the age of the kvetch

The peerless David Brooks manages to find something new and interesting to say about the McChrystal affair, by placing it in a history of the changing relationship between the media and the establishment:

During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties...

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances. Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball.

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life.

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Read the whole thing. I'm off to Oxford to listen to some clever people talking, so blogging will be light to non-existent today.

Enjoy the sunshine when you can.

Comments

[kjc]

i prefer scahill.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/36660/david-brooks-king-kvetching

[kjc]

another take on Brooks. Pilger so much smarter than Brooks.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/29/john_pilger_there_is_a_war

[Marbury]

Oh come on, John Pilger? A self-regarding, sanctimonious, platitudinous dinosaur from the dimmest regions of the left.