|
MAY 2008 MAY 28, 2008: GAY RIGHTS AND THE BURIED LEDE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
|
We publishing-types spell things funny. A headline is a "hed;" material that's "to come" is abbreviated "TK;" and the opening of an article - it's lead - is a "lede." A "buried lede" refers to a piece of information in an article that's actually more important than the info which the writer chose to use in that article's lede. For example, an article about the performance of Our American Cousin on April 14, 1865 that waited until the fourth graph (pub-speak for paragraph) to mention that Abraham Lincoln had been shot would be an excellent example of a buried lede. This posting has a buried lede, as does as the article to which it refers.
That's wonderful, world-changing news. But what the article didn't elaborate on was that the survey also indicated that the number of people who could give a rat's ass about the controversy had also risen to the highest percentage in charted history. Seven percent of those polled had no opinion whatsoever of same-sex marriage. That's the buried lede to which I'm referring.
What the Field Poll discovered was that there's a rising number of Californians who could care less about gay marriage. It's not on their radar. They don't give a damn one way or another. We're transitioning into the "who-gives-a-fuck" zone. "Gay marriage? Whatever. What's on TV tonight? Did David Cook win? How's Fukudome doing? Uh, gay marriage? Why should I care?" That's wonderful. The gay-marriage debate is becoming boring, and that's a good thing. The hatemongers are losing. The anti-humanists are failing to incite the masses. More and more Californians are tuning out the bigots, popping open a frosty beverage, and saying, "Hey, whatever, let folks be folks. Let 'em saddle themselves to whomever they wanna saddle themselves. I want to watch the game." Wouldn't it be wonderful if the vote this November was a total yawner? Wouldn't it be great if the newspaper articles on the morning after talked about all the various and sundry other races and propositions, and then added in the fourth paragraph, "...and the effort to add an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment to the state constitution was defeated, 60% to 40%." That's a buried lede I'm looking forward to. [back to top] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
|
Social change may advance in fits and starts, but one way to be certain that a movement has gone mainstream is when you see companies deciding that catering to members of that movement is a good way to improve their bottom lines.
Nice, huh? Certainly put a smile on my face. Notice that there's no mention whatsoever of the lesbian couple enjoying their new McRoskey mattress - it's just a straightforward advertisement. There's no "lezzing up" the image in any way, no semiotic signposts (is that a redundancy? hmmm...) announcing LGBT solidarity, no tricky double-entendre wording in the copy. Nothing. It's just a mattress ad. Sweet - and yet another reason to love living in San Francisco. Y'see, there are very few places in the Land of the Free™ where such an ad could run without igniting the wrath of the local hate-mongers. Here in the cool grey city of love, however, marketers have awakened to the fact that there's plenty of good money to be made by being respectful to all the people who live in their city.
Now, tell me, which world would you prefer to live in? The one in which exceedingly attractive lesbians grace the pages of your local Sunday magazine, or the one in which a wrinkled old geek leads a crowd that waves signs with such uplifting slogans as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" at the funerals of service members killed in Iraq? Personally, I'll take dykes in Frisco over dicks in Topeka any day of the week. We San Franciscans live in a great town, with great people - straight, gay, and everywhere in between - and a great mattress manufacturer. I just really wish I needed some new bedding. [back to top] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
|
A while back I ran into an old friend and we got to talking about blogging. He religiously posts daily; I don't (as has been obvious for the past few weeks). He told me that I should follow his example. I disagree.
When I was a clock-punching journalist, I had to regularly fill what we called "buckets" - journalist-speak for repeating editorial elements such as, well, editorials. For 19 years I watched as many of those buckets were filled by me, my collegues, and my competitors with dreck-on-a-deadline. If you've ever worked in that world, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout - and if, instead, you insist that each and every one of your contributions was inspired and finely honed, well, the degree of your bull-tookie slinging is sliding down to Hillary-Clinton level. As each day during the past two weeks has gone by - during which, by the way, I've been busy with other (paying) stuff - I've thought, "Hmm ... it's been a while since I posted on Myslewski.com; maybe I should get off my duff and show my meager readership that I'm still alive." However, I'd quickly come to my senses and remember that a blog should be more than a mere proof-of-pulse. It should, instead, be a place where ideas and opinions of substance and insight (and yes, recipes) are shared with the world. To be perfectly frank, I simply haven't had any great insights recently - and neither have I created anything new in the kitchen that's been worth sharing. The world has continued spinning, but my reactions to its rotations have been mundane. Okay, so the guys who run Myanmar are short-sighted fucks (uh, yeah, obviously). The Chinese government's openness to the press after the Sichuan earthquake is partly a sign of their increasingly transparent society and partly a public-relations gambit in response to the Tibet situation and the upcoming Olympics (well, uh, duh). The recent California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is a Good Thing™ (ooo, that's insightful, Rik). See what I mean? My insightifier is stuck in low gear these days.
What if all journalists, pundits, and bloggers simply vowed that for one week - one short week - they'd avoid the meaningless, the obvious, and the sensational? Ah, what a blessed week that would be! Back in the late 60s, there was a wonderful psychedelic poster with the saying, "May the baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind." I've always loved that sentiment - and maybe if the li'l proto-savior can open my mind sufficiently, an insight might pop in - or, for that matter, at least an interesting way to use all those beautiful cherries that just appeared at the farmers' market last weekend. Hmm... Maybe salmon fillets stuffed with cherries, oranges, sweet onions, and hot peppers... If it works out, I'll let you know. If not, I'll shut up. [back to top] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
|
The most recent developments in the Democratic race for the party's presidential nomination have been nothing if not sickening. Obama has tried to point out - weakly, I must admit - what he calls the "silliness" of Clinton's unrelenting attacks, but those attacks are undoubtedly having the effects. Clinton's base is uneducated white folks - that's not an "elitist" slur, it's merely a statistical fact. That group of folks has been battered and bludgeoned by fear, privation, and information-deprivation over the past seven-plus years, and are prime targets for the divide-and-conquer methodology of the Clinton camp. So I sent her an email tonight - I'm certain it will change the entire tenor of the campaign. (Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Romania.) Here 'tis:
"I had hoped that in this first post-Bush election that a Democratic leader would emerge who would rise above the low-ball, win-at-any-costs, Rovian politics that we've endured for the past eight years. "I was wrong. "You'll do anything to be elected, won't you? Chanting the "elitist" mantra at any opportunity, thus portraying Obama as an "uppity Negro;" exploiting the Jeremiah Wright quotes without contextualizing them in any way; throwing "obliterate Iran" red meat to the American exceptionalists; dangling that ludicrous "gas-tax holiday" in front of economically suffering working-class folks (c'mon, if that's not a textbook definition of toss-'em-a-bone pandering, I don't know what is - gimmeabreak); oh, and then there were the self-righteous attempts to bend or break the election rules in Las Vegas, Florida, and Michigan, along with your ludicrous attempt to claim a larger number of popular votes than Obama based upon the meaningless elections in FL 'n' MI. How stupid do you think we are? (Pretty stupid, I can only assume.) Sigh... "You sadden me, as I mentioned above. "I once thought that Obama had a chance to defeat McCain should your rival become our nominee, but now I think that your savagery has damaged him sufficiently that even if he does overcome your attacks and becomes the Democratic candidate, that Mr. Hero™ McCain will defeat him. "Is that what you want? So that you'll have another chance in 2012? "Gawd, politics sucks. "So, congratulations on the effectiveness of what I can only assume is your conscious effort to sicken each and every thinking American into washing their hands of political discourse, thus allowing you to ride your "the end justifys the means" way into the White House. "You're an indisputably intelligent human being - I can only assume that your intelligence ensures that you must know what you're doing. But can you offer America any shred of nobility? Any thought as to how our country might become less internally divided? Less "Hell with you Jack, I got mine?" Less dog-eat-dog? "I don't think so - at least, I haven't heard anything from you that gives me such hope.
"Yes, you're a better politician than Obama - if politics is, as we've learned in the past dozen or so years, simply the cynical manipulation of public opinion rather than the inspiration of and leadership of our shared country. "(Oh, and if you are elected, I'll probably find myself on a no-fly list.) "Sigh... "Ah, but you'll never see this. Some low-level functionary has most likely been instructed to simply rate this as an "unfavorable" email, click that button on his or her MessageManagerPro software, and then delete this note. "Just like they do in the Bush White House. "As The Who sang when we were both kids, "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss." Okay, back to blog-mode here. What do you think the odds are of Clinton ever reading the above? One in a million? One in a squillion? One in a zillion? If you pick any of those three choices, you'd be right. Sigh... [back to top] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Today's 
When social change happens, the transition usually follows a predictable path from status-quo to pitched battles to narrow victory to who-gives-a-fuck. Check it out: Slavery: First it was accepted practice, then the Abolitionists kicked some serious ass, then the anti-slavery folks won, then - now, actually - nobody really gives slavery a second thought. "Duh ... it's wrong. Next question?" Run the same numbers with women's right to vote, mixed-race marriage, integrated schools, and the like. Same old, same old.
Contrast this approach with that of, say, my personal-favorite raving lunatic, the irrepressible 
There is, in my opinion, far too much written and stated simply because there are deadlines to be met and pages to be filled. Pundits pontificate, bloviaters bloviate, talking heads talk, and editors editorialize - all motivated by unforgiving schedules rather than by important ideas. The result? Much of their commentary is completely and thoroughly useless.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the incessant and equally non-insightful drumbeat of blather from the chattering classes stopped for a few days? No "
"You sadden me.
"Oh, and did I mention that you sadden me?