Slow news cycles are deadly
Slow news cycles breed stupid discourse. I think it was Glenn Thrush who I was starting to like at Politico but today he produced possibly the most inane piece of the new millenium. He decided to 'fact check' Hillary Clinton's claim that she likes both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Except he didn't actually check her iPod, he speculated at length on her possible motives for choosing the songs she listed and decided she had calculated ahead of time what her answer would be, should the question come up. For the record, I like both groups. Although I like the Stones better, if I had an iPod, which I don't, I would likely have songs from both on it. And surely I would have Motown as well. I also remember George Bush being asked that question once. What I don't recall is any breathless speculation about the motives behind his list, although I do remember the songs being discussed at great length. If memory serves the Village consensus was that it proved his populist creds.
Yesterday I saw some headlines about Obama and flags. I believe Obama's lack of lapel pins may have been discussed. Your professional media. Bringing you the really important news. They really do live in an alternate universe.
(Thanks to Mike at C&L for the linky love.)
[More posts daily at The Detroit News]
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:26 PM
7 Comments:
I remember that also. Georgw W. said his favorite group was Jesus and The Apostles.
.
The first few Stones albums were kinda crappy. I couldn't find many songs from them for my mp3 player until the ninth album. For a while they started trying to be the Beatles, which was sad. But "Flowers," "Beggars Banquet," "Let It Bleed," "Sticky Fingers," were all classics, the middle stuff. Most of the other albums have maybe two or three listenable songs out of ten. Then they just became kinda formulaic, a franchise. Their greatest hits albums were better. Best touring band, though. Last rockers to die, betchya. Assuming they're not dead and reanimated, already.
.
LOL Truth. I do believe that was on his shuffle.
Cosa, I'd agree in general although I liked some of their earlier stuff as well. Every album had a couple of songs I loved. But they were definitely the better touring band.
Was Obama wearing a lapel pin when he bumped his head on the helicopter door?
Thrush: you are right: inane piece.
Hey wot. Did Obama bump his head, I missed it. Not surprising, since he's so tall.
This reminded me of an older, similarly crappy story at Slate, and I found it. The premise is that Clinton must be lying, because, y'know, everything the Clintons do is calculated. The author of that piece, Jacob Weisberg, eventually jumped off the Hooray-for-Invading-Iraq bandwagon, and certainly mocked Bush later on, although believed that Bush acted in good faith. Considering how popular the Beatles and the Stones are, especially for people of Clinton's age, this was a ridiculously stupid story even by "we gotta fill up space" standards.
(BTW, I like the Stones, and love some of their songs/albums, but prefer the Beatles much more overall for their variety (and I have greater interest in them as people). Still, speaking as a occasional musician, it's a lotta fun to play songs from both bands. And Motown, too.)
Hey Batocchio,
I like most music. I can't say either Stones or Beatles were my all time favorites. But when they first started I definitely liked the Stones better because they were the bad boyz.
Post a Comment
<< Home