Can we please have a moratorium on a particular journalism cliché? I don’t know if it has a name, but I’m calling it the trick opening. It’s used to alert the reader to a supposed historic parallel to a present-day situation. Here’s an example in this weekend’s New York Times Book Review, from the beginning of a review of a book about Bill Clinton’s first term:
The president is a failure. His foreign policy is a mess, and he’s hounded by scandals at home. A hostile opposition has seized the Congress, and he’s fought to stay relevant in the face of humiliating approval ratings.
George W. Bush today? No. Bill Clinton in 1995.
The name of the book prominently appears at the top of the review: “Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.” There’s also a big photo of Bill Clinton at the top. So it’s not like we don’t know the book being reviewed is about Bill Clinton.
Are we supposed to find this opening clever? “Wow! You sure got me! At first I thought you were talking about George Bush — I had no idea you were actually talking about Bill Clinton!”
I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. I come across this trick in the newspaper every so often, and it always annoys me. It’s just lazy.
That’s not even an apt comparison; they’re not in the same league! I am no huge Bill Clinton fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but let’s get real, here. Clinton’s lowest approval rating ever was 43%. Bush’s is 35% and probably not going anywhere but down. Clinton did a lot of sketchy things, but, for Pete’s sake, I’ll take him and his team back in a heartbeat over the embarrassing and tragic shenanigans we’ve got now. Seriously, was our country actually more outraged over a blowjob than a war based on lies? Really? Fuck me, no wonder I drink so much. (Disclosure: I’m actually not drinking right now, I’m babysitting my grandma. However, I did spend the afternoon at the pool today with a 32 oz sports bottle filled with vodka. GOD I love suburbia.)
Pingback: The Tin Man » Trick Openings 2
Actually, Clinton’s lowest rating was 36%. Several polls had him in the 30s during his first spring as president.
First of all, it ain’t over yet. Bush will get the legacy he earned, and since he’s never worked an honest day in his life, so will be his legacy.
Moreover, Americans are finally asking themselves the same question Andy asked, is getting a blowjob really as bad as getting the world blown up?
It will take more than clever journalistic tricks to make Bush like like something besides a greedy warthug in the years to come. Clinton, on the other hand, is seen as a philanthropist, an altruist, a normal man who (blush, shush!) likes (liked?) to get his d*ck sucked. I’ll take the latter legacy any day- er, uh…if I could…
Yes, Clinton was tacky and made compromises he shouldn’t have. Bush is a terrorist.
Bush’s current nadiris 26%.