Media Laziness In All Forms
Time critic Richard Schickel wrote:
Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.
Does this requirement apply to Critcis writing about other subjects, like say, blogging? For Schickel clealry knows nothing about blogging. He writes:
D.J. Waldie, among the finest of our part-time scriveners, in effect said "fine." But remember, he added, blogging is a form of speech, not of writing. I thought it was a wonderful point. The act of writing for print, with its implication of permanence, concentrates the mind most wonderfully. It imposes on writer and reader a sense of responsibility that mere yammering does not. It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.
I take it Mr. Schickel has never heard of teh Google? The idea that dead tree versions imply permanence whereas online versions, which truly are accesible for years on end, are not, tells you that Mr. Schickel is lacking in the credentials, knowledge and seriousness about blogging to be a reviewer or critic of it.
For what has Schickel offered in this "permanent column"? Hypocrisy:
. . . [W]e have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance. We need to see their credentials. And they need to prove, not merely assert, their right to an opinion.
If this is true, Schickel's column fails as he does not prove his expertise on blogging. Indeed, he proves his ignorance. He is exactly that which he condemns - the idle opinion monger. He knows not of what he speaks - blogging. As an act of criticism, as a "review" of blogging," Schickel is precisely that which he condemns. And to think he knew he was writing for the posterity of Monday's fishwrap when he did it. If Schickel had considered the true permanence of his column, brought to you courtesy of the Internet, perhaps he would have taken greater care to know of what he "spoke."
The irony of course is, for Schickel, literary criticism is more important no doubt than political reporting and commentary. Wars and such are so transient. But literature? Ah, literature is forever. Schickel could not care that his Managing Editor, Rick Stengel, is an unadulterated hack. The politics of our nation are a secondary concern to his important missives on Shrek 3 or Spiderman 3 or . . .
| < Specter Predicts Alberto Gonzales Will Quit | Agreeing With The WH on Gonzo > |





