For Harris, “Taking an Approach” is essentially what a writer does when they collect his or her ideas to articulate a stance. Unlike “Coming to Terms,” “Forwarding,” and “Countering,” “Taking an Approach” has less to do with other people’s ideas and more to do with the individual writer’s. In a quick albeit probably over simplified way of explaining “Taking an Approach,” one can argue that it is basically “Coming to Terms” with one’s own ideas as opposed to another’s. “Taking an Approach” is obviously influenced by others, but it not simply “forwarding” or “countering;” it instead combines the two, sort of. “Taking an Approach” is how exactly one intends on moving the intellectual conversation ahead, and what literary tools he or she will employ to do so.
A large influence of the approach that one will take is their intention in writing. The New York Times, as a serious, if not the serious, literary news outlet, will obviously be taking a different approach than The Daily Dish or FiveThirtyEight. The Daily Dish’s usual approach is essentially Andrew, whom us readers feel we’ve come to know, giving his take on current events. Because the readers of The Daily Dish are aware that this is an opinionated journalist, there is an inherent casual sensibility that’s created. The New York Times, on the other hand, takes a more rigid and serious approach. The nucleus of The Times reports the news in a serious and factual manner, while segregating their opinion section from their reporting section. The Daily Dish’s approach is less concerned with breaking news to its readers; instead it simply offers analysis.
Because The Daily Dish is much smaller in scope than The Times, the stories that it covers are usually less diverse than The Times, which tries to report on every news event of significance. In essence, The New York Times’ approach is to report the news early in a factual and nonbiased way, while The Daily Dish’s approach is Andrew’s opinion on usually the same stories that The Times reports on. (This is assuming that the stories The Times reports on involve gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or the Levi/Palin soap opera. Has anyone else noticed this weird obsession Sullivan has with these three topics?)
Also, on a completely unrelated side-note, I was watching ESPN on Friday and they released international soccer team rankings based on a system called “Soccer Power Index” (SPI). Nate Silver, from FiveThirtyEight, created SPI, and I thought that was pretty cool, well except for the fact that the US team ranks 14th in the world. I’m not sure if you know this Silver, but we’re supposed to be the best at every sport. USA! USA! USA!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought it was particularly interesting how you connected Harris' "Taking an Approach" to his earlier chapter about "Coming to Terms". I think you have a good point there.
ReplyDeleteHaha, how could Sullivan not want to report about the Levi/Palin dramatics? It's so amusing. And yes, unfortunately, the USA is lacking in victories in soccer these days :( Maybe we can count on Beckham?
Thanks about the graphic. Yes, I know Beckham's not American - but he's playing for Galaxy right now..but yeah, I see what you mean (I realize I shouldn't argue sports with someone who knows so much about them). But I will argue that soccer DOES matter. But carry on - USA!
ReplyDeleteSullivan does have an odd obsession with Palin. I think he almost felt personally offended that she was chosen as the VP candidate, offended because her selection went against all of this beliefs in responsible government and conservative values. I also read him as believing that the press was not fulfilling its duty in aggressively reporting on Palin. The whole thing is a bit like a soap opera at times.
ReplyDeleteYou all are getting me excited for World Cup. I was cheering for the Turks in Euro Cup. (Remember how exciting they were?) Not sure who will be cheering for this time, in addition to USA, of course. More fun to cheer for the US when we're underdogs.
"Responsible government" and "conservative values" are platitudes that can mean anything. Palin herself says that she is the quintessential embodiment of "conservative values." Sullivan is not really a conservative, he's a libertarian. Libertarians, by definition, are socially liberal (which he clearly is) and economically conservative (which he is, somewhat). Conservatives are to liberals as libertarians are to populists. Palin isn't a true populist, however, because she is rather economically conservative.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason why Sullivan calls himself a conservative (in my opinion) is the fact that a conservative being in favor of gay marriage, for example, gives more credibility to his argument. If a liberal is for gay marriage, he or she is because that's what liberals believe. If a "conservative" is for gay marriage, however, it is because they are a free-thinking mavericky moderate, which is more expedient. Also, it's better to be viewed as a "conservative" than a "liberal" because, whether people will admit it or not, there is a stigma on the word "liberal." That's why liberals often call themselves progressives.
Also,
one of the great things about following the Euro Cup or the World Cup is arbitrarily picking a country to root for. I also still like rooting against Germany simply out of WWII nostalgia.
Sullivan is a bit tricky to define politically, at least for me, which speaks to the often too easy divide in our political talk between liberal and conservative camps. As you did well to point out, there are multiple dimensions to consider, including the social and the economic. Sullivan resists categorization even here; I recall reading that he is for gay marriage and for the legalization of marijuana but also for overturning Roe v. Wade.
ReplyDeleteI understand Sullivan's "conservativism" to be in more of a British sense, perhaps more a reference to political philosophy than party identification. He wrote his dissertation on Michael Oakeshott, who is characterized in Wikipedia as a liberal conservative thinker. (Wikipedia is surprisingly helpful in areas such as this.) I think in the context of Sullivan's work "conservative" means a resistance to utopian projects and a respect for tradition and incremental change. This would be conservativism as opposed to radicalism, which can be seen in both the radical left and the radical right. Such allows there to be liberal conservatives and conservative liberals. I'm afraid this all could make Hannity's brain seize. But I'm not a political philosopher, so I'm admittedly a bit out of my area here.
Good point on "responsible government" and "conservative values." "Responsible government" is especially loose because it has no positive opposing term. What's the other option, irresponsible government? And who's for that?