Glenn Greenwald: The Joys Of Repressed Voyeuristic Titillation

[Hissyspit]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald

TUESDAY, JUN 7, 2011 11:08 ET
The joys of repressed voyeuristic titillation

BY GLENN GREENWALD

There are few things more sickening -- or revealing -- to behold than a D.C. sex scandal. Huge numbers of people prance around flamboyantly condemning behavior in which they themselves routinely engage. Media stars contrive all sorts of high-minded justifications for luxuriating in every last dirty detail, when nothing is more obvious than that their only real interest is vicarious titillation. Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud ostriches with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.

What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrick Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance (which, lame though it was in prior scandals, was at least maintained) has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. This isn't a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy (i.e., David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley (who built their careers on Family Values) or Eliot Spitzer (who viciously prosecuted trivial prostitution cases)). There's no lying under oath (Clinton) or allegedly illegal payments (Ensign, Edwards). From what is known, none of the women claim harassment and Weiner didn't even have actual sex with any of them. This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures -- down to the most intimate details -- are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance.

I'd really like to know how many journalists, pundits and activist types clucking with righteous condemnation of Weiner would be comfortable having that standard applied to them. I strongly suspect the number is very small. Ever since the advent of Internet commerce, pornography -- use of the Internet for sexual gratification, real or virtual -- has has been, and continues to be, a huge business. Millions upon millions of people at some point do what Weiner did. I know that's a shocking revelation that will cause many Good People to clutch their pearls in fragile Victorian horror, but it's nonetheless true. It's also true that marital infidelity is incredibly common.

MORE

[EFerrari]

1. Ha! You beat me.

:)

[closeupready]

2. It's NOT the sex, IT'S THE LYING!!!! 111 !!

:sarcasm:

[GodlessBiker]

3. Sex, sex, sex, I've had it up to here with sex; but not lately though, I'll tell ya that!

-R. Dangerfield

[krabigirl]

4. K & R

[LoZoccolo]

5. Glenn Greenwald: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Hissyspit]

6. That's just fucking ignorant.

"Can one even imagine how much different -- and better -- our political culture would be if our establishment media devoted even a fraction of the critical scrutiny and adversarial energy it devoted to the Weiner matter to things that actually matter? But that won't happen, because the people who comprise that press corps, with rare exception, are both incapable of focusing on things that matter and uninterested in doing so. "

[LoZoccolo]

7. I might even agree with him, but he's on automatic unrecommend.

I didn't really read it much.

[Hissyspit]

8. Yes.

That's where the "ignorant" part comes in. (Yes, I edited it.)

You remind me of the person who argued and argued with me about how offensive and sacrilegious Serrano's 'Piss Christ' photograph was. And about 30 minutes into the argument finally got around to admitting that they had never actually seen the photograph.

HAD. NEVER. ACTUALLY. LOOKED. AT. PHOTOGRAPH. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

10. Automatic unrecommend targets authors, not articles.

[Hissyspit]

11. Uh, huh.

:eyes:

[sabrina 1]

14. And why would someone want to target one of the best

Progressive authors on the internet?? On DU, I mean? I know Greenwald was targeted by anti-progressive operatives, thanks to Wikileaks we found that out, but why would any democrat feel the need to target someone whose values could not be more progressive?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

20. Well, then, I will have to wait for him to answer for himself

or herself, but so far, I don't see any answer.

I always prefer to give someone a chance to explain when they make such an odd statement before forming an opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

31. !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88SRJmipWY

[LoZoccolo]

30. Why would that author want to bash one of the most progressive presidents of recent history?

And why would he do so to the point where he posted something inaccurate about his association with the "torture psychologist" or whoever that was?

[sabrina 1]

33. You mean why would that author continue to uphold the same

progressive principles he held when a Republican was in the WH and follow the direction of this President who asked that those who elected him 'hold his feet to the fire'?

Greenwald's principles are exactly what they were when Bush was president. Are you saying he should change them now because we have a Democrat in the WH?

As far as the inaccurate 'something', it was in relation to something the First Lady was planning and he pointed out a FACT. That one of the guests, who announced he was on that list was a 'torture psychologist'. Apparently he was disinvited, thank you Greenwald. What was inaccurate about his coverage of that story?? Did you want the torture psychologist to remain on the guest list?

[Fuddnik]

35. Who? This one?

[99th_Monkey]

17. -1

[JackRiddler]

34. It's important to let us know that, because it kicks one of the greatest authors on the Web.

[sabrina 1]

13. Rec'd for the truth. Greenwald has a way of always hitting the

nail on the head.


What exactly did he say that you disagree with?

Wait, never mind ... :eyes:

[99th_Monkey]

16. -1

[CreekDog]

19. he is pretty odious to conservatives

also.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. I think the body of your message is somewhat inaccurate.

Only the body, though.

[City Lights]

21. Anything unrecommended by you automatically gets recommended by me. nt

[LoZoccolo]

32. I know you are but what am I infinity. n/t

[sabrina 1]

37. Me too. It's a sort of barometer!

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Thank you for reminding me. I had almost forgotten to recommend. Recced now. -nt

[Kaleko]

27. Same here. Recommended for

Greenwald's spot-on analysis of the dynamics at work here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. +29 now. How many of those are thanks to LoZoccolo? Four? Five?

More?

[carolinayellowdog]

40. Mine was; don't usually think about rec and unrec

But someone disrupting a thread with unrecs whenever a particular author is cited, and announcing that he is doing so, is engaging in harassment and not discussion. So I rec'd.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. I rec perhaps 1/10th of the threads I like. or less. I usually just don't remember to rec.

...that is, until somebody reminds me. Thanks again LoZoccolo!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yodermon]

48. LOL, your ad-hominem un-rec has garnered more backlash recs than ever

thanks for being useful.

[LoZoccolo]

49. How do you know that more people have not unrecommended it?

Also, I seem to have upset some people.

[cottonseed]

9. I agree with his point about reporters.

[gratuitous]

12. What you need to know

Washington Insiders = Junior High School Clique

Actually, the reporters, government officials, staff members (huh-uh-huh, you said "staff" and "member" huh-uh-huh) and the various sycophants and hangers-on have the mentality and maturity of the worst of the junior high school cliques. The Mean Girls and the Jocks are exactly the stereotypes you should keep firmly in mind. At least 13-year-olds have an excuse in being young, emotionally immature, and having just had a load of hormones dumped into their system by nature. Allegedly grown men and women on the teevee? I have no idea why they are the way they are, but if you think of them as the snotty girls or the bullying jocks, you'll hold a very clear picture of the people driving this discourse.

[99th_Monkey]

15. By far, one of the best and most sensible commentaries on WeinerGate I have seen ~nt

[City Lights]

22. K&R. nt

[smokey nj]

25. Well said, Glenn.

[suffragette]

26. Spot on

K&R

[whatchamacallit]

29. K&R nt

[zentrum]

36. Agree with you, but....

We Do live in the voyeuristic, faux puritanical muck of the media cycle. It's a huge political error for Weiner to carelessly put himself at the mercy at this utterly predictable trough of manufactured outrage.

He knows how it works.

He knew he had intense political enemies.

Th problem is that, knowing all this, he put his progressive work in jeopardy. He's hurt us, by playing this awful game so badly. The game is fake, but the outcome is real.

Thanks anyway, for your words. They're all true. Hope he can keep his seat and carry on effectively.

[TheUnspeakable]

38. k&r

[cali]

41. Man, does he miss the boat by a country mile (to mix my cliches)

It's not the sex. It's the stupid. And it's not a sure bet that there was nothing illegal. If one of those girls was underage.... And it's not a sure bet that he didn't violate House Rules either. Weiner's behavior also demonstrates an obsessive quality that's sure to catch the eye. I mean how many hours and days did this guy spend on this stupidity? He sent hundreds if not thousands of messages to a half dozen women. This has zippo to do with "Victorian horror" and quite a bit to do with the arrogance and stupidity of an elected public official.

Terrible job by Greenwald. Funny that it has 130+ recs.

[emilyg]

45. It got my unrec. Agree with you.

[roxiejules]

47. Voyeuristic titillation?

Cali, you have a good point.

This showed how reckless his judgement is - there was no discretion. He is a Congressman with no self control. That creates doubt in the mind of the voter.

Many families have been destroyed by similiar behaviour.

[RandomThoughts]

43. Thanks for writing that.

It is refreshing to read someone trying to help society.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. bingo

[Mosaic]

46. Americans are fucking hypocrites

Sex is something private, but when it's out in public they yell this bogus ingignation at something they all do. Your piece is spot on. They all look at porn, the divorce rate is 60%, maybe more. Sex is in everything, tv, movies, magazines, ads. Sex is everywhere and nowhere in the protestant fantasies of the damn hypocrites, to hell with all of them.

[JJW]

50. Grow up

Everyone has sex. As long as it is between consenting adults who cares what they do in private?

If he posted a picture of his ear, no one would care. But it's a WMD, his bulging penis. If you seen one, you've pretty much seen them all. Actually pretty boring. Anyone who uses the internet knows there are boring naked porn photos everywhere. Huffington Post's front page is full of slutty photos too.

This is very mild compared to torture, illegal surveillance, bad trade deals, the revolving door of corruption in DC, etc.