« The lesson journalists should take away from Spicer’s rebranding »
Outras narrativas de empatia. Nestas lições, recordamos que o Spicer está para o jornalismo como os jornalistas estão para as pessoas. Mas continuando: it's show business. O registo que importa fazer.
Journalists are feeling queasy about Spicer’s second act fueled by entertainers and academics.
in "The lesson journalists should take away from Spicer’s rebranding" 18 set 2027
Jornalistas, os media de entretenimento e académicos numa só frase. I call "Bingo!" up on this bitch.
The smiling, happy-go-lucky Sean Spicer of last week was a long way from the combative, condescending, and "less and less available" Spicer of earlier this year. And some journalists were appalled by the transformation. On Twitter, Slate’s Jamelle Bouie wrote, "The degree to which Sean Spicer has faced no consequences is a glimpse into the post-Trump future," and Fast Company’s Joe Berkowitz wrote, "Let’s not let people like Spicer and Mooch become Cute Things. They were lying mouthpieces, utter disgraces. They should be shunned forever." On Facebook, Dan Rather added, "It is not funny that the American people were lied to. It is not funny that the press was attacked for doing its job. It is not funny that the norms of our democracy have been trampled…To have Sean Spicer now lead us in laughter about all this makes me uneasy."
Spicer’s recent star turn is also a reminder that holding the powerful to account doesn’t end the moment they step down. If Spicer is appearing on national TV and speaking in Ivy League lecture halls, he’s still wielding significant influence. Reporters should remember this. Spicer is an American celebrity now; that much is indisputable. But when we cover him, journalists owe it to our readers—and to history—to explain the far-from-comedic way he became one. Anything less is active participation in what Gore Vidal called the "United States of Amnesia."
in "The lesson journalists should take away from Spicer’s rebranding" 18 set 2027