OK, I'm really trying to understand the public's interest in this Petraeus thing. Congressmen's interest I get. They're idiots. The media's interest I can appreciate. They're whores. But the public's interest? The same public that quite understandably didn't give a damn that a president of the United States was getting blown betwixt bombing strikes? This presents a challenge.
Indeed I'm so determined to get to the bottom of this sordid curiosity--if actual curiosity there be--I even took the time to read the Daily Beast's Exclusive: Paula Broadwell’s Emails Revealed. Now that's desperate. But you know what's there? Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing but an admission from a "source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community," that the emails contained, well, nothing. "The messages were instead what the source terms 'kind of cat-fight stuff.' More like, 'Who do you think you are? ... You parade around the base ... You need to take it down a notch.' "
This is prurient?
Nonetheless I'm glad I read the story, because it also reveals that mob wives, at least, are orthographically sensitive:
Mafia wives are notably more liable to express their fury physically than, say, military spouses. The wife of one Gambino crime-family boss sent an email concerning her philandering husband that was unquestionably a death threat. She then followed it with an apology.
"I am sorry I misspelled 'arsenic.' "
Now that's a woman of refinement and propriety.
On what basis do you think the public is really interested in this story?
The fact that the media acts as if the public is interested in it does not mean that the public is, in reality, interested in it.
And this is a major problem in this country. Whatever the media shows an interest in is, or at least is seen to be, something the public is interested in, when frequently that is not the case.
Watch a White House press conference then review the transcript of one of Obama's special town halls. The questions are totally different. Of course, the latter is far more representative of what the public is interested in.
I think that if everybody were required to watch the daily briefings that Carney gives, the majority would stop paying any attention to the media.
Posted by: japa21 | November 13, 2012 at 02:42 PM
But then, I may be giving the public too much credit.
Posted by: japa21 | November 13, 2012 at 02:44 PM
You failed to mention how poorly written that story was. Ugh. No more Daily Beast for me. I wish Michelle Goldberg would go elsewhere.
Posted by: You Don't Say | November 13, 2012 at 04:58 PM
I agree, japa21....I do not give a shit what David P was doing with whomever...but sex sells, so the media is all over it big time.
Posted by: sueme | November 13, 2012 at 07:09 PM
The whole tangles affair doesn't mean anything. And that's precisely why we're tuned in to it at our house! We've gnashed our teeth and sweated through all these long months of Mitt and company and now we just want to zone out.
Posted by: Sharon | November 13, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Outside of making sure that there was no threat to national security, this really isn't a story. It's just a common tale of a work place affair gone bad and is just as likely to happen at the local Wal Mart as in the highest levels of government. I am dismayed that the media once again, pays more attention to digging up all the details of some sordid extramarital dalliance than to the troops in Afghanistan or any other real story of importance that we should be paying attention to. But I guess that is the state of today's corporate media. It's all about what sells to make a profit for them, not real stories that would keep the public engaged in real issues so that we have more capability to vote for candidates interested in governing than tea party drama queens who are more interested in their own personal fame.
Posted by: AnneJ | November 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM