« John Howard is THE MAN!!!!! | Main | Pluh-ese!!!! »
July 22, 2005
Is it really about Style?
Lately, I've been on this kick about calling attention to those who wish to attack John Roberts family in an effort to get at John Roberts and by association, President Bush. [Previous Post] [Another Post]
In following that track, I come to Michelle Malkin's latest wiegh-in on the subject where she notes Washing Post Style reporter Robin Givhan's attack on the wife and children of SCOTUS appointee Roberts:
It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers...
My first thought was "Who the hell is Robin Givhan?" So I decided to turn to google and get a picture of how Gihvan presents herself to the world. Here's a photo:
Here's Givhan at the 2004 CDFA Awards.
So lets see. This reporter slams the Roberts family for being too clean and presentable. Well, sorry Robin, but you look downright unkempt in your representative picture, what's up with the hanging/showing slip, the top definately doesn't flatter and what is up with that handbag. Were you in too much of a hurry to grab a purse that did something for your ensemble??? After all, you are a Style reporter, aren't you. AND WAIT A MINUTE HERE, is that a Pastel Pink whateveritis?
Now myself, I don't have much "Style", I prefer Khakis and a Hawaiian shirt for my everyday attire, yet just this morning for a meeting I put on a conservative brown suit and a somber tie (I was dressing for the occasion). The Roberts family did much the same. Getting a child "well-scrubbed" and smartly dressed is appropriate for their first appearance at the WHITE HOUSE. Givhan apparently wanted the Roberts' children dressed in a GAP shirt and Levi's. I can only wonder, in that case, if Givhan wouldn't have chided the Roberts for allowing their children to be swaddled in the trendy corporate fashions more commonly found on playgrounds.
I find it very disturbing that whatever the scenario, reporters today seem to have bought into the assumption that the only way to report on anything today is to present any situation in the most negative light possible. Now I'm certainly not advocating that the press sugar-coat each news item, but WHY? For the love of Pete? Why? Does every single piece of reporting have to be scandal, hatred, insult and mockery. This is not what people expect or even slightly wish for from the mediascape we are presented with. What ever happened to the impartiality of the media? Where's the truely informative pieces on issues and policy? Where are the reports of what's right and decent with the world. It used to be that such reporting was commonplace, then it was pushed deep into the paper, NOW, it's completely gone. Replaced with a mantra that seeks to only show how disrespectful, downright snarky and negative in almost every respect a reporter can be. Unless of course, you're reporting on Bono and his upcoming promotion to Diety.
Why attack the children? Why attack the wife? Why attack at all? Why not report on the facts and the announcement? Have we sunk to such a cultural low that toddlers are now appropriate tools with which to attack the parents? Is the way that Mrs. Roberts dresses her children for her husband's first introduction to the American populace the story? Or is her husband's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States the story.
I understand that Givhan is the Style reporter, even if she doesn't display much of it in her own attire or her writing, that's her job. However, this is not "Style" reporting, but rather an open display of contempt for the appointee, his family, his INNOCENT children and all for the grander journalistic passtime of insulting the President and all that goes on around him.
The Main Stream Media wonders why readers are turning away in droves, they are wondering why the American public's approval rating of the press is at an all time low and why blogs and "citizen media" is fast approaching a critical mass that threatens to destroy the dead-tree press. Well, here's your answer. Instead of pointing out that "Little John" or "Jack" was attired in a cute blue suit and took the occasion to show off his considerable dancing talents, the Post decides to attack the Roberts' and pontificate on their "old-fashioned" attire.
GIVE ME A BREAK, I've gotten tons of emails saying how cute the Roberts' children were and the downright charm of Jack's antics. The only people claiming that the Roberts family is "out of touch" seems to be the journalists, who the American people think are "out of touch".
--Jason
At least she didn't call little Jack gay.
Posted by JasonColeman at July 22, 2005 12:56 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/108
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is it really about Style?:
» John Roberts: Just Too Darn Perfect? from Stylesignals
Robin Givhan argues that the Roberts family's clothes are so coordinated they look like costumes: neither acknowledging trends, popular culture nor the passing of time, but appearing Old World and old money. A few months ago, the same writer derided... [Read More]
Tracked on August 4, 2005 6:07 AM
Comments
Excuse me: Why the novella-length post about the Easter suit column? I thought it was cute. You doth protest too much and too often. I'm a Bush Republican. I try to deal with issues and not overreact to things like this
Posted by: Don Surber at July 23, 2005 1:46 PM
Hi Don,
Yes, it was a long post, but it was a rant provoked by a "final straw". If you look back further in the blog, you'll see this all started when the extreme left wing began attacking the Roberts' kids without even seeing them or realizing that they were pre-adolescent. Alluding that Roberts' wife was disappointed in their son, assuming that since Jack was the son of a right-wing republican that he might be gay. Planning "opposition research" on 4 year olds and more.
When these notions crossed from the extreme left fringes, they muted a bit. Morphed, if you will, into an attack on the family, the appointee and the president through the children. I find this unfair, it angers me and I don't cotton to attacking pre-adolescent children for partisan attacks.
So you can believe that I protest too much, and maybe you'd be right, but I firmly believe that they are attempting to destroy through a "thousand little cuts". If you leave these cuts to fester without addressing each and cleaning the wounds, they will win.
Perhaps you are comfortable with attacking the children? Perhaps you're not. But I personally, can't sit still when I see such thinly veiled attacks being placed on the backs of innocents. So I said my peace.
As for the "too often" comment? I don't particularly know how to take that. I write when I feel like it, and I write what I feel like writing about. I don't claim to be any worthwhile pundit or gatekeeper of anyone's information. If I post too much for you, then I'm sorry, I post when I like about what I like, some days I don't post at all. Or maybe the "often" comment was just a literary device, no real clue and I don't think it pertained to the meat of your comment.
Thanks much for taking the time to read and visit my blog, your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jason F. Coleman
Posted by: Jason Coleman at July 23, 2005 3:12 PM
