The Paradox of the News Media

This past week, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Naturally, there are both supporters and critics of the decision, as there are whenever a President nominates someone whom they want to interpret the law in a certain manner. Thanks in part to our frustratingly bipartisan political system, those on the right are quite skeptical of the pick, just as those on the left were equally critical of G.W. Bush's two picks (John Roberts and Samuel Alito).

I, like every other patriotic American, support this process. Sure, it's not the greatest example of representative democracy, but it ostensibly allows members of Congress to debate over Sotomayor's qualifications and decide whether or not she belongs on the highest court in the land. An intense debate--fueled by the facts and information surrounding Ms. Sotomayor's record--is yet another example of the wonderful "freedom" and "justice" with which this country is blessed.

Yet as the first decade of the 21st century races to its conclusion, we are facing the paradox of the 24-hour, instantaneous news cycle. Although we can access the web from our fancy phones, connect with others sharing the same interest through Twitter or Facebook, and choose from a handful of round-the-clock news programs on cable television, we aren't as well informed as we might believe.

Yes, that may sound like a bold assertion to you, but hear me out. It's been nearly five days since Obama announced his nomination, and in that time the news media has managed to successfully label her a racist. You'd have to scour to find evidence of her judicial record, or even basic biographical information about her. But that stuff doesn't seem pertinent to the news media. In fact, if you've listened to any of the critics wheeled out before the cameras to judge the Justice-to-be, you assuredly know nothing more than Sotomayor's history of "reverse racism." Oh, and the fact that she hates fire fighters.

But how can this be? How on earth could President Obama nominate such an evil, evil woman?

Oh, that's right. She's actually not a racist.

You see, professional blowhards like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other pudgy, middle-aged white males with their own television and radio programs have illustrated Sotomayor's racist record by citing one sentence (yes, one sentence) culled from a speech she delivered at the University of California in 2001. It reads as follows:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Okay. I've taken a step back. I'm trying to appreciate that quotation from their perspective. I suppose it does look a little damaging, especially when you switch around the two races mentioned within (which, Newt Gingrich contends, would get a white dude fired faster than you can say Sotomayor). Although one could also say that this quotation is more about bringing a diversity of opinions and perspectives to a judicial body. Perhaps we should examine the whole speech in an effort to understand where she was coming from when she said this. I'm sure that professional pundits, who have an obligation to best inform their viewership/readership/listenership took the time to examine Ms. Sotomayor's argument before they made the bold claim that she is a racist.

Oh, wait. It appears that they didn't. How careless of them! She actually was speaking to the benefits of having a variety of perspectives in the judiciary. In nearly the same breath as her supposedly inflammatory quotation, she actually recognized that whites on the Supreme Court have historically made some decisions that positively affected minorities. In fact, she said it a whole hell of a lot more artfully than me. Take a look for yourself:

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

Getting back to my main point, the coverage of Sotomayor's nomination is just another example pointing to the rapid devolution of our country's news information. A quick browse of a site like Media Matters for America shows you how many talking heads have parroted this tripe. Rather than news sites providing text of Sotomayor's speech, that one sentence is dragged completely out of context and presented to the public as if it were representative of the woman's entire stance on race. Outlets like CBS News uncritically report on former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter's opinion of the quote, but don't even bother to mention what Sotomayor's speech was about.

The larger idea that I'm trying to address is that in this age of ubiquitous information, one must be critical of that which they read, hear, or watch. I'm anything but a Luddite, as I actively Twitter and start every morning with a cup of coffee and a perusal of the internet. I take my cell phone with me everywhere and I even maintain a list of the music I listen to so that others in cyberspace can check out my tastes. So I'm not swearing off technology or anything like that. This is just a plea to constantly question the information you receive. We should never part with our curiosity, as it's one of our greatest intellectual traits.

So when you hear someone label Sonia Sotomayor a racist, take it with a grain of salt. Ask why she is labeled a racist, and if you're offered a sound bite in lieu of an answer, determine its source and seek to place it within its context. Not everyone has time to do all of that, I know. But that's all the more reason to be wary of the things you hear in the news media.

More on Phish

Two tickets to see the greatest band to ever grace the planet are sitting on my desk. Did I mention they'll be setting up shop underneath the Green Monster at Fenway Park?

Oh. You're right. I mentioned that in my last post.

Suffice it to say that it's been the number one thing I've been looking forward to during the past few days. It's Tuesday evening as I write this, which means they'll be taking the stage in five days. Yow-zah, yow-zah.

Looks like I'll be going with my brother Matt, who's definitely not the biggest Phish fan you'll ever meet, but I'm fairly certain that he relishes any sort of concert experience. He's seen a lot more shows than me, but I have a feeling I'll be filling him in on the titles of songs in the Phish repertoire.

Speaking of songs, the wife and I were walking the dog this morning and she asked me what I think they'll bust out on Sunday night. Boy, was she sorry she asked. I prattled on for about ten or fifteen minutes. I didn't have predictions, really. I think I came up with a bunch of songs that I would like to see and that I think will have a good chance of being played.

The biggest head-scratcher is the opener. What'll they start the show with? It's safe to say that it won't be "Fluffhead," the soon-to-be-legendary selection they made for their first night back since Coventry. My best guess--which, as the saying goes, is as good as anyone's--is that they'll rock the house with "You Enjoy Myself." If not the opener, I have no doubt that this 25-minute gem will make an appearance somewhere.

I'd also like to see "Reba," but I have a strange feeling that it won't be played at all. Just doesn't seem like the right sort of jam for the venue. I do think a "Split Open and Melt" is a possibility, though, and that would certainly be euphoric for me. "Run Like an Antelope" to close the first set would be predictable but a nice choice. Barring an omission of YEM during the first set, the second set is likely to include either a "David Bowie" or a "Harry Hood." I'm leaning toward the latter, and that would make me happier.

Aside from staples, they'll undoubtedly be introducing new material. Why, just today they've released the first track from their forthcoming album: a 13-minute rendition of Trey's "Time Turns Elastic." I haven't yet heard it in its entirety, but don't you find it oddly coincidental that they launched it five days before Fenway? And since they've been recording the new studio album, there's bound to be another song or two that they want to unleash before the crowd of 40,000+.

I've also tried to think of a song with a baseball theme. When Dave Matthews Band played Fenway in 2006, they covered Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" in an ode to Fenway's custom of playing the song over the PA system during the seventh inning stretch. Someone suggested "Mound," although it has nothing to do with the game aside from its title. Someone on Twitter also mused that they could play "Centerfield" by John Fogerty. That would simultaneously amuse and delight the CCR fan in me.

Sometime in the next few days, I should really take a stab at drawing up a Fenway setlist. It'd be fun to compete with others, sort of like an NCAA Basketball pool. What would a 16-seed be in the Phish @ Fenway Pool? "Kung"? "Destiny Unbound"?

All I know is that I don't care to see a "Down with Disease" that lasts over 15 minutes. And I'm serious about that.

Phish @ Fenway

First off, let's face the facts. Once again, during a burst of ambition, I started a writing project fully intending to dedicate myself to it. Well, maybe once-a-week at the very least. You'd think that I would've found my calling in this little hobby of writing. I mean, talking at length about films, music, television and sports? As a rabid consumer of popular culture, you would think that I'd at least have the wherewithal to crank out a couple of paragraphs of stuff at least once-a-month. But nooooooooooo, to borrow the line made famous by John Belushi.

Ironically, the spring semester found me enrolled in a "history of American popular culture" research seminar in the history department. I submit to you that it's not as interesting as its title might imply, but I did have fun crafting a research paper on the use of foreign characters during the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live. See, now you know why I quoted Belushi above. Had to watch mad amounts of SNL, yo.

Anyway, I'm veering away from what I really want to write about. Let's just acknowledge that you may be reading this and thinking that Ryan is back in the saddle and writing a lot again. Well, if that thought crosses your mind, I'll tell you that a) you're naive and b) I hope you're right.

Okay. So I'm writing here tonight because I just bought a pair of tickets to see Phish at Fenway Park ten nights from now.

I'm very, very excited.

Oddly enough, this will be my second time at Fenway Park, and the second time that I will not be there to see a baseball game. Back in the summer of '06, a couple of days before I turned 21, a friend and I went to see Dave Matthews Band play their second night there. We had field seats. They weren't terribly close to the stage in deep centerfield underneath the Green Monster, but they were great.

I've been waiting to see Phish play live for quite a while. I got into them a little bit when they came back from their original hiatus in early 2003, but I mainly stuck to the studio albums, something I would later learn is anathema to genuine Phish fans, since the band's magic is produced in the concert setting.

This time at Fenway I'll be in the stands. Obviously not as good as the field, but I think I've got a decent spot. I've got a pair in the Loge Box on the third base side down closer to the left field line. Won't have to worry about being stuck behind a pole in the grandstand section since I'll be in front of it. Should have an unobstructed view of the stage, huzzah.

Now I need to figure out who gets the other ticket. Not sure yet. No takers.

Dare I say I'll write a review of the show? Well, I guess I dare to say it, but I suppose that doesn't mean I'll do it.

I originally meant to write a longer post, but I'm fading. I've got to get up early in the morning and drive five hours to the family camp in New Hampshire.

So long until I write again! With my record, that might be October!