Day two of writing. Wow. The discipline.
I want to be horizontal, watching Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown. My mom would put on No Reservations for us when I was a kid, and I only just now realized the retrospective humor in regularly tuning into CNN after finishing my math homework.
“I remember when Mitt Romney lost,” I told Paris, referencing my history with the news outlet. He cackled. “You mean you remember when Obama won?” Embarassing. Hilarious.
I remembered Mitt Romney lost because I was confused as to why CNN was showing me people crying over it. Must’ve been a big deal to little ‘ol pre-electoral college me. What are we crying about now? What’s he talking about?
The bigger conclusion to be drawn from my naive little perception is one, that indoctrination can totally be effortless to a young mind, and two, the importance of Bourdain’s work has long endured for good reason; its resurgence in the last two years, while annoying for the OGs, is a clear response to the world’s increasingly rapid descent into black-and-white thinking.
Sure, the world has always wanted clear, direct answers to issues that don’t have one, but with the acceleration of the importance of social media, influencer opinions, and DJI mics routinely going on sale, nuance has taken a backseat when it comes to public opinion. You are either very very wrong, or you are completely and entirely correct; the latter is rare, and only happens if you address every single possible variable of whatever perspective you have, so as not to offend.
Bean soup theory shit.
Bourdain was not God; just open-minded. Like any good journalist should be. Rooted in their morals, yes, but hungry for GOOD storytelling and wise enough to know that ambiguity is inherent to that. The ability to hear someone else’s perspective, be curious enough to try and understand it before challenging it, and most of all, respect and revere the process of it all.
Maybe it’s the brainrot that makes people want well-defined characters, people, and politicians. This one is bad, this one is good. I agree with everything that one said, until they said something I didn’t agree with, and now they’re canceled. My dear, they are all likely inside trading, but there IS still a sliding scale to which ones are actually the worst, and which ones kinda just suck a little. Like, Armie Hammer trying to eat people is objectively worse than whatever hot take Bernie just tweeted.
Take BookTok, for example. Some readers (if you could call them that, they are philistines through and through) refuse to even pick up a book if the main character is a villain. Much less, a complex woman. Simple human emotions like jealousy and resentment are ill-received and demonized to the point that to dissent from what is generally considered well-manicured and well-behaved, even in the most human sense, becomes the commitment of a cardinal sin.
I think it’s also to do with the new global desire for a lack of friction. No more arguments! No mild disagreements. No more being uncomfortable, to any degree.
Now everyone is lonely, can’t talk to each other, and in-fight about semantics. I don’t know.
I’m uninterested in talking to those who are intentionally abrasive (which I think is fair, Bourdain refused to have dinner with Trump, after all), but I think we’ve lost empathy for one another somewhere along the same path we lost the ability to put ourselves into each others shoes, or to even consider a perspective other than our own. My take that absolutely nobody asked for but I think would be mostly celebrated by legit journalists would be: get the story first; collective the perspective, let it simmer, then make a judgement. You might still disagree or dislike the person, but at least the story will be better.
Much to think about.
-E