Can we not stop this?!
Analysis: The first two witnesses called Wednesday testified to President Trump’s scheme, but lacked the pizzazz necessary to capture public attention.
Oh yes, very analysis, much thoughtful.
PIZZAZZ??? What are we, six? Were we expecting clowns and fireworks and a street dance? Can we not be adults for one day? Lust for “pizzazz” is what got us in this fucking mess.
I’m not the only one who reacted that way.
FWIW, my “analysis”: What we don’t need: a journalist’s guess about “how this played.” What we do need: reportage of who said what, how it was backed up, what was new, how it matches the records and the law.
Jennifer Rubin replying to Fallows:
And what we really don’t need is journalists commenting on whether they thought it was exciting enough. If you are bored watching an historic impeachment hearing, guys get a new job.
No.
She works for NBC, by the way, which makes it all the more eloquent.
What’s wrong with them? Were they expecting a wardrobe malfunction?
A wag who goes by Full Tilt Booty:
I call the next witness!
Comments
12 responses to “The pizzazz deficit”
I remember people complaining that the Watergate hearings were boring. Really? I found them fascinating (and I was only 14!). It was history in the making. It was the future of how our country would function. It was greed, power, crime, and corruption.
This is the same thing we get as academics. Engage the students. Entertain the students. Nothing about Educate the students.
It’s all ratings, all the way down. Celebrity, celebrity, celebrity.
Well, be fair: those first two witnesses aren’t even trying to pull off decent jazz hands.
OMG it’s just like the Simpsons episode with KidzNewz:
https://youtu.be/zypg593EjzU
Lacking pizzazz? What is this, 1983?
The impeachment will count only if the hearings get higher ratings than Trump.
I remember when Geoffrey Howe denounced Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons. Howe was a quiet, grey man, and usually regarded as a bore. His measured delivery was riveting. Quiet in form, devastating in content. In a couple of weeks Thatcher had fallen. Historic events don’t necessarily come with a lot of shouting and firing of guns.
And here I was thinking it was just the American pluaral for Pizza. We need more PIZZA!
I second that motion.
It’s interesting that political journalists and their editors consider this kind of “theater criticism” to fall on the “ok” side of the fact/opinion divide.
When Trump or other Republicans make a factual assertion that is flat-out, disprovably false, standard journalistic procedure in the U.S. is to do some mealy-mouthed “opinions differ on the shape of the earth, some say it’s flat” that allows low- and medium-information voters to conclude that it’s all just partisan bickering.
But these same journalists and editors feel 100% comfortable describing a witness as dull, or a political candidate as “angry” or “bossy” (well, a woman candidate at least), even though these are inherently opinion.
Argh. Good point; so they do.
Who the fuck is this guy, to tell us whether our imaginations have or have not been captured?
Artymorty – there’s a Simpson’s for everything. And if there isn’t, you’ll find a Monty Python for it. If all else fails, try Garfield.