Addicted to novelty since 2001

Kudos to the Editor of Vanity Fair

I’m trying to pay as little attention to American domestic politics as possible these days. I’m interested in their internatonal activities, but the politicians and the reportage is so polarized that it’s tedious to watch. Regardless, I was pleased to see Judy Bachrach from Vanity Fair lay into the President’s lavish inauguration celebrations. She’s even up on her history–citing FDR’s humble war-time party. As she puts it:

During a time of war, 10 parties are not appropriate, when your own soldiers are sitting ducks in very, very bad vehicles.

I’m sure FOX figured she’d come on and discuss what frocks the Bush girls would be wearing. Instead, in four minutes, she managed to powerfully illustrate how the absurd partisanship of the network.

Between Ms. Bachrach and Jon Stewart, we’re witnessing a new trend–call it ambush punditry. The media just can’t seem to catch a break these days, can they?

5 Responses to “Kudos to the Editor of Vanity Fair”

  1. Anonymous

    Perhaps parties are not the greatest idea at this time, but somehow, I think that had the election gone the other way, Michael Moore would be stuffing his fat mouth with free crab cakes, and Baghdad Bab’s would be belting out songs of celebration.

  2. Jon

    Usually, pundits like Bachrach are expected to comment on matters of taste– “that choice of dress is awful given her figure” or “that bunting clashes with the bandleader’s suit”… something along those gossipy lines.

    But if we’re grownups here, as opposed to overgrown teenagers, it’s perfectly reasonable to question the good taste of the whole shebang (or all 10 of them). Is it in good taste to to stage an ostentatious, 40 million dollar party, when the same taxpayer money could go toward solving glaring wartime problems? (Such as Humvee armor problem she mentions.)

    There’s a good chance it would be in bad taste to comment on the Bush girls’ dresses when the whole function itself in bad taste.

    So Bachrach is perfectly within her mission as a society reporter when she makes these kinds of comments.

    And it’s not like she’s bringing down the level of discourse at Fox. When in Rome…

  3. Richard

    Somehow we seem to forget the fact that Clinton’s 1993 inauguration cost $33 million.

    I know though, once you go over $35 million is starts to get ridiculous.

  4. forklift

    The $40 million was private donations. I’m a proud Democrat from a dark-blue state (NY). But, when we start to stretch the truth, we become no better than those we despise.

  5. Augie De Blieck Jr.

    Not only is the majority of the “party” funded by private corporations, it still doesn’t show how having a party means a Humvee in Iraq won’t have armor. That’s a whole ‘nother issue based on hysteria instead of facts, but it’s still an apples and oranges comparison. I see that one brought up a lot. Good to see the Talking Points are making their way around the Blogosphere.

Comments are closed.