Unfortunately, I am obligated by the highest journalistic ethics to begin this week with two clarifications about previous columns.
First, in my column two weeks ago I suggested that more trick plays would be good for OU athletics, which might have resulted in cornerback Mark Parson getting blasted on a kick-return lateral. I am flattered that a well-respected coach like Frank Solich would take my advice, but next time I would advise him first to read the title of my column.
Second, last week I made a marijuana-related joke in which I stated my Dad was a '74 Kent State graduate. He informed me that he was in the class of '75, and that he did not inhale.
Now for today's column.
As Fall Quarter ends, The Post is accepting columnist applications for next term. Upon seeing advertisements for that position, some no doubt looked back on their experience of religiously reading Let's Get Farcical and were inspired, thinking: This guy is a total jerk. I can do way better.
As many of you mull over the applications you might decide to write a political column, to demonstrate your compelling acumen, astounding discernment, and uncanny ability to, in the space of only 700 words, commit most, if not all, of the logical fallacies outlined in your standard Philosophy 120 textbook.
(I would like to note that this column is not directed at the work of my fellow columnist who writes about politics on Tuesdays. I read his column every week and find it informative, learning, among other things, that somewhere there is something called El Salvador. A country, I'm fairly sure.)
So, how do you avoid the standard pitfalls of political commentary? First, you need to understand the overall subject and come up with an operational definition of politics. The no-bull journalist's definition is: Who gets what and why? (Somebody else, more than they need, none of your damn business.) A more conventional definition comes from breaking politics into its root words, poli
meaning many, and tics meaning involuntary facial contractions, which are what most people develop when they try to follow the reasoning of a standard partisan diatribe.
After you've grasped the basics of politics, it's time to pick a side.
On the left, you have tear-jerking icons like uninsured children, clubbed baby seals and the American small farmer. Also, your side gains a stunning amount of intellectual superiority every time Jerry Falwell so much as opens his mouth. On the downside, you're seen as a bunch of sniveling whiners by most everyone.
On the right, you get to be identified with Families and Values and Morals. You can to hark back to the glorious past, even though your version of it is entirely fictional. Also, you're somehow still allowed to pretend your side is being victimized by the left, despite the fact that your entrenched power structure has been established for a dozen years. A disadvantage, however, is that you get the blame every time a corporation violates any sort of law, no matter if they've donated millions to Democrats or not.
Next, it's time to craft the actual argument. Think of a topic. Research it. Find out what other commentators think of it. Form an opinion about it, then begin to organize the assertions you want to make about it. Those assertions are often called talking points. Once you have taken the time and effort to develop a refined set of talking points, throw them away. The very first thing your political opponents will do is accuse you of using someone else's talking points, probably Howard Zinn or James Dobson. A good political commentator knows to memorize everything those two have ever written and then make sure not to say anything remotely resembling their words.
Political types also must assert their credibility as commentators. To ensure people know you are hip to the lingo, make sure each column has one or more of the following obligatory words or phrases: underpinnings, so-called, schadenfreude, bipartisan, polemic or strict constructionist.
After you've written your column through, put on the finishing touches. Pepper it with inflammatory phrases like abortion is murder or Bush is a fascist. Insert language that raises questions about someone's patriotism/sexuality. Quote someone out of context, or claim someone on your side was quoted out of context. Fail to provide context for your argument.
And above all else, remember: El Salvador is a tiny Central American nation about which both Zinn and Dobson likely have said something.
- Noah Blundo is a senior journalism major. Send him an e-mail at nb344002@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
Noah Blundo
