The @whca are cowards. The media is complicit. And I couldnât be prouder. https://t.co/OOIFGuZ731
Comedy now equals courage? A noted historian's disquisition taking Trump apart at the seams cannot represent courage?I think what she is arguing is that a historian focused on the presidency is less likely to call out the media for their role in enabling some of Trumpâs shit the way they whined about her doing in her speech last year. She is saying they are cowards for trying to avoid getting called out again.
This is an excellent point. It depends on what the speech is about.
I think the answer to both is âyesâ⌠comedians and historianâs both can represent courage depending on the content of what they present.
The historian can chose courage (in my opinion) and shred Trump and his administration for things like the âfake newsâ and âenemies of the peopleâ and chastise the press as well for things like continuous airing the full Trumpâs rallies. Or, the historian can choose to just read something.
Chernow is intelligent. He knows the audience heâs dealing with, the history of the dinner, the theme of past events. I have confidence he wonât subject everyone to some dry, canned, unremarkable speech. Each of these is someoneâs âmomentâ so to speak. If nothing else heâll jazz things up a bit just to encourage his book sales and exposure.
Viewership for this one will be WAY down.
I agree thatâs what sheâs saying, but I also got the distinct impression from the write-up about Chernow that he intends to talk about the press:
âFreedom of the press is always a timely subject and this seems like the perfect moment to go back to basics. My major worry these days is that we Americans will forget who we are as a peopleâŚ" â Chernow
Iâm optimistic that heâll use some academic rigor to highlight the importance of an active, alert, critical press.
Perhaps it might be useful to try something other than a humorous litany of media failings. We have done that, a lot, and weâre going to keep doing it in the future. I enjoyed Wolfâs turn at the podium, but society is free to reach for other tools.
As I said before, I think Chernow will play it safe.
If he doesnât, whoo boy, it could be awesome.
All Imma say for now is that folks really should check out Chernowâs political POV.
I mean, I enjoyed reading his bio on Hamilton, in large part because, Jeez Loueez, Hamilton led the most interesting life of any American pol certainly until Lincoln.(unless youâre into villains,and then Vidalâs fictionalized bio âBurrâ is for you - besides being actual literature, unlike what he far drier and rarely even wry leave aside witty or insightful Chernow churns out - GAAAAAH I have no appetite at all for reading Chernow on anyone of lesser inherent importance and interest than Hamilton, and even then I only read Chernow on Hamilton because thereâs so little else on offer for such a fascinating original American.)
Also, hint: Whoever is tht Hamilton of the phenomenally successful musical, it sure wasnât the Alexander Hamilton that envisioned a permanent national bureaucracy of experts to oversee the new country much in the manner of the designers of New Foundation or Iain Banksâ Culture.
Chernowâs POV is not actually pro democratic, certainly nowhere remotely progressive, and only liberal in the larger post Rousseau sense. Itâs more like aloof elitist glibertarian.
Sure a historian can have courage challenging things, but thatâs not why they picked one. They picked him because no matter what he says, he doesnât have the public speaking experience or exposure to call attention to either the dinner or a wider audience than a performer would. Plus, the very mission of historians is to put events in the context of decades of perspective - in other worlds, the exact opposite sentiment needed to address events happening between the press and the White House now.
So, youâre saying the WHCA is trying to lie low this year? Why? To take the heat off? To avoid Trumpâs wrath?
Why is historical perspective the opposite of what we need right now?
Thereâs a difference between providing historical context vs. normalizing the outrageous. So, setting aside @avattoirâs suggestion that Chernow is not politically liberal, I trust the the context history provides will show that our society has gained a lot from a free press, and even depended upon it in moments of crisis (e.g. Watergate). If thatâs true, I think itâs a good argument and itâs worth rehearsing it for everyone.
WH Correspondentsâ Association âCowardsâ For Ditching Comedy
Yes.
They donât want a comedian because comedians have been very effective at pointing out how badly THEY are doing - how theyâre acting like supplicants and enablers whoâve failed miserably at even acknowledging the danger theyâre in, much less doing anything to counter it. Much better to bring in an academic to praise the value of the free press over the decades, bring up the glories of Watergate, and otherwise give them a massage.
And thatâs the value of comics and performers - they engage the audience RIGHT NOW about a problem happening RIGHT NOW, as opposed to a professor who leads the group into a stupor talking about how the current situation relates to something that happened to Estes Kefauver in 1952 and zzzzzzâŚ
Chernowâs speech will be something like âStephen Colbertâ more than a decade ago, where he made Dubya visibly squirm. As I recall, his speech did NOT go over very well with all the talking heads in the room. It wasnât until the general public weighed in (and was viewed a zillion times on YouTube) that it was viewed as masterful. I expect no less from Chernow â the shitgibbon will squirm (who are we kidding â heâll wuss out AGAIN) because Chernow will assail him with facts and truth and humor. It wonât go over very well with the media in the room, but by Sunday afternoon it will as well received as any comedianâs set.
Iâm with her.
I would be curious to know what the WHCA was really thinking. If this is intended to remove the dinner from the spotlight so it is no longer an event that fosters an overly chummy relationship between the media and those in power, this change is a good thing â even if we will lose an occasional awesome âtruth to powerâ comedy routine in the process. If it had occurred prior to the election of Trump, it would have been easier to applaud. Now, at first blush, it just looks like they are trying to avoid controversy.
Chernowâs speech will be something like âStephen Colbertâ more than a decade ago, where he made Dubya visibly squirm. As I recall, his speech did NOT go over very well with all the talking heads in the room.
So much so that they booked Rich Little the following year. Rich Little.
Exactly! The best way to judge a WHCD performance is who the WHCA picks the next year. Colbert & Wolfe both said what needed to be said at exactly the right time.
I know, I thought they had to go to some 3rd class Hollywood cemetery to dig him up.
Turns out it was a fourth class nursing home where his humor had been in a coma since Nixon resigned.
What
Ho!
Cowards
Approaching.