Why do all these conservatives keep demanding pictures of some guy’s cock?
By 
I wanted to take a moment to admire Adam Serwer’s description of the latest Republican frenzy over a laptop owned by the son of a politician.
Early December might have marked the first time anyone ever asserted a First Amendment right to see the president’s son’s penis, an argument that the Framers likely did not anticipate.
Let us count the reasons this is the best way to describe why Emus Lonk, his Pack of Substack Hacks and the rest of the right wing weirdos are all worked up about a laptop owned by the adult son of a politician.
- It’s accurate.
- It’s succinct.
- Anyone can understand it.
- Whoa, did he say penis?
Is the fact that Republicans will hate it a bonus? Of course. Republicans need cumulonimbus-sized Clouds of Doubt about Something Something Hunter Biden + Something Something Joe Biden + Something Something/??? = SCANDAL! Because the facts aren’t helping them out – as usual. And in this instance their whooo whooo noises about 1st Amendment Violations are nowhere near as interesting to the general public as Penis Pictures. I suspect that some of them – perhaps three – have enough sense to know that shouting foul because Twitter didn’t post some guy’s nudie pics makes them look weird and silly. The rest are just afraid people will think they’re gay.
My only regret is that the headline wasn’t “Why Conservatives Invented a ‘Right to Post Dick Pics’.”
At any rate, after deft use of a lede to place one hand on the reader’s neck, Serwer continues to do one of the things reporters train to do, and should be paid to do, which is to make an issue about which there is a lot of confusing chatter intelligible to the reader.
Unfortunately, as Jeremy Peters recently demonstrated, there are outlets that pay and reporters who will accept payment to commit anti-reporting: Take an straightforward issue and try to confuse the reader.
These types of articles can have a number of long-term effects that are covered at the previous two links. But no matter the topic, the general and immediate effect is an absolute shit pile of words that the editor should have axed at first mention is inflicted on the public.
Reporter – Hey boss, I want to do an article about whether X has a certain quality.
Editor – Why?
R – Because some people say X has a particular quality, but maybe X really has a different quality.
E – So which is it?
R- Fuck if I know. I thought I’d dither around for a several hundred words before concluding X is a land of contra –
Whoosh, straight into the piranha tank. In a world as busy and complicated and interesting as this one, there is zero need for that sort of noise, and the people who produce it know this.
Of course there are times when there is going to be uncertainty in an article. That time is when the reporter is covering an evolving event, they know they don’t have all of the facts, and they tell the reader there are pieces that still need to be filled in. Typically what we call breaking news, to use a phrase that has been abused beyond recognition on Twitter.
Although I suppose in a universe more perverse than this one breaking news has been thoroughly infested by bothsiderism. “According to local authorities the tornado has destroyed at least 14 homes, but it is possible that the buildings spontaneously flew into pieces.”
However, any article that introduces an allegedly complex issue and then fails to resolve the complexity is as much use as an arsenic toothbrush, boring as hell and makes the writer look like a frivolous dumbfuck.
And maybe that’s the goal. Because the only thing more annoying than reading an article in which the reporter is steadfastly not making up their damned mind would be listening to the reporter read the article aloud. At least with the written word the victim can skim to see if the author ever answers the question that they asked. No? Fine, off to the sports section. At least no one will be suggesting the team that lost 0-30 might have won the game 30-0.
