September 22, 2003

MEN ON THE MOON:

Slate's Michael Kinsley: Future of the U.N. (Day to Day, 9/22/03, NPR/Slate)

NPR's Mike Shuster talks with Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley about the future of the United Nations in the wake of the war in Iraq. Today, President Bush addresses the U.N.'s General Assembly.

We're not entirely convinced yet that this show isn't some kind of brilliant self-parody, almost an Andy Kaufman style surreptitious meta-satire. It's hard to imagine any more absurdly conventional source of wisdom than this combination of NPR and Slate and today's "interview" with Michael Kinsley did nothing to clear things up. He's discussing George W. Bush's trip to the UN tomorrow and how intransigent the President has been about yielding control in Iraq to the UN. Mr. Kinsley and Mr. Shuster seem genuinely perplexed that US policy doesn't seem to have changed despite their having thought it did in Mr. Bush's speech to the nation and Mr. Kinsley is surprised that Mr. Bush spoke "patronizingly" about the UN's role this weekend. As anyone with half a brain could have told him, Mr. Kinsley's interpretation of the purpose of Mr. Bush's speech that night was ludicrous.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 22, 2003 2:00 PM
Comments

Yeah, well, this bit from Kinsley last week was a nice nugget:

"Glamorizing the influence trade may not be the intention of "K Street," but it's unavoidable, just as "The Sopranos" glamorizes murderers and thugs, and "Meet the Press" glamorizes Tim Russert."

Posted by: Jimmy at September 22, 2003 3:50 PM

Tim Russert may be a partisan hack, but that hardly justifies a Crossfire host comparing him to a murderer.

Posted by: oj at September 22, 2003 3:59 PM

Kinsley wants to be the Left's answer to Buckley, but he will never be smart enough, will never be wise enough, and will never be real enough.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 22, 2003 4:52 PM

Shuster has spent the past week flogging a series of "US has been defeated" stories. Out of L.A. yet.

NPR also waited about four days to sort of report the immolation of Gilligan. Apparently it took them that long to find a UK source (the Telegraph) which would say that although "some" of Gilligan's reporting was incorrect, he had "gotten the larger story."

NPR listeners must be mighty puzzled by now.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 22, 2003 5:35 PM
« WHAT'S WRONG WITH CHINESE REGIME CHANGE?: | Main | TICK...TICK...TICK...: »