Fraters Libertas

Emote or Die

The issue of media bias is a multi-faceted one and the litany of indications I have not the inspiration to compose at this time. But one of the more obvious, most justifiable forms is also one of the most damaging to a newspaper's reputation and standing among its readers. That is, the use of an opinion column for a non-political beat to advocate for partisan political positions.

A text book example of this comes from the Pioneer Press's theater critic, Dominic Papatola. On Sunday he reviewed the Guthrie Theater's presentation of "Oedipus," which included this petulant nip:

For those who were bummed out by Thursday's inauguration, the political metaphor in "Oedipus" is clear and comforting: A leader so sure of himself that he won't listen to good advice and common sense is finally hoisted on the petard of his own hubris.

The failure of the American President (and by logical extension, the USA), is a "comforting" thought"? I think we can divine from that comment that Papatola was indeed "bummed out" by the inauguration of GW Bush. So much so, he returns to this theme for his column's conclusion:

Is Oedipus' destiny avoidable? Sophocles doesn't think so, but just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes many voices to keep a family or a community or a country proceeding in the correct direction. That was true long before Oedipus' tussle with fate and remains so long after. This telling of the tale amply highlights the idea that we ignore those voices at our peril.

Yes, the oncoming peril of our nation, due to the President's "hubris." This profound, seering political analysis brought to you on page 13 of the Entertainment section, right next to the Isaac Asimov Super Quiz and the continuing travails of Ziggy.

To be fair, Papatola is writing an opinion column. He's been hired to provide a point-of-view and to be creative in his writing. Which makes the seeping of partisan politics into his prose, arguably, justifiable. But, even so, it's no less alienating to the reader. At least to those who are genuinely curious about the Guthrie's interpretation of a literary classic and who don't happen to agree with Papatola's facile political observations. This is where you'd hope an editor, with some business perspective and respect for an ideological diverse circulation, would intervene with his blue pencil and clean it up, for the benefit of all.

With the offending paragraphs included, all it does is communicate that the reviewer (and by extension the Pioneer Press) and the liberal elite establishment are all on the same team here. They "get it" about Bush and can feel free to trade their snarky little barbs anywhere they see fit. And those who don't get it, well, they're not reading theater reviews anyway. And if they are, who cares?

This issue would have exorcised me much more in the past, back when the Pioneer Press also employed a TV critic and a music critic prone to ad hominem political assaults in virtually every column they'd write. But with their wise removal, comes a greater degree of slack cutting for the Pioneer Press. They've made great strides toward balance, I appreciate it, and I can now view Papatola more as an anachronistic scolding relic of "hubris," rather than the continuing voice of the bias status quo.

Plus, I probably can't refute Papatola anymore than one of his interview subjects did in a different article, also appearing on Sunday. Excerpts (noncontiguous):

Social and political criticism among artists is back in vogue today. A number of actors and musicians [ed. note - and theater critics] became active in the 2004 presidential campaign, taking an ideological stand that alienated some of their fans.

Ironically, [Brian] Dennehy has about as much tolerance for that as he does for being mistaken for Brian Keith.

"To be perfectly honest, the minute an actor opens his mouth and somebody else's lines don't come out, I head for the door," he said. "Actors are the last people - I guess rock 'n' roll stars might be even worse - who should be talking about politics."

"I have no problem with people doing whatever they want to do politically," he said. "But, with a couple of exceptions, I'm not tremendously impressed by the level of debate that I hear from these people. It seems like received wisdom rather than something they've thought out themselves. P. Diddy? I can do without his political analysis for the rest of my life."

One can only hope Papatola was actually listening as he scribbled that quote down. Because I'm sure there are a lot of Pioneer Press readers who can do without Dominic "P. Diddy" Papatola's political analysis for the rest of their lives.

UPDATE: Lileks notes the Guthrie was directly marketing their Oedipus as a modern day political allegory. It seems P. Diddy Papatola didn't do as much creative thinking as I gave him credit for.

Lileks's observations on the mindset of the Guthrie marketing people applies equally as well to activist theater reviewers and media entities.

I don't think it occurred to the people who cooked up this campaign that it might not give everyone the same self-satisfied smirk it provided to the author of the copy. I think this one got anointed with groupthink lubricant and slid unhindered down the chute. I think they'd honestly be surprised to find that anyone objected. No, amend that: anyone who mattered.

This is why companies of all sorts should keep one Republican on staff, perhaps behind glass, with a small hammer on a chain nearby in case of emergency. Run this stuff past the old dinosaur now and then. Just for fun. Could help. Never know.