Random thoughts on: the American election

Drones

One thing that creeps up in commentaries of the election now and again is that Americans don't really care that much about foreign policy, certainly not much further than advancing American superiority. The last of the three presidential debates, held earlier this week in Florida, focused on foreign policy, and drew the smallest TV audience of them all, the bigger concern of the economy having passed by. I'm not sure whether this has always been the case, but it certainly would explain why so many atrocities carried out by America have gone unpunished by the electorate.

Obama's use of drones in Pakistan, with the aim of tackling al-Qaeda, should be the subject of endless criticism, certainly by his own party. We can expect the Republicans to endorse such measures, but the Democrats have lost any sort of moral highground they may have had. Obama supporter Joe Klein offered a stunningly vile defence of the drone tactics, heavily criticised for the indiscriminate murder of innocent people, killed because they happen to be within half a mile of a suspect (I'd imagine the term 'suspect' in this case is stretching it, slightly). Glenn Greewald offers a brilliant dissection of Klein's comments on the Guardian, but they boil down to the fact that Klein believes, among other things, that the killing of children in the Middle East could be justified if it stopped the killing of American children. Greenwald notes this is the same mentality that many terrorists have - that their killing of American children will, in turn, protect their own. He places the life of an American above that of the life of anyone else, for the sole reason that they are an American.

As I said, coming from a neocon party that also wants to ban abortion and disenfranchise Democrat voters, would be sad, but expected. In the context of the 'liberal' or 'left' side of American politics (if such a thing even exists, it is made even worse. They are the 'good guys' - now, sunk to the level of the classic villains, they have rendered themselves worthless.

Mitt Romney

Obama is lucky to go up against Mitt Romney - Romney, hides Obama's many faults by simply showing off his far greater ones. The man is an idiot, to an astonishing level.  What's even more surprising is that this is somewhat of a trend for America, which is beginning to make a habit of support morons.

With Obama hemorrhaging liberal support, and the economy still suffering, had he gone up against a strong opponent he likely would have lost. Romney is, to use the media term, 'gaffe prone', much in the same way that Larry David is. This, perhaps, is why Obama's put down in the recent debate, where he explained to Mitt that the army doesn't need horses and bayonets anymore, was so popular - people perhaps believed that Romney literally had no idea how the army worked or what it did. It furthered the idea that Obama is more effortlessly comfortable than Romney could ever be. Obama, for all his faults, always has his cool.

Implications worldwide

A recent poll found that 40% of people worldwide would like to vote in the American elections, such is the influence of the country. But would this make a difference? America is not really a democracy - America, the self-regarding superpower functions outwith the poltical sphere of the country. It continues to remove whatever democratically elected governments it feels like. It supports coups, sells weapons to dictators at a profit before claiming they are glad to see them go during the Arab Spring. It launches global campaigns against 'evils' - communism, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism etc., rampaging around the world in pursuit of vaguely defined goals of victory. It will, no matter who is elected, remain run by businesses, and will murder innocent children in pursuit of killing someone who might be a member of al-Qaeda.

The elections surrounding the American machine are nothing more than way to choose the representative of said machine.

Random thoughts on: The Newsroom

Misogyny

Perhaps one of the most damaging early criticisms of The Newsroom was that it veered, in its portrayal of the female characters, towards sexism. Certainly, the female characters tend to follow female stereotypes. Slone, for example, is an intelligent woman, able to get ahead in her chosen career which she is passionate about – but still caves into requests from producers when a wardrobe of complimentary clothes is dangled in front of her.

The accusations of Sorkin’s misogyny remind me of similar claims which were aimed Jonathon Franzen. Both seem to struggle to portray their female characters in a positive light, but this comes not from a dislike of women, but from having to stray from their comfort zone. Both Franzen and Sorkin are white, male, middle-class intellectuals – the blueprint for all their good characters, and the type of characters which they feel confident, and are able to, write about. They write from experience, in the same way that someone who did not live in the Amazon for six years could not write about that situation in the same way as someone who did.

I don’t think Franzen is sexist (snobbish, yes, but not sexist), and nor do I think Sorkin is sexist.

Technology

Where would news media be without the internet? In a more financially stable place, for one thing. The Newsroom’s two main characters, Will and MacKenzie, both reject the new way in which news is gathered and dispersed, and it can be assumed, given his romantic and idealistic view of the way real-life newsrooms are run, Sorkin does as well. Early on in the series MacKenzie fails to understand how to use e-mail, and inadvertently sends information about her and Will to everyone at ACN. Will, it is remarked, ‘can’t even find Will’s blog’. And so on.

The lack of realism constantly jars – would two people, still in their forties (roughly) really not know how to use online technology? Especially considering their industry is effectively run by it? The only person who really seems to embrace the online world is Neil – he is therefore portrayed as a nerd for much of the series, and is relegated in one episode to the role of a prop for a dreadful running joke about Bigfoot.

Humour

The Newsroom is not a funny programme. What is unfortunate is that it tries to be. Like the Bigfoot joke mentioned above, Sorkin’s attempts to inject a bit of comedy almost all fall flat on their face. Two other examples stick out, both from the second part of the blackout episode.

First, Jim and ... attempt to lure Sarah onto Newnight because she went to college with Casey Anthony, and they are desperate to find a different angle. They head to her work in a high-fashion store, where Jim’s awkwardness is played up to new heights, attempting to both talk a customer into buying a dress and invite Sarah on a date. Jim has regularly been portrayed as awkward (when it suits the script) but at one point he asks ... if he thinks Sarah and the customer are making out in the changing room. ... is shocked, and so are we – Jim is merely an awkward journalist, not a sex-crazed social disaster.

In the same episode, Sorkin attempts to wring some humour, for some reason, from Will putting on trousers. First we see him complaining to his tailor that something is wrong with his trousers – a few scenes later he is bouncing into the newsroom with his trousers around his ankles, because he cannot get his other leg into them. He falls flat on his face, in a scene which juts out as a failed attempt at pointless slapstick.

Politics

It came as something of a surprise when Will was revealed to be a registered Republican, and a Tea Party supporter at that. Going into the show, everyone was expecting Sorkin’s liberal background to influence the politics of the show. It certainly did. Will is not a Republican in the Fox News sense – his Republican party is that of Abraham Lincoln, not Mitt Romney.

What Will ultimately believes in is truth. This is what he hopes to attain through his broadcasts. His search for the truth, and the relentless assault on the lies of the Republican party, mean that, to those outside ACN, he is a liberal. What Sorkin has done here, interestingly, is show that, in his attempts to find the truth, Will is perceived to have liberal values – therefore, liberal values are the truth. Sorkin says here that by simply looking at the facts and figures which you have easy access to, you will find that the Republicans are indeed wrong.

Will’s Republicanism also serves another purpose – he is the sensible Republican. He is not the one who believes that Obama hates white people, is a Muslim, wants to take away your guns etc. His relative saneness in comparison with the rest of the party shows them up to be the ridiculous fantasists they are.

Simulacrum

Earlier I used the words idealistic and romantic – no other pairing could better describe The Newsroom. It’s regular name-checking of legendary American news anchors – Walter Kronkite, for one – shows the view that Sorkin has of news broadcasting. It is a noble, vital format. This he tries to capture with The Newsroom. The team consistently go against the orders from bosses, who are concerned only with advertising revenue. In ACN’s Newsnight, Sorkin has laid out his utopian vision of Habermass’ Public Sphere. He wants to reclaim journalism from profit and partisan politics.

The main problem is whether this type of journalism ever really existed. Mainstream press, radio, broadcasting – unless it is government owned, it has its eyes on profit. Outside the mainstream, the issue of one-sided politics is likely to be evermore present.

I have no doubt that broadcast journalism – journalism as whole, in fact – has seen better days, both financially and ethically. But the dream chased by Sorkin – it seems to be more a view of the past preserved in amber, with the dirt and sleaze wiped away.