Mar 13 // Feb 28 2017
Above the fold, in Section D. That would work.
The razor sharp difference between a waste of time and profound waste of time.
Late February turned out to be a critical junction for Two Weeks Ago News. We didn’t anticipate having two stories compete so fiercely for the top outrage of the day, especially two stories as ultimately meaningless as the following. But they did! And it proves one thing: When it comes to outrage, we seem to have a lot of flexibility and are willing to shriek almost on cue.
And who is giving us those cues? You decide.
As far as we’re concerned, which of the following is the more ridiculous story is almost too close to call.
Story # 1: President Trump declines to attend the annual White House Correspondents Dinner.
We agree, this makes him appear petulant and vindictive, and something of an anomaly but he does have at least three more chances to attend over the course of his administration. (Since 1924, each President has attended the dinner at least once during his tenure.) So while it’s true that the President seems to hold little regard for the press, it’s far too early to say if he’ll break the almost 100-year tradition of chief executives attending by the end of his term.
Not that he asked, but President Trump would be wise to take a page from President Ford. In 1975, not only did he poke fun at himself – by purposefully tripping and stumbling his way to the stage, and dumping a table of food and dishes into Chevy Chase’s lap while he did – he requested that the comedian perform at the dinner the following year. Good for him; and good for Chevy Chase for playing along.
What a waste of time this story was.
Story # 2: Kellyanne’s posture.
We know we’re not alone here. The Washington Post said as much at the time when they called the controversy “incredibly dumb.” But wowie were we all worked up about it!
To sum up, our outrage covered her lack of respect, ill manners, irreverence, lack of decorum and degrading pose. Probably some other things, too, but that's enough for now. We’d like to make a simple observation and then ask a question or two. Clearly, someone in the room took the picture of Kellyanne. They took several in fact, but the “couch shot” turned out to be the money shot. It was that one that started us off in a torrent of mockery and memes. In other words, it got the job done.
The questions: What job was that? If you do insist on taking the pictures, what was the purpose in publishing / posting them?
Final question: Based on this incident alone, is it reasonable to think that the press – especially those who have withdrawn from the event because of the President’s treatment of the media - is still uncertain about why the President has called the press “the enemy of the American people?”
We can guess. Because we don’t need this aggravation.
We don’t know anything about anything at Two Weeks Ago News, but we do know the nation appears to be divided. Severely so; one could almost say dangerously so. It feels like we're against each other in ways we haven’t been in the past, no doubt partly due to the collective bludgeoning the voting public endured throughout campaign season that began so long ago. And while we hold the news media accountable for delivering information about the people and events that will shape our collective fate, we’d like to think they recognize and respect the power they have to incite good or bad behavior. Delivering the news while maintaining a sense of fairness seems reasonable. Taking and then posting the picture of Kellyanne did not advance the news cycle. It didn't offer up a new policy talking point. It did nothing but incense people on either side, many of whom spent time and effort celebrating her ignorance or pulling up pointless stories to counter the accusations of impropriety.
Note to journalists: If you want to divide us, at least try to serve up a topic that's worthy of our rancor and legitimate debate! We're busy people. And yes, there's certainly enough outrage to go around but we need to pace ourselves.
What a profound waste of time this one was.
Above the fold, in Section D. That would work.
The razor sharp difference between a waste of time and profound waste of time.
Late February turned out to be a critical junction for Two Weeks Ago News. We didn’t anticipate having two stories compete so fiercely for the top outrage of the day, especially two stories as ultimately meaningless as the following. But they did! And it proves one thing: When it comes to outrage, we seem to have a lot of flexibility and are willing to shriek almost on cue.
And who is giving us those cues? You decide.
As far as we’re concerned, which of the following is the more ridiculous story is almost too close to call.
Story # 1: President Trump declines to attend the annual White House Correspondents Dinner.
We agree, this makes him appear petulant and vindictive, and something of an anomaly but he does have at least three more chances to attend over the course of his administration. (Since 1924, each President has attended the dinner at least once during his tenure.) So while it’s true that the President seems to hold little regard for the press, it’s far too early to say if he’ll break the almost 100-year tradition of chief executives attending by the end of his term.
Not that he asked, but President Trump would be wise to take a page from President Ford. In 1975, not only did he poke fun at himself – by purposefully tripping and stumbling his way to the stage, and dumping a table of food and dishes into Chevy Chase’s lap while he did – he requested that the comedian perform at the dinner the following year. Good for him; and good for Chevy Chase for playing along.
What a waste of time this story was.
Story # 2: Kellyanne’s posture.
We know we’re not alone here. The Washington Post said as much at the time when they called the controversy “incredibly dumb.” But wowie were we all worked up about it!
To sum up, our outrage covered her lack of respect, ill manners, irreverence, lack of decorum and degrading pose. Probably some other things, too, but that's enough for now. We’d like to make a simple observation and then ask a question or two. Clearly, someone in the room took the picture of Kellyanne. They took several in fact, but the “couch shot” turned out to be the money shot. It was that one that started us off in a torrent of mockery and memes. In other words, it got the job done.
The questions: What job was that? If you do insist on taking the pictures, what was the purpose in publishing / posting them?
Final question: Based on this incident alone, is it reasonable to think that the press – especially those who have withdrawn from the event because of the President’s treatment of the media - is still uncertain about why the President has called the press “the enemy of the American people?”
We can guess. Because we don’t need this aggravation.
We don’t know anything about anything at Two Weeks Ago News, but we do know the nation appears to be divided. Severely so; one could almost say dangerously so. It feels like we're against each other in ways we haven’t been in the past, no doubt partly due to the collective bludgeoning the voting public endured throughout campaign season that began so long ago. And while we hold the news media accountable for delivering information about the people and events that will shape our collective fate, we’d like to think they recognize and respect the power they have to incite good or bad behavior. Delivering the news while maintaining a sense of fairness seems reasonable. Taking and then posting the picture of Kellyanne did not advance the news cycle. It didn't offer up a new policy talking point. It did nothing but incense people on either side, many of whom spent time and effort celebrating her ignorance or pulling up pointless stories to counter the accusations of impropriety.
Note to journalists: If you want to divide us, at least try to serve up a topic that's worthy of our rancor and legitimate debate! We're busy people. And yes, there's certainly enough outrage to go around but we need to pace ourselves.
What a profound waste of time this one was.