July 3, 2020 - 8:30am
The only ‘Big Book’ I’ve managed to catch up with during lockdown is a year out of date. Fleishman is in Trouble was last summer’s high-status holiday read, and coming to it now feels almost nostalgic. The central themes have been well treated elsewhere, but one side thread stood out, around tone. Our narrator (Libby Epstein), a female reporter, describes trying to write like macho, superstar journalist Archer:
The narrator envies the cultural power of this style of writing. Archer’s womanising, entitled, expense account-milking behaviour is tolerated, encouraged even, because his sharp sardonic prose sells magazines.
This acute observation has stayed with me long after the novels’ more obvious themes of marital discord have ceased to be interesting. One of the reasons I started my career at the BBC was a sense of the power of the media, the way our understanding of the world is framed and formed by the voices we pay attention to. This style of writing, precision-tooled to enable the reader to feel contempt, has been a common feature of elite outlets for decades.
Distanced, critical and typically male, it does indeed leave the conclusion that the only intelligent response to reality is a sort of resigned despair. Hope, earnestness, sincerity, the assumption of goodwill — all these things have accumulated cultural debris which leave them sidelined as naïve, non-serious, and not for smart, educated people like us. We who really see can see past this optimism and into the bleak underbelly of humanity.
There should always be a place for shining a light on injustice and poking the powerful to be better. That scrappy, determined streak in journalism is one of the things I love. My fear is that this instinct that all the best political interviewers (“why is this lying bastard lying to me?”) has bled out from its proper place to colour our whole framing of the world.
The best antidote to this is, for me, Marilynne Robinson. She’s no intellectual slouch, but decries the kind of cultural pessimism which is “always fashionable”. Right now, in a world ravaged by Covid-19 facing the complicated and more existential threat of climate change, is exactly the moment to resist the kind of resigned ‘generalised disgust’ that certain types of voices instil in us. This kind of posture depresses “the level of aspiration, the sense of the possible”, she writes.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI completely agree Elizabeth Oldfield. TV has been lowering the bar for years. It started in the 60s with the satirical That Was The Week That Was and continued all through the 80s and 90s with the new wave comics like Ben “a little bit of politics” Elton. Some of this is ok – even needed – but when everything is seen through the lens of cynicism, it does far more harm than good. In the last 15 or so years, the comics have got even worse and their schtick has been taken up by political journalists.
In TV land and social media, this has hit the right much harder than the left, but the right are now catching up and dishing it out in equal measure. No effort is made to put opposition arguments in context or even truthfully described. The cavernous divide in politics and the hatred for the opposition is now so deep that the gloves are off. The way Trump has been treated over the last 4 or 5 years is a real low point. Can it go any lower? Probably.
What I think is more important is not the (vague and unspecified) more balanced journalistic approach, but constructive criticism from journalists and between politicians.
It should no longer be acceptable enough to merely criticise a viewpoint, but all attempts should be made to provide a constructive counterpoint or solution to the issue at hand.
Too often politicians and journalists (and people in general) are fast and aggressive to dismiss and criticise – but don’t provide a solution themselves either.
As a final note, this article could easily have been written without the unnecessary sexist “macho” epithet. It cheapens and undermines an otherwise good point.
I found the ‘macho’ term decidedly odd, in that contempt and scorn has usually been the first weapon used by girls and women who want to bully and hurt other people. This is not too surprising given that the approach used by the macho bullies– just threaten to beat somebody up — is commonly not available.
Incidentally, I have been able to reduce a significant amount of contempt expressed by the children of both sexes that I work with by telling the children that contempt is both cowardly and egotistical. This approach — for now — seems to work better than telling the children that they are insufficiently compassionate.
contempt
/kənˈtɛm(p)t/
noun
1. the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration.
Similar: scorn, disdain, disrespect, deprecation, disparagement, denigration, opprobrium, odium, obloquy, scornfulness, derision
mockery, ridicule, disgust, loathing
Opposite:
respect
2. disregard for something that should be considered.
“this action displays an arrogant contempt for the wishes of the majority”
Similar: disrespect, disregard, slighting, neglect, contumacy
Opposite:
respect
That is such the right word. Thank you Elizabeth ðŸµï¸ðŸŒºðŸŒ¸
It almost makes me sob to think how contemptuously some humans treat others as if it is a moral virtue.
Hmmm … I agree with disgust for, and total rejection of, cultural pessimism, but I tend to think of it as effeminate — highly, highly effeminate and phony, especially when practiced by males.
Not coincidentally, methinks, effeminacy amongst males (especially those younger in age) has been on the increase for decades now, at least in the wealthy more liberal societies.
To me, there is a strong association between lack of independence of thought and character and weakness of intellect, and behaviors such as cultural pessimism. It is a naked and pathetic attempt to “fit in”.
What I think is more important is not the (vague and unspecified) more balanced journalistic approach, but constructive criticism from journalists and between politicians.
It should no longer be acceptable enough to merely criticise a viewpoint, but all attempts should be made to provide a constructive counterpoint or solution to the issue at hand.
Too often politicians and journalists (and people in general) are fast and aggressive to dismiss and criticise – but don’t provide a solution themselves either.
As a final note, this article could easily have been written without the unnecessary sexist “macho” epithet. It cheapens and undermines an otherwise good point.
(bugs with discus/moderation has duplicated – apologies)
By strange coincidence I read this interesting commentary by Oldfield on the day I was starting to engage with the Mundaka Upanishad of which Gandhi says ” The world rests upon the bedrock of satya or Truth. Asatya meaning untruth, also means non-existent and satya or truth also means that which is. If untruth does not exist, its victory is out of the question. And truth being that which is can never be destroyed. This is the doctrine of Satyagraha in a nutshell.” What a wonderful nutshell!
Thank you Peter; the pernicious doctrines that decry the existence of objective reality are pure evil at the most fundamental level. The nature of reality (God if you prefer) is incorruptible truth, how could it be otherwise.
“If your life is not what it could be, try telling the truth. If you cling desperately to an ideology, or wallow in nihilism, try telling the truth. If you feel weak and rejected, and desperate, and confused, try telling the truth. In Paradise, everyone speaks the truth. That is what makes it Paradise. Tell the truth. Or, at least, don’t lie.”
“• Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
In the words of a brilliant macho pessimist, “optimism is cowardice” (Oswald Spengler).
Drama is made of killing, deception, betrayal. Tragedy sells. It is as old as theatre. Art imitates life? Few people care that the world will not end? Good news broadcasting has been tried and failed. I don’t agree that cynicism it is a mucho phenomenon, it is human. That said, it is worthy to question what we glorify? To paraphrase another Unherd journalist: without sin there can be no redemption. It would be difficult to assess where the greater profits are made, in tragedy or in its forgiveness?
The media in general is in a bad place and have only themselves to blame. Linking truth to journalists strikes me as very odd indeed. Their (broad stroke) concept of that idea is binned for manipulating reports that add drama, and often become so ‘sexed up’ to be laughable.
Facts are the bedrock of an honest news report and when did we last hear or read those? If so called journalist only write their opinions that is acceptable, but to pay lip service often in ignorance to a presentable report that is not. Bah! to social media. Forget newspapers. Television? Not seen one for years.
Oh! where can I read or hear honest, truthful, factual reporting?
Amen! I’ve long recognised this cynical streak in public commentary and, to some extent, in myself. Yet I’ve never quite recognised its gendered quality until reading this piece by Ms Oldfield. Misery loves company, but we are not obliged to provide that company.