{"id":95172,"date":"2016-05-07T19:42:44","date_gmt":"2016-05-08T03:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=95172"},"modified":"2016-05-07T19:42:44","modified_gmt":"2016-05-08T03:42:44","slug":"wp-why-the-ben-rhodes-profile-in-the-new-york-times-magazine-is-just-gross","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=95172","title":{"rendered":"WP: Why the Ben Rhodes profile in the New York Times Magazine is just gross"},"content":{"rendered":"

Washington Post<\/a>: Absurdity, self-regard, hypocrisy, chumminess between writer and subject — it’s all there.<\/p>\n

I just don\u2019t know anymore where David Samuels begins and Ben Rhodes ends.<\/p>\n

Samuels\u2019s massive New York Times magazine profile of Rhodes, President Obama\u2019s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, is already prompting debates over the administration\u2019s truthfulness in promoting the Iran nuclear deal, as well as over the disdain with which Rhodes regards the Washington press corps, the U.S. foreign policy establishment \u2014 basically anyone who is not himself, President Obama, or fellow West Wing narrative pushers…<\/p>\n

The grossness emerges on several levels and on multiple occasions.<\/p>\n

It is the knowing chumminess of a journalist finishing sentences for a White House official who is mocking other prominent Washington journalists for getting so easily spun \u2013 and then quoting himself as he finishes the sentence, even letting us know that he did so with a chuckle. (It takes a special kind of journalist to quote his own chuckle.) It is the blindness of a writer who declares that Rhodes is \u201cnot an egotist\u201d while offering countless examples of that subject\u2019s gargantuan self-regard, and not bothering to note the contradiction. It is letting a speechwriter colleague praise Rhodes for giving \u201czero [expletive] about what most people in Washington think,\u201d when the entire exercise in which the writer, subject and source are engaged \u2013 a lengthy and access-heavy profile portraying Rhodes as the \u201cBoy Wonder\u201d of the Obama White House and revealing Rhodes\u2019s contempt for the Washington foreign-policy establishment \u2013 proclaims precisely the contrary.<\/p>\n

The grossness is also evident in the profile\u2019s literary pretentiousness. Don DeLillo is a frequent reference point, from the first paragraph of the story, in which the horror of 9\/11 becomes a convenient inflection point in the arc of Rhodes\u2019s professional aspirations (from wannabe fiction writer to guy who wants to \u201ctry to write about international affairs\u201d), to the bizarre exchange later when Samuels and Rhodes wonder who would best write the novel of Rhodes\u2019s experiences. \u201cI don\u2019t know how you feel about Don DeLillo,\u201d Rhodes suggests. \u201cI love Don DeLillo,\u201d Samuels responds.<\/p>\n

Also, we are told not once but twice that Ben Rhodes is something like Holden Caulfield of J.D. Salinger\u2019s \u201cCatcher in the Rye.\u201d Once it is Samuels who thinks so (Rhodes is \u201can only slightly updated version of what Holden Caulfield might have been like if he grew up to work in the West Wing\u201d), and next it is Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who \u201cvolunteers\u201d the comparison, Samuels emphasizes. \u201cHe hates the idea of being phony,\u201d she says to Samuels, \u201cand he\u2019s impetuous, and he has very strong views.\u201d Never mind that Caulfield is one of the most overused literary references for every brooding, self-involved young man. It\u2019s that the work of spin and manipulation that Rhodes performs every day \u2013 and that Samuels appears so enthralled by \u2013 takes phoniness to an art form.<\/p>\n

It is one thing for a journalist to let his subject reveal himself, in his own words and terms, and let readers make up their minds. But there is plenty of room between that and an uncritical, almost credulous approach to a story. You don\u2019t even have to fight over whether the communications strategy surrounding the negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal deserves pride of place over the, you know, actual diplomacy. Just look, for instance, at Rhodes\u2019s critique of the press covering foreign policy. \u201cThe average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That\u2019s a sea change. They literally know nothing.\u201d This from someone who has been writing speeches for Obama since he was in his late 20s, and surely understands that age and insight can have a nonlinear relationship. Yet, the only word that Samuels is able to summon to describe Rhodes\u2019s own lack of the usual credentials for his lofty position? \u201cStartling.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington Post: Absurdity, self-regard, hypocrisy, chumminess between writer and subject — it’s all there. I just don\u2019t know anymore where David Samuels begins and Ben Rhodes ends. Samuels\u2019s massive New York Times magazine profile of Rhodes, President Obama\u2019s deputy national … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journalism"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t