Fabrication.
Thirty years ago, CBS's Roger Mudd asked Ted Kennedy why he wanted to be POTUS, and Kennedy lost focus. This was all the major media coverage imaginable in 1979, and the follow-up was a headline in the NYT or WaPo. No other media outlet available. What a tiny, narrow, unhelpful, facile journalism, and yet it was regarded as first-rate and normative. Now we hear from Roger Mudd that Ted Kennedy's account of the interview that marred his career is a fabrication in a fog of memory. Roger Mudd, 81, now corrects that he never pitched the interview to Ted Kennedy one late eve outside the Waldorf in June. Roger Mudd says also that he never agreed to ground rules that forbade questions about Chappaquidick and the presidency. What to make of a famous dead man's self-satisfied delusion about his own self-damaged career? We have the two interviews that Mudd produced with Kennedy and that is all. The video record stands for itself. Kennedy made excuses to himself to explain his own errors. How much of the book, "True Compass" is reliable; how much is fiction?
Rescued by the WWW.
Perhaps Ted Kennedy has another kind of career if the web exists in 1979. His version and Mudd's version would have been tested, fact-checked, hammered into something useful. All bloviating and table-hopping politicians who blossomed in the day of the tiny footprint of CBS/NYT/WaPo are now tiresome or gone. We are rescued from the complacent arrogance of a handful of TV producers and managing editors -- and the social networks of the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the usual dominating characters. Thirty years ago on network TV is an age as distant from us now as 1979 was from London under the Blitz on radio.
Counterfactual.
If we do not endure the hagiography of the Kennedys, then we do not endure the strange behavior of Ted Kennedy and Carolyn Kennedy to endorse and propel Candidate Obama in January 2008. We also avoid the suspiciously vengeful behavior of Andrew Cuomo, an ex-Kennedy in-law who is determined to flail Wall Street's lesser cretins in order to win Albany and march on the White House. And do we also avoid Arnold Schwarzenegger's fragile crusade for legitimacy with the Kennedys? And more to come unseen? The tiny world of big foot press in 1979 provided Ted Kennedy an aura he had not earned. Whatever the truth of Ted Kennedy, it awaits biographers who are literate on the web. And how much of the Kennedy exceptionalism extended to Roger Mudd? Did that sympathetic celebrity aggrandize the sloppy Daniel Mudd, who was at the helm of Fannie Mae as it crashed and burned after 2005? No end to the mischief the Ted Kennedy fiction has done.
And thank goodness for that!!!
We believe what we want to believe. We see what supports our beliefs. We hear what we want to hear. That's how we construct our world. Sometimes the deus ex machina literary device, forgetfulness, is called upon to intercede - when it becomes impossible to ignore or bend the ‘facts’ our way - to round off rough edges of mendacity (as it were), as in photo shop.
It is likely that Kennedy remembers it as he wrote it. It is unfair for Roger Mudd to challenge him now; now that he can no longer defend himself. The clip reminds me of what they did to Bush reading 'My Pet Goat'.
Sure there's more media available for the people to access today. But we have already surpassed the saturation point. Not everyone has the time or desire to peruse every news web. And who among us is qualified to make a decision as to which one is telling the truth?
Again, it comes down to what we want to hear; what we want to see. You can never expect a good progressive to listen to Limbaugh (unless there’s an underlying psychological problem). By the same token, you can never expect a good conservative to listen to Olbermann. You can never expect good Christian to listen to rap, or a rapper to listen to Bach. You can't even get people of different belief systems to talk to each other anymore unless they've got something other than politics to discuss – something that they can agree on or mutually benefit from. Sometimes politics poisons everything and causes brother to rise up against brother. That’s why our mothers told us never to talk about politics or religion in good company.
What it comes down to is trust. We listen to those we trust. It is significant when nearly two million people converge in Washington to protest Obama’s policies. It is a significant story when most of the media goes out of their way to downplay it. It means that someone is being disingenuous. Someone is lying. Someone is hiding something under a bushel. Someone is no longer worthy of our trust.
It’s gone beyond words; beyond the ‘facts’. Call it morphic resonance, call it anything – a gut feeling. Ted Kennedy was one of the architects of what we have today. He was a deeply flawed man. As such he could be ‘used’ to help accomplish what the Left has accomplished in America. We only saw what we wanted to see – the flag; the dynasty; the glitter of privilege. We ignored all the signals from Chappaquiddick on to Ted throwing his support to Obama.
Now, we can no longer ignore what has happened. Most of us are still inclined to shoot the messenger. But as our nation continues to flounder - as Bush slips from relevance - more and more will be forced to connect the dark and sinister dots. To some these will represent a flock of black swans. To others these will mark our path of inattention; our almost pathological clinging to the dubious solution of appeasement when confronted by a challenge.
It has been said often that people get the government they deserve. Perhaps it’s right and proper for us to suffer for our sins. The tragedy is that our children will suffer as well. Our unborn have not yet had the opportunity to make mistakes. Yet they too will suffer. For the first time in our history we will have handed our kids a nation in ruins. No doubt about it, this is historic.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
Who said, "Democracy is the system whereby the people get what they want good and hard?"
I was talking to a friend (we're in our late 40s)and we realized that if the Massachusetts system is gamed such that we end up with another Kennedy in the Senate that we are doomed to have spent our entire lives under the collective thumb of this family of "I've got mine so lets pull up the ladder" idiots. Barf.
I still find it incredulous that he had the audacity, the temerity, the GALL to challenge that great sage of our thyme Jiminy Carter.
WE'VE HAD TO PAY FOR TEDDY'S SINS
Ted Kennedy was far more liberal than his brothers. Could it be that he became a super duper goody two shoes as a means to hide some past guilt? If so, he didn't pay his debt. He made the country pay.
Interesting to consider his legacy in light of the fact that both of his brothers were literally assassinated and we are still unclear as to who killed them. Yet Ted Kennedy continued to live out a rather public-- if, I would judge, privileged and mediocre-- political life. I am in my mid-30s and grew up considering Ted Kennedy to be a washed up, tarnished old fart that nobody can get rid of.
I spent the last week in LA for work and found myself (forced into) many more discussions/debates with various left-leaning people than I'd usually want to have--I find these discussions can be often tiresome and sad unless the "sides" can agree on civil terms of debate. Many of the younger people I meet, both here in NYC and out there, don't want to think about or discuss anything about the Kennedy legacy outside of the default, drumbeat "Bush's Fault" (which is the Get Out Of Jail Card of the left's Monopoly game) (i.ie Bush Sr. and the CIA killed JFK etc) or else Ted Kennedy's symbolic role in light of the foolhearty urge toward Socialized Medicine. (For the record-- I honestly don't know who killed the Kennedys, I don't have a conspiracy theory of my own, I only note that for as significant those events were to the nation and to the Kennedy family, it was a subject which I didn't see come up very much in any serious way in the media coverage/analysis surrounding TK's death).
JB-- thanks for shedding some light on how, well, archaic the old news media seems in light of 24/7 digital media omnipotence. It's somehow gratifying, though, to consider that even with the hoary old papers and network stations' monopoly, Ted Kennedy and those partisan to his cause STILL could not convince the country to elect him to the highest office.
If the Kennedy brothers had all been ugly, would they still be alive today? (Food for thought.)
Was Teddy doing penance or simply reflecting the zeitgeist of Boston and Massachusetts? Liberal elite media made Teddy, Ronald Reagan was still an actor or Spokesperson, and William F Buckley was the lone conservative voice.
Boston Globe is in bankruptcy, as is their owner the old Gray Lady. WaPO re-inventing itself as less political and more centrist. CBS is barely a network, NBC a megaphone for windmills and the new green infrastructure.
In the past decade, Catholics became more conservative, yet voted for the Clan Kennedy out of loyalty. The traditional Kennedy base is breaking up.
Something I was struck by at Senator Kennedy's Memorial service that surprisingly didn't register even a note in the seething, confrontational journals from the masters of malaise, was the fact (yes, there still are some facts) that Sen McCain, after recounting some mischievousness Teddy and him indulged in from the Senate floor (designed to intimidate some Freshmen members who were taking themselves too seriously) exited stage left without even a glance towards Vickie.
In every other case, the distinguished speakers would come down to the floor and meet Vickie who had risen and stepped forward to offer the family's appreciation and share some hugs. When Sen McCain had finished, she rose and moved in the same manner towards the Senator and watched him stroll off into the nether. She turned and with just a slight show of anguish found her seat again.
At that moment I thought there would be terrible accusations and unanswerable questions forthcoming from all the snide commentariat. There was nothing.
My own impression was that he just had this big heartache. Maybe the press concluded the same and gave him a pass? Maybe?
Catholic church is largely supporting Obama's government healthcare takeover, and not even making a fuss about the dollars-for-abortion issue. That's a big shift to the left over the last ten years. They probably are having trouble with pedophilia being considered a pre-existing condition under the current system.
My goodness, Lou. Surely you aren't inferring that Catholics who believe in HealthScare reform don't consider abortion or pedophilia as abominations to their Faith and completely abhorrent as sins.
I would hope that you retract that statement.
I was implying it, you were inferring it.
Thank you for that correction, Mr. Filliger. I had considered explaining the difference between "infer" and "imply" to Spencer myself, just as I had nearly pointed out to him in another thread that "jackass" is a perfectly legitimate name for a male donkey, not a cuss word in need of bowdlederization with asterisks; but I have wearily concluded that correcting Spencer's errors is too much like trying to eat just one Lay's potato chip, and I find that a low-carb regimen serves best to keep me in fighting trim.
Even though my contentious paleoconservative outlook leads me to disagree with you as often as not, you are by far the most readable poster on this website. I regard it as a courtesy on your part that you make the effort to write clearly and well.
infer/ imply - same difference - [SUGGEST]
Pssst. Dictionaries are good for more than mere booster seats so that you can reach the keyboard and opine on subjects of which you are ignorant. Pass it along.
I learned in school that the speaker (writer) does the implying and the listener (reader) does the inferring. Maybe that's a distinction that's no longer made in modern discourse, or maybe I'm remembering wrong.
You remember correctly.
Yes, I see you both have alot to say about nothing at all...
ain't got no nothing to speech jest wonts to jive talkin like
You know, I think you show to everyone by your little dictums that you are just envious 'cause you know I always, as a member, get my "major (yessir)" point right in there where it needs to be, ummhumm, and where it does the most good, hmmhmmmm, most of the time.
Oh no! A fate worse than death ... old BeeGee lyrics! Head for the hills, women and children first.
Don't mess with him, man. He's a member.
Kenneth, I appreciate your kind words above, and your moral support, but I am not quite ready to pursue a "scorched earth" policy with Spencer. The day may come, but I think he still can be salvaged. Thus, my comments (including the one about imply/infer) are intended more in a humorous vein. Now, don't misunderstand me, I think a good healthy inimical relationship can be a very rewarding thing, and I have plenty of those, but I'm trying to hold to one loose strand of rope here, still. I'm trying to make a change for the better in my life and not have every single intellectual relationship I have end in mutual bitterness and contempt. Like I do with them )(#)(#* Demmycrats.... Ooooohhh AH HATES DEMMYCRATS!!!!!
Best of luck with that!
You guys are funny... I admit, there are some things I didn't learn in school because I had to drop out to go to work for reasons I won't go in to (or is it "into?") I did, however, proudly obtain a GED when I was 44 y/o and I wrote an essay on censorship and the free market place that earned a citation from the State denoting there had *never* been a unanimous 100 graded on the written part of the program that is administered by University professors. So, that's pretty good, isn't it? For a dropout?
So, yes, sometimes I rely on Mr Webster to give me a little boost or jostle the cobwebs and sometimes I don't. But, I honestly do try very, very hard to convey good information in my interpretative manner.
Aktule, I thenk we shud muv tu a unevursel riteng that averewon cud lurn and ondurstand.
Would someone please tell me how to italicize in this format? Pleeezzz???
Oh, this button is going to be a difficult one to click...
Don't feel bad, most people with undergraduate and postgraduate college degrees make the same mistake.
Mom was an English teacher, Dad was a Math teacher. Make a mistake in grammar/spelling, hear about it from one side. Make a mistake in math, hear about it from the other side.
If you'll notice I almost never correct people's grammar, for two reasons: (1) I make mistakes myself, and payback is a b___, and (2) most Americans' grammar and spelling is so hopelessly bad that if I started correcting everyone nothing else would ever get done.
I did so only in your case because I thought it might be a humorous response to your original question about the Catholic church. Instead of provoking laughter, I happened to explode a mine field from your past. Sorry about that. Sic semper jokeris.
That's Ok... no need for apology. Kenneth was the one who provoked the banter, as usual.
In a way, it's a relief to have been given the opportunity to remove the facade that has covered the fact that I was nothing more than just a self larned student of the language. And I admit,too, it has always been a conflict as I developed the approaches to my opinions. I fumbled for words to try and express myself, I would worry about it being obvious that I was less than literate and like Kenneth implied that I "opine on subjects of which I am ignorant."
Now, I'm liberated! Now, I am free!
I don't buy it, sorry. Your salient feature is your tenacity, not a quality one would expect of a dropout. Also, you are obviously very well-read, and although self-teaching could explain some of that, I think you've quoted some stuff from time to time that is the force-fed stuff one would only read in order to pass a class. The spelling and so forth can be easily explained by carelessness or an occasional adult beverage.