OPINION
'Sound Bites' Leave
No Time To Choose
LEONARD FEIN
W
hat have I in corn-
mon with the coven
of candidates for the
presidential nominations?
The most obvious similarity
is that, like most of them, no
one will ever play "Hail to
the Chief' for me.
The less obvious but the
more pointed (perhaps even
poignant) is that, like them,
I have fallen victim to the
culture of the sound bite.
(Which began, I think, as
"sound byte." But never
mind; I am not William
Safire.) Specifically, I find
with growing frequency that
when I am invited to speak,
the invitation asks that I
limit my remarks to 10 or 15
minutes, to be followed by a
question and answer period.
Typically, the letter of in-
vitation goes on to two or
three paragraphs listing in
Leonard Fein is a writer and
lecturer on Jewish issues.
considerable detail the ques-
tions I am to address in the
course of my remarks. One
typical array: "What is the
state of black-Jewish rela-
tions in America? Is black
anti-Semitism growing? Is
Jewish racism growing?
What about the campus?
How do we learn
whether the men
who propose to be
president are
hollow or filled?
How can the gulf be
repaired? Has our preoc-
cupation with Israel di-
verted our attention from
the domestic agenda? And
what of our relations with
other ethnic and religious
groups? Should we be in-
vesting more in developing
coalitions with them? Is such
coalition-building plausible
at a time when the economy
is in trouble? Or are there
other explanations for the
fact that America's groups
now seem to be turning in-
ward? In 15 minutes." (Ac-
tually, that one was ge-
nerous, allowing 20.)
I have never been, nor am I
likely to be, a guest on the
Johnny Carson show. Worse
yet, what I have been is a
university professor, which
means that my mouth is pat-
terned, once it opens, to keep
moving for 50 minutes, give
or take 30 seconds. And
that's not only how I talk;
it's how I think. So when I'm
asked to reflect on this sub-
ject or that, my thoughts
typically arrange them-
selves according to the 50
minute rule.
But I'm flexible. I can cut
to 45, even, with work, to 40.
(Eulogies I can do in less.)
But anything more condens-
ed than that is a guest ap-
pearance, not a serious talk.
So too, it occurs to me, the
candidates, with the
reporters asking them to
limit their answers to a
minute, or two, or three at
most. That may be good
A Noticeable Anger
PHIL JACOBS
Managing Editor
I
f a person decides that it's
journalism that turns him
on at any level, be it high
school newspaper or profes-
sional, he better not be one
thing . . . thin-skinned.
What you learn fairly ear-
ly is that people have an
opinion and they can't wait
to offer that opinion to you.
Even if a reporter is thick-
skinned, he or she still
likes to hear a kind comment
every once in a while. There
is a difference between hear-
ing or reading criticism and
being personally attacked.
If there is a criticism of a
story, the journalist needs to
hear it. Who wouldn't want
to learn from a constructive
comment in a letter to the
editor or over the telephone?
That's what this is all about.
We want the letters page to
be a community bulletin
board, a mirror of sorts. We
see you and you see us. This
newspaper reflects what is
happening in your commun-
ity. Your opinion is valuable
and wanted.
Except, that is, if it is
mean-spirited.
I've been in this business
Artwork from ?Monday by Anthcey D'Adanio. Copytight. 1890, Newsday...wed by La An9.1.1 Tim. 5,1.1 •
16 years as a professional,
and never can I remember a
similar time when people
offer their opinion to me or
to a colleague in such angry
letters to the editor, such
confrontational conversa-
tions and phone calls rife
with vulgarity.
Maybe it's a reflection of
people's moods and attitudes
during these often-difficult
economic times. People are
angry, but people have been
angry before.
A phone call came this way
two weeks ago, just days
after a story about a Bloom-
field Hills man who had
skied to his death in Switzer-
land. The angry caller used
hard-core profanity in voic-
ing his opinion of the story
and of this newspaper. He
also had some terribly
negative things to say about
the skier's grieving parents.
It was the type of phone call
that would leave anyone
shaking his head and
Continued on Page 10
Artwork from the Los Angeles Times by Nancy Ohanian. Copyright° 1992, Nancy Ohanian.
Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
training for handling press
conferences, but before I
need to know how well these
folks can handle press con-
ferences, I need to know how
well they can handle the
leadership of our nation.
And try as I will, I simply
cannot fathom anything at
all that bears on that ques-
tion from their aborted re-
sponses.
Well, not quite "not
anything." As nearly as I
can tell, for example, Paul
Tsongas has but one idea,
and that idea is wrong. I
suspect that the reason for
his early success, as also, for
that matter, for Pat
Buchanan's, is that he comes
across as unmanufactured.
What you see is what you
get. And these days of image
uber alles, that is refreshing
— so refreshing that even if
what you get isn't all that
appetizing, it's attractive.
The others? All foam, no
beer. The most impressive
thing about any of them (so
far) is that Bill Clinton had
the great good sense to
marry the woman he did,
and managed with her,
despite admitted vicissi-
tudes, to preserve the mar-
riage. (Yes, I share the by
now cliched view that we'd
be better off if Mrs. Clinton
were a candidate. Ditto Bar-
bara Bush. But let us not get
carried away. Not Nancy
Reagan.)
How have we been so
reduced? Is it the Capitol
Gang and Crossfire tradi-
tion, debate a la Geraldo? Is
it that our speakers (as our
candidates) are so often so
disappointing that we try in
advance to ensure they
won't be inflicted upon us for
very long? Is it the audience,
and the culture of impa-
tience in which they've been
schooled?
I know we can't go back to
the Lincoln-Douglas
debates, but there must be
something more satisfying
than the current form. We're
supposed to be electing
marathon runners, not hun-
dred-yard dashers. And for
sure we're supposed to be
electing someone other than
the hollow man who now oc-
cupies the Oval Office.
But how, given the pro-
cess, do we learn whether
the men who propose to run
against him are also hollow
or are filled — and, if filled,
whether it's just with stuff-
ing or with the real stuff?
Well, things could be
worse. We could be faced
with a choice, say, between
Mr. Rabin and Mr. Shamir.
While Israeli voters are not
(yet?) required to elect an
image, the reality is grim
enough. Mr. Rabin is a lot
like Mr. Tsongas, but less
eloquent. And Mr. Shamir is
a lot like Mr. Shamir.
Perhaps Harkin-Clinton-
Kerry are not, as it's so pop-
ular to suggest they are, the
Democrats' second string.
Perhaps Mr. Bradley and
Mr. Gore and Mr. Gephart
would also be reduced if they
were squeezed into the
voguish format. (Not, I'd
guess, Mr. Cuomo.) As for
me, I've got to go now. Get-
ting ready for another guest
appearance. 1=1
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
7