet once observed, "A man [sic] hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

(For the record, that statement is true until we teach ourselves to do better.)

Will something of consequence happen tonight? We can't tell you that. We can tell you this:

Tonight's event is an abomination—a bizarre manifestation of a society on the edge. 

Valdimir Putin has been betting that "our democracy" can't survive the modern world—a world in which the "democratization of media," joined to the proliferation of intermingled "identities," has made it harder and harder for a very large nation like ours to maintain our alleged way of life.

Putin has wagered that our alleged system can't survive modernity. We can't swear that Putin is wrong in the wager he's placed.

But tonight, we'll have two god-awful candidates crowded upon a debate stage as a bunch of sub-human howler monkeys keep insisting, all over our vastly expanded media landscape, that the whole thing has been rigged.

On Fox, the monkeys keep insisting on this point, and they keep flinging their poo. For us, the leading question tonight is this:

To what extent will President Biden be able to function as a normal candidate? 

We'll be voting for President Biden this year, but that's the question we ask.

We were surprised when the Biden campaign agreed to take part in this debate. How well will the president function tonight?

In our view, that's the evening's main question. And if the president performs well tonight, that leaves an attendant question unanswered:

Where has he been in the past several years, as the nation has cried out for presidential leadership?

He has said nothing about the peculiar state of affairs at the southern border. He has said nothing about the cost of living, except for an amazingly inane focus on "shrinkflation."

It may be that President Biden has been diminished in a way which would explain his remarkable silence. But all in all, the candidate for whom we'll be voting has basically ceased to exist.

What hasn't ceased is our species' need for reassuring tribal lore. In this morning's New York Times, an intern continues the antique practice, even as the cuckoos continue their hollerin' on the Fox News Channel while the monkeys keep flinging their poo.

How well will President Biden perform? In our view, that's the key question tonight. It could be as noble Nestor says in Book Nine of the Iliad, as he cleans up the latest crazy meltdown by Agamemnon lord of men.

It could be as Nestor says to the troops:

 "Tonight's the night that rips our ranks to shreds or pulls us through."