Quote of the Day (Michael Kinsley, Defining ‘Gaffe’)

“The dictionary meaning of ‘gaffe’ is a social error or faux pas. The term probably entered politics courtesy of newspaper headline writers, who have a professional need for words of few letters. Of course ‘lie’ has even fewer letters than ‘gaffe,’ but lies by politicians are not news. A ‘gaffe’ is the opposite of a ‘lie’: it's when a politician inadvertently tells the truth.” —American political commentator and editor Michael Kinsley, “Home Truths,” The New Republic, May 28, 1984

This is really one of the classic definitions of a term that has come into common use in politics and journalism. For a long time, “gaffe” seemed synonymous with any statement embarrassing enough to force a politician from a race, or at least stymie his momentum. These days, though, that rule of thumb has gone out the window, along with much else in the conventional journalism playbook.

Quote of the Day (Michael Kinsley, on the Impact of Personal Internet Writing on Journalism)

“The personal and opinionated nature of Internet writing has rubbed off on the more traditional style of newswriting. The new apparent standards are a big jump away from ‘objectivity’ as practiced—or at least aspired to—by American newspapers for the past century. They are a move toward the model more common in Britain and elsewhere, where bias is allowed to show and readers are allowed, indeed required, to discount accordingly.” — Michael Kinsley, “Donald Trump and the Limits of Data Journalism,” Vanity Fair, September 2016

This trend has accelerated, as with so much else, in the aftermath of the election of 2016. I do not regard it as a plus for either the craft or perception of American journalism.

Photo of the Day: U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington DC

Three years ago, on a trip down to Washington, I noticed, on a bus taking me near the Lincoln Memorial, a large, gleaming building: the U.S. Institute of Peace. I had never heard of this structure, but resolved to research it when I went home.

And then I forgot more or less about it. That is, until a couple of months ago, when Michael Kinsley’s scathing piece appeared in Vanity Fair.

About the only point of agreement with Kinsley is that the building, by Canadian-Israeli architect Moshe Safdie, is “gorgeous.” Thereafter, he pours ridicule on its establishment (signed into law in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, as a “sop” to the growing anti-nuclear movement) and its initial board (neocons such as Father Richard John Neuhaus, W. Scott Thompson, and Evron Kirkpatrick).

But the main theme of the piece can be boiled down to a few sentences:

“So what is so terrible about spending $35 million a year and supporting a staff of 173 people in a $111 million building just to see if this kind of thinking can work? Answer: nothing is wrong with it, except that all of human history suggests that it cannot work.”

I’m really not sure that’s a sufficient critique of the building or its mission, though.  Many worthwhile organizations spring from some not-so-pure individuals and motives, and even the best-intentioned organizations can get hijacked by a new administration, as the Environmental Protection Agency under the new administration seems set on doing.

From what I can see, the mission of the Institute of Peace, as stated on its Web site, seems more urgent than ever: “To prevent, mitigate and resolve violent conflicts around the world by engaging directly in conflict zones and providing analysis, education and resources to those working for peace.”