Saint Santorum

David Sirota isn’t happy about Sunday’s much-discussed New York Times Magazine profile of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), and having read the piece, I’m none too happy, either. Sirota picks out a passage describing Santorum’s alleged role as an anti-poverty crusader to illustrate how one-sided and manipulative the piece is; I was more taken with back-to-back statements like the following passage:

''Society's interest in marriage is the future,'' [Santorum] told me. ''It is the next generation. It is in providing a stable environment for the raising of children. That's why we give marriage a special status, not because people like to hang out together and have fun.''

Santorum rarely argues from a purely religious viewpoint.

Get me a neck brace, stat! That juxtaposition left me with wicked case of whiplash. Is it simply appalling writing skills coupled with a compulsion to lie, or is Michael Sokolove unaware of the religious origins of a singularly procreative view of marriage? In either case, it’s spectacularly bad reporting, and equally stunning idiocy permeates the entirety of the piece, which, by the way, is entitled, “The Believer.” Blech.

Sirota notes that although the New York Times is a paper which he used to highly respect, and there are still some serious reporters doing decent work under its banner, it is nonetheless:

well on its way to becoming a laughingstock when it comes to political reporting. Its philosophy has crystallized around one singular axiom: don’t challenge people the political Establishment perceives to be all-powerful. The travesty is that this axiom is diametrically opposed to what the press’s mission is supposed to be.

[…]

For Santorum, the piece was the equivalent of what Monica Lewinsky did to President Clinton in the shadowy confines of the Oval Office. For the public, it was pathetic pandering propaganda that insults people’s intelligence. This, apparently, is the reward the paper gives out when politicians like Santorum publicly equate it to the Nazis. Not a tough piece, not even a fair piece - an absolute whitewash, replete with an angelic cover photo of Santorum, as if God's light is beaming down upon him from Heaven.

If that isn’t enough to make you want to puke out your guts, I don’t know what is.

[I]f something is going to be labeled "journalism," then it should at the very least tell the whole story – and not just provide us with 10 pages of overt fellating and genuflecting.

The Times motto may still be "all the news that’s fit to print" – but increasingly, it is "all the right-wing spin that is fit to kiss the rear end of those in power." That is doing great harm to journalism – and to American democracy.

Once again, I question when the media is ever going to wake the fuck up and realize the damage its doing to our nation. Or, if they ever will. Are the majority of our journalists so lazy, so jaded, so apathetic about what the role of the press is meant to be, that they care not whether they’re getting paid for producing actual journalism or propaganda?

Our “newspapers of record” have begun to sound like broken records, spinning the same lameass tune over and over again, paired with one of the increasingly popular stylized photos of the story’s subject approximating a messiah- or saint-like figure, of which our national photo press corps, who have also clearly lost their fucking minds, have become so fond.


Does the media really want this country to become a theocracy? If not, they really need to rouse themselves from the mind-numbing complacency, paralyzing fear of retribution, Rove-induced hypnosis, or whatever malevolent spell, charm, incantation, or possession is keeping them from doing their damn jobs. Get with the motherfucking program. We need you.