Review By Dinesh Ramde, Associated Press Writer
Political historians face two obligations: to describe facts accurately
and to interpret nuances impartially. The slightest hint of bias can
subvert even the most accurate accounts.
That’s the flaw that undermines Theodore Hamm. His latest book, “The
New Blue Media,” is good — where it could have been very good — because
his personal feelings leave a reader wondering how impartial the
analyses are.
For the most part Hamm’s tone remains neutral. But the infrequent times
when it’s not are still enough to leave room for questions.
Hamm, an associate professor of urban studies at Metropolitan College
of New York, clearly leans to the left of the political spectrum.
That’s fine, so do millions of Americans — but they’re not evaluating
how influential Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and
MoveOn.org are.
Hamm’s goal is to chart the rise of these groups — how did they get
where they are? How much do they influence public discourse? And how do
they stack up against their right-wing counterparts?
Valid questions all, and Hamm addresses each of them in turn — but
sometimes with a hint of subtle influence that isn’t necessary.
For example, he says one Daily Kos blog entry received 183 reader
comments. Had he stopped there, it would have been a simple fact. But
when he adds that this is “an impressive number,” a skeptic may bristle
at being told how to interpret this figure.
In another chapter, he says MoveOn.org helped raise $250,000 in five
days to oppose incumbents who voted to impeach President Clinton.
Again, the number speaks for itself. But Hamm adds that this sum too is
“impressive,” creating the impression he’s trying to nudge the reader
toward a specific interpretation.
In most cases, there’s no need for such embellishments. His
explanations are usually deft and thorough, and he doesn’t hold back
from criticizing tactical errors the groups have made.
But Hamm also can’t resist tossing in the occasional sniping,
especially toward the Bush administration and its media sympathizers.
For example, at one point he refers to the president as the “bumbler in
chief.” Surely others have said similar things or worse, and some might
argue this line is justified, but a comment like that isn’t necessary
in a book that presents itself as an academic discussion.
In absence of such asides, Hamm has an interesting story to tell. In
one chapter he praises the satirical newspaper The Onion for
challenging the Bush administration with more courage than Democrats
showed. In another he explains why the Air America radio program didn’t
take off the way right-wing radio did.
His most effective chapter is the one explaining how Stewart and
Colbert evolved from standup comics to hosts of popular fake-news
shows. Hamm loads those stories with plenty of numbers whose
interpretation he leaves to the reader — a far more persuasive style.
Hamm’s passion for his work is clear, but perhaps too clear. This book
will appeal to fans of Stewart, Colbert and Moore, and to those who
aren’t Bush fans. But Hamm might have attracted a larger audience had
he maintained the impartial tone that runs through most — but not all —
of the book.
©The New Press, 256 pages. $24.95.
