Raab Rant

"As public broadcasting goes, so does Esquire -- to the far Right. Please cancel my subscription."
This disgruntled reader was referring to this month's issue of the men's magazine that featured Donald Rumsfeld as one of ten "inspiring profiles of extraordinary lives." If not for the fact that my subscription is a gift that will be expiring shortly, I'd be apt to join him (her?) after reading the September issue's article on the rebuilding efforts at ground zero by Scott Raab.

This piece is the "first in a years-long series of articles by Raab on the Freedom Tower's construction" (my italics) and is titled "The Foundation."* (Can you just guess what the next article will be called?) This above quote from the contributor page pretty much signals (for me) the direction that Raab is heading, as he focuses on the construction of Freedom Tower: 1. He will not be critical of the tower's design, and 2. He will focus on the players (contractors, construction workers, architects, engineers, clients, etc) that will make it happen. Had I read the contributor page first I may have skipped the article. Instead I dove right into all eleven pages.

From the beginning Raab is siding himself with the working man, the men that built the Twin Towers and the men that will build Freedom Tower (never a doubt in his mind that it will be built). About half the article is devoted to these construction workers and the contractor hired for the job, Tishman Construction. The rest paints pretty pictures of Larry Silverstein and David Childs and derides Daniel Libeskind for, well, being Daniel Libeskind. Without ever saying a bad word about Freedom Tower's current design, Raab attacks Libeskind's winning masterplan as an "utter botch" with a "cockamamie tower." This opining is fine, if it's tempered by opinions and criticism about other WTC designs, developments, players, but it's not. Most everything else (up to the end, which I'll get to) is "reporting" that looks favorably upon those presented, and in this light the comments about Libeskind's design fit right in.

Much like the Republican party's ability to impress both rich people and the working class (previously a group that sided with Democrats) these days, Raab dotes on both, without stepping on either's toes or pitting one against the other. He summarizes this first article by saying "We build buildings. That's what this is about." And of course, it takes both money and a work force to do that. But obviously Raab likes the former, also saying in his conclusion that "...freedom without money is a dirt sandwich," and "we work to make the things that make us human -- love and children, money and art." Whatever you say, Mr. Raab.

*This article is only available online to paid subscribers. If you'd like the text, please e-mail me and I'll forward it to you.

Comments

  1. jake f - Thanks for your intelligent comment. I must be expecting too much from a magazine that is slowly revealing the "sexiest woman alive" one body part at a time. I think part of my problem, though not mentioned in my post, is that for people not following the rebuilding (perhaps a heck of a lot of people), this might be all they know. And what are they getting? Definitely not fair and even coverage. Instead they get a piece that praises people who may be leading New York into the wrong physical response at ground zero. A money-hungry developer, his architect, and the people that actually build their designs.

    As far as my comments about Republican/Democrat, my take on the current situation is that the Democratic party is losing voters becuase they are losing what defined them as a party. Be it money for poor people, social programs, decreased military spending. It seems like the Democratic party is Republican-lite with Democrats giving in to corporate and military spending as much as Republicans, the party usually associated with that. Perhaps the country is more Right in general, more conservative. If so, 9/11, and the government's policies and actions since, played a big part in that. But that's not mentioned in the article. Instead we're told that money is good and these guys know what to do with it.

    But I guess Esquire has as much right to express something conservative as I do to express something liberal. But are Esquire's seemingly repeated actions (this article and Rumsfeld's that pissed that guy off) part of a general trend in the media towards the Right? Could be.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated for spam.