Fifty years ago today, Bob Dylan released the single, “Like a Rolling Stone.” A month later, the album Highway 61 Revisited was released. Here are my thoughts on that important album — one of the earliest punk records, as far as I am concerned — in a piece I wrote several years ago for Pop Matters.
Send me an e-mail.
http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1
The interwebs have been abuzz the last couple of days with video of an exchange between President Barack Obama and CBS reporter Major Garrett. On the left, the response has been glee — praise for the president shutting down a disrespectful questioner; on the right, the exchange is evidence of an imperial president unwilling to answer hard questions.
Ultimately, I don’t see this little exchange being all that important as news — the president was asked a bad question, answered it in a way that deflected the underlying assumptions and the audience is left without anything useful to walk away with.
From a journalistic standpoint, however, I think it is worth discussing. My problem is two-fold. One, Garrett’s question was poorly constructed. It was unnecessarily confrontational, assumed motivation on the part of the president and seemed designed to do nothing more than elicit a piqued response. That is bad journalism.
The goal of all good journalism has to be to get useful and necessary information for the audience. What we needed to know from the president was what exactly the administration was doing to bring home the four Americans held in Iran and why their fate was not a part of the nuclear deal. That was the question that needed to be asked and that was implied by the Garrett query. The problem is that Garrett’s approach allowed the president to turn the question back on Garrett, to make it a question of respect and agenda and not one of information. As I say in the Facebook exchange below, we are talking about Garrett’s question, rather than the issues he was attempting to have the president address. That, to me, is bad journalism.
I’m curious to know what my readers think — especially those in the business or who have been my students.
Vocabulary, language, sentence composition… a powerful thing. If I can credit conservatives with one thing they have…
Posted by Ken Paris on Thursday, July 16, 2015
Send me an e-mail.
The reaction to the Iran nuclear deal is instructive in its speed and the lack of context with which it has been received. On one side, the criticism has moved beyond the specifics of the deal itself to a broader critique of U.S.-Iranian relations (here is a typical conservative take), as though the United States was the only nation at the table. Supporters, for their part, are making claims that may not hold up once real scrutiny is applied to the details.
I’ll be honest. I am not prepared to say whether this deal is a good one — though I do start from the perspective offered today by Roger Cohen in The New York Times: The deal has to be considered against the alternatives — I.e., that a negotiated settlement is preferable to military action, that it is a starting point, and that the sanctions regime under which we currently operate was about to fray.
As Cohen writes:
The Iran nuclear deal is not perfect, nor was it ever intended to address the long list of American-Iranian grievances, which will persist. It must be judged on what it set out to do — stop Iran going nuclear — not on whether Iran has a likeable regime (it does not) or does bad things (it does).
If negotiations had collapsed, he writes (in a knock against critics of the deal), would mean
renewed war talk as an unconstrained Iran installs sophisticated centrifuges, its stockpile of enriched uranium grows, Russia and China abandon the sanctions regime, moderates in Iran like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are sidelined, and a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic draws closer.
Ultimately, my issue with the critiques — at least from some quarters — is that they are not focused on the specifics of the deal itself, but instead on peripheral issues (there are exceptions, like this column from conservative Charles Krauthammer). These are issues that need to be tackled, to be sure, and can be as we move forward, though we will have to acknowledge as part of any future negotiations over Iran’s role in the Middle East, over its belligerence toward Israel, or its commitment to human rights that Iran is a sovereign nation and that our influence, ultimately, is limited.
The key issue, in this case, was the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the deal should be judged solely on whether it effectively shuts that program down. Again, I don’t know if this agreement will accomplish that. In a perfect world, what would happen next would be a fairly open and honest debate that results in an expanded understanding of how this deal will work, how it will affect nuclear proliferation and what legitimate alternatives might exist. It would subject all claims (including this one from the president) to in-depth analysis and critique, explain who the players are (both nationally and internationally) and what their allegiances mean for their claims.
The chances of that happening, however, are slim given that we are in the middle of a presidential race, that we have a national media apparatus more interested in conflict than in providing useful information (see Juan Cole’s analysis), and because there are too many interests out there who stand to benefit from creating controversy.
Send me an e-mail.
The New York Mets are now just a game above .500 — after starting the season at 13-3 and looking like they were ready to join elite teams in the National League. I was pretty optimistic at the time — as was the entire Mets universe. That optimism was a little premature.
Since then, however, the team is 23-32 since, has suffered through two five-game losing streaks and two three-game losing streaks, while only managing to win as many as three in a row three times. The team can’t hit — it is among the bottom five in nearly all offensive categories and it has scored as many as five runs in a game just 23 times in 71 games, only 15 in the last 55. It has been shut out seven times, twice during the current five-game losing streak (which also featured two one-run games).
Many Mets fans seem surprised by this, but it’s tough to understand why. The team started the season with exactly one new everyday player — Michael Cuddyer. That leaves seven players in place from a team that had one of the more anemic offenses in 2014. The assumption was that David Wright would come back healthy, that Curtis Granderson would regain his stroke, that Cuddyer’s professionalism would rub off and the team would ride Lucas Duda’s continued growth into offensive success. This has not been the case.
One reason is injuries: Wright, Daniel Murphy and Travis d’Arnaud have missed significant time and have been replaced by players not quite ready for primetime.
But injuries are just an excuse. The Nationals, for instance, have been without four significant contributors — Ryan Zimmerman, Anthony Rendon, Denard Span and Jayson Werth — for significant periods. The Nats have been just as inconsistent as the Amazins, and yet they stand a game and a half ahead of the Mets in the standings with some of their key players making their way back, a lineup with a better track record and pitching that matches the Mets almost man for man.
The problem with the Mets comes down to management. This starts at the top, with an ownership that treats the ballclub as a small-market team, and extends to Sandy Alderson’s mix of inaction and bad signings, down to Terry Collins. I’ve been calling for Collins to be jettisoned for some time, mostly because this is a team on which there is no accountability for mental mistakes in the field, on the bases or at the plate. The team lacks consistent fight — consistent being the key word. There have been stretches during which the team has exhibited an extra gear, but they have been short in duration and often followed by stretches of apathy. Isn’t this the players’ fault? Yes, but teams reflect the personalities of their managers and of their management — and it is why Collins needs to be replaced. (Don’t ask me by whom — I don’t know. And, no, it does not have to be Wally Backman or some star skipper who is currently out of work.)
Blaming Collins alone, of course, makes little sense. He is working with a bad hand — one dealt him by Sandy Alderson. Alderson has his defenders — he made three good trades (acquiring Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran, the swap of Marlon Byrd for Vic Black and Dilson Herrera, and Noah Syngaard and Travis d’Arnaud for R.A. Dickey). And he’s made some good draft picks, which he has kept in the system. On the other side, he swapped Angel Pagan — who continues to contribute to a good Giants team — for Andres Torres, who is no longer in the Major Leagues. The little bit of money he has spent has been spent badly. Curtis Granderson has long been a one-dimensional player, a guy who either hits a home run or strikes out. He was 32 when Alderson handed him a four-year deal totalling $60 million. He signed Cuddyer for $25 over two years and lost a draft pick in the deal, and then told Mets fans that Cuddyer was the final piece to the offensive puzzle. And he has telegraphed his punches when it comes to trades, essentially telling the league that guys like Ike Davis and Dillon Gee were expendable, but then asking for big returns for both. In the end, he got nothing much in return. Jonathan Niese is next up on the trade front with the Mets facing some of the same issues as they faced with Gee.
And then there was the Jose Reyes debacle. This appears to have been a joint effort, with the Wilpons and Alderson misreading the Reyes market, pretending they were going to go all in and try to sign him only to see him walk after they let the Marlins set the market price. Why do I bring this up? Because the Mets, if they were not going to be serious about signing Reyes, could have traded him during the season — a la Beltran. Intead, they retained Reyes, promised Mets fans they would do what they could to keep him, and then did nothing.
This, I think, sums up the Wilpon-Alderson-Collins regime — talk a good game, but move forward with half-measures, all the while hoping no one will call them on it.
I don’t want to paint too gloomy a picture, but it is hard not to, given the realities of the franchise. Yes, the Mets are awash in young starting pitchers (even after Niese is traded and Bartolo Colon leaves in free agency, the team is loaded with arms) and have some outstanding young relievers. Pitching is not their issue, but too much pressure is being put on the young arms. The kid pitchers have no margin for error.
If the team is going to be a serious contender this year or next, it will require smarter spending and the prioritizing of more than just power. They don’t get on base enough (they rank 12th in on-base percentage), lack speed (it is rare to see them take an extra base on a hit or steal a base) and extra-base pop (they are 13th in doubles and 14th in triples). Their fielding is awful. They turn few double plays (only two NL teams turn fewer) and commit too many errors (fifth in the league), while also making poor decisions that do not show up in the box scores. These extend innings and can sabotage otherwise strong pitching performances.
My fear is that the Mets have little room for real improvement. Too much money is tied up in corner outfielders who are not producing and who are not particularly good in the field. They are getting homeruns from the shortstop slot, but nothing else, and Murphy does offer enough at the plate (he is a singles hitter who does not walk and does not run well) to offset his fielding deficiencies. And the guys who they are willing to trade are unlikely to bring in what the Mets need offensively. In the short term, the best approach may be to improve the fielding and work on getting on base — a la the Giants, who catch the ball and make contact.
The Mets probably have enough to fight for a wild card and, if the Nationals continue to sputter, maybe the division. If they can get into the playoffs, their pitching gives them a chance. But they have to get in and, given that the Giants, Pirates and Cubs are also fighting for the wild card, it is not going to be easy. I am hoping my current pessimism is overblown, but the specter of Curtis Granderson hitting lead-off for another 90 games doesn’t bode well.
Send me an e-mail.
My vote for most significant year in pop music history is 1965, or maybe 1966.
Consider the list of records that were released:
Also worth noting were The Paul Butterfied Blues Band debut and several releases by the Beach Boys, though not the kind of earth-shattering releases that would come later.
As I said, 1966 is close (Blond on Blonde, Revolver, The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds and “Good Vibrations,” The Stones’ Aftermath, The Who’s A Quick One, Butterfield’s East-West, John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers with Eric Claption, debuts by the Jefferson Airplane, the Monkees, Buffalo Springfield and Cream — great records all, but the depth of the list just doesn’t compare).
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 