Sullivan (via huskerred)

My parents tend to watch CNN International, because it’s what they’ve always watched. On CNN I figure that Fareed Zakaria’s GPS is probably the only show with patient interviews between intelligent people who make cogent arguments. Domestic American TV is worse. Judging from YouTube records of interviews, people often seem to see interviews as competitions: Who won the interview? It really shouldn’t matter. 

I switched over to BBC World, and the difference is dramatic. Most of their programming is between patient intellectuals who politely discuss the issues. It’s better journalism, if worse entertainment. 

Of this quote… I’m not sure, now that I re-read it again, what he means by contemporary liberalism. I first interpreted it in terms of American liberals who get caught up on causes. Feminism, racism, whatever the noble cause, there’s this tendency to demonize the people against it. Even if this is often in response to demonization received, it is no way out. 

The article links to this journalist, essentially, defending Pat Buchanan. The point made is “Sure, you got rid of him and he was pretty bad, but what you’re replacing him with might be worse in a way you don’t expect.” 

And he’s right. I don’t mean to say they should have kept him, but he’s probably safe betting that whoever replaces Buchanan may not be a good journalist. This is more a mood of the times: American TV journalism isn’t great and isn’t getting better. But his defense of Buchanan, much as we may disagree, doesn’t invite blind “you’ve offended my group” hatred.