Keller online
As promised, here is the link to Jon Keller's new political blog. It's fairly tame so far, but that could be because Keller hasn't had a chance to sink his teeth into John Kerry yet.
posted by Dan Kennedy @ 8:31 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I left one of the first three negative comments about Keller in DK's initial post about his new blog. Now that Keller's blog is up and running, I've checked it out, and I haven't seen anything that changes my mind about Keller's work. But I have seen a lot that reinforces what I already thought about it:
- March 6, 7:14 p.m., "Curiouser and Curiouser"
This is one of those examples of Keller, in full Inspector Clouseau mode, thinking he's onto something the rest of us are missing. Rather than accept what seems to be the premise in the A.P. piece he links to - that this is an isolated incident of a nut case going off the deep end, not part of a terrorist conspiracy to run Americans over with SUVs - Keller tantalizes us with questions about what might really be going on here. My objection is that Jon Keller is supposedly a reporter. Why doesn't he contact the Chapel Hill police and the FBI, pose his questions to them, then report back to us?
- March 7, 8:18 a.m., "Pollster Under Fire"
Nothing informative or insightful here. We all saw the Globe story Keller links to, and he adds nothing. The purpose of this entry seems to be to re-flog the Channel 4 "Fast Track" poll he blogged about in his first post on March 6. I wonder if that's why he's interested in the Chapel Hill SUV terrorism plot - did CBS4 run something on the incident?
- March 7, 10:10 a.m., "Free the South Coast!"
So now we see what you'll need to do if you want to get your email to Keller posted on his blog: say that you completely agree with him. What purpose is served by this post? Keller is simply reasserting his already stated position on the issue (with which I happen to completely agree, as well). This post does not advance the story, provide any alternative views or insights, or promote dialogue. Why put it up?
- March 7, 11:35 a.m., "Message? What Message?"
Here, Keller is just parroting the sentiments from the Washington Post article, the basic premise of which he does not even bother to question. I'm a lot more interested in E.J. Dionne's comments on this subject on today's Post op-ed page, and given the timing, I think Keller's failure to mention Dionne's piece is a glaring omission. And the jokes at the end aren't all that funny.
- March 7, 12:22 p.m., "Raising Protest"
Another email from a reader. It begins: "Like your blog and some of your comments. Would be interested in your view on proposed pay raises for Boston's mayor and councilors . . ." A blogger with a little more dignity might have left out that first sentence and skipped directly to the reader's question.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon. 3:12 p.m. here, checking in again -
I have just read Keller's posts from today (March 8, 2006). I'll just say that instead of feeling triumphant, I just sort of feel sad. What an insecure, pompous blowhard. Is "Just not Getting It" really the right header?
Keller's stuff is really lame. Even when I sort of agree with him on a fundamental point, I can't bear his style. And he's so weirdly off, so often. Is it really such a profoundly big deal to have a state trooper running for Lt. Governor?
Earlier, he wrote: "Bill Weld also failed to get much juice from his tough-on-crime platform when he ran against John Kerry in 1996."
Excuse me, but John Kerry has some pretty damned significant "tough-on-crime" credentials of his own. Does Keller even know about Kerry's service as DA?
Anonymous, you are not alone. So far he's another "mighty wind", like Joseph Epstein.
He calls George Clooney a "grotesquely overrated empty tuxedo" but then you have to watch his commentary to find out why he thinks so. Which I am not going to do. Support your assertion where you make it. Don't use blog entries merely as teases to other media.
The point of the Globe article about Deval Patrick's houses is the $5.9M (!) debt he and his wife are carrying for them. Since 1989 they "have taken out 10 mortgages on their Milton house, sometimes carrying three at at time." Nobody's claiming funny business in Patrick's finances. But the huge debt is the story, not the apparent wealth displayed by the houses per se. Keller's reaction? "Nice!", and an implication that a "class card" is being played against Patrick because he appears to be rich. This completely misses the point of the article.
Cringeworthy, possibly an attempt at wit:
But the blogosphere abhors a vacuum, don’t we?
To coin a phrase:
Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a real barnburner in the making here.
(I know. Clichés creep, like little cat's feet, into everybody's writing. But Jon is a professional, paid big bucks to avoid triteness in his prose.)
I deleted an earlier post in which I ragged on his writing style...I don't know why really--a fit of pique? My support group says to try to stay positive, so here are some suggestions to help Jon reduce painful gaseousness in the blog:
--genug shoyn with the rhetorical questions
--no more "Ladies and gentlemen"
--get CBS4 to spring for cliché-detection software
--stop shilling for the TV station and speak for yourself
--further self-promotion is likewise unnecessary--we're reading (for now), you don't have to prove anything
--keep striving for wit and you may eventually achieve it
Today Keller talks about the weather, posts a ridiculous reader email about gas prices in the future, and offers a recommendation for reading The Economist that reminds me of Larry King urging us to try Welch's grape juice.
CBS4 ought to rename Keller's blog: "This from the Bloviator".
It's like reading op-ed pages from the Herald, the Post, and the Daily Mirror all in one.
I spent all of a minute and a half reading that tripe; that's 90 seconds I'll never get back.
Oh, well.
Ah yes, "Gas Price Ripoff", in which he imitates Colbert imitating a gasbag:
Elected officials? It’s your turn. E-mail us your ingenious gas-price relief ideas. We won’t hold our breath.
Sly parody, or unwitting self-parody? Is he aware of his Colbert-ness?
Readers, you be the judge!
Post a Comment
<< Home