Politics, Compartmentalized (anti-intellectualized?)

There is a lot in politics and political coverage that I can (and have) criticized. From the unneeded emphasis on religion to superfluous character bashing, it’s a subject I've come to disdain from over-exposure and general ennui and cynicism. (Oh, hormones)

But there’s been one overarching trend that I’ve noticed in political coverage that is something I have little to no opinion toward. That is, that political coverage—hell, journalism in general—has begun to simplify every issue, every character trait into bite-size, easy to swallow formats. Take CNN’s election website “Election center 2008” for instance. Headed up with a section titled “meet the candidates,” each contender is broken down into his or her essentials: place of birth, current job, spending record, stance on push button issues, poll records, supporters, advisers. . . it’s all there in prettily designed boxes and non threatening portions. The same can be seen in Yahoo’s Election 08 page. Top stories are parsed out from stories about religion, social issues, and opinion an editorial pieces. Everything is categorized, classified, labeled.
Okay, maybe I lied. . . I do have an opinion. (Surprise, surprise.) While on the one hand, easy to read formats could encourage readers to learn the facts, the big picture. On the other hand, too often, readers only get one side of the story. Given the choice to click on what they wish, consumers too often create a self editorialized world of political journalism. Even reading a hard copy of Newsweek magazine, I found myself attracted to only certain displays of my favorite candidate’s faces and quotes. Dying are the sweeping political stories, which focus on the big picture of the entire candidate (or even better, the big picture of the political arena itself.)

Be this a fault in today’s readership or a fault in the field of journalism, I don’t know.

I just know that nobody except for you will read this, Prof Drew, because it’s far too large a block of text. Most readers need shorter statements, more pictures, more colors and a good deal less thought.

Overkill much?

To be labeled a plagiarist as a journalist is a death sentence. You become an untouchable--a member of that gollum-like class who will never see their name in print ever again unless Hollywood decides to make a movie about your giant screw up and cast Hayden Christiansen to play you (Shattering Glass, anyone?) This is why it's absolutely imperative that the word plagiarism be used with special care...because if thrown around carelessly, it can ruin lives.

Which brings me to the case of Professor John C. Merrill from the University of Missouri. Dismissed from his job and smeared as a journalist, the man's legacy of a journalistic career was blown to pieces due to a "plagiarism" scandal. The writing in question: a column in which he had not attributed a quote, originally collected by a student journalist.

Now let's consider. Was this a case of plagiarism? Yes, in the technical sense. Was it an example of plagiarism that warranted his dismissal? Not at all. Plagiarism is like any other crime...there are distinct levels of severity. A misdemeanor is not comparable to a conviction of manslaughter and should not elicit the same verdict. Essentially, Professor Merrill got sentenced to prison life when a couple weeks of community service should have done the trick.

It's a case of flagrant overkill, if you ask me. Why should someone be fired for quoting something someone said, simply because someone else heard it first, especially if it's an opinion piece? I know myriad professional columnists who do this on a regular basis. The only difference in this case was that the quote was drawn from a student publication. Strange double standard.

I myself have felt the tyranny of plagiarism nazis in the past. Asked to write a paper about a social issue, my senior year of high school, I pulled several paragraphs from my own past papers on anti-intellectualism. My teacher happened to have read a previous paper of mine and "confronted" me about it. I readily admitted to it, as all the work was mine and I felt I was safe in recycling my own hard-earned research. I got an F on the paper.

We live in a paranoid society, overburdened with the pressure to appear moral, rather than be moral. Far too often, we miss the point and castigate someone to form an "example" but all it ultimately does is scare the living daylights out of everyone. So now we're all huddling among ourselves, afraid to take a chance with our writing. And that, ultimately, is what is going to murder journalism.