Saving the Country One Investigation at a Time
We, the liberal artsy equivalents of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were very surprised by the response to our first article, in which we ranted about how the Washington Post sucks balls. Of course we thought we’d ruffle some feathers, but we were surprised by all of the suggestions for topics that we could tackle, such as the possibility that JFK cheated on his wife (no way), that Martin Luther King was an alien (now we’re onto something), or that 9/11 was an inside job (it is 1972 and we have no idea what this means). We are excited to hear these ideas, because they are a testament to the fact that there are legitimate issues to investigate in Washington. Yes, we are saying that these are worthwhile topics simply because we received them in fan mail, without making any effort to actually investigate any of them and prove their worthiness.
But we have meatier issues to tackle in this news report. A fruitful topic with a little more political bite that will prove how awesome and hard-hitting-investigative-journalist-y we really are. That topic is snack time.
On June 17 we broke into the Watergate Hotel in the middle of the night to dig up some prime, Grade-A dirt on the truth behind the Oval Office Snack Time. Thankfully, it was easy to get in because someone had already taped down the locks. It seemed kind of suspicious and we thought about reporting it to somebody but, whatevs.
When we dug through the White House expense reports, we skipped past all that boring stuff about funding for wiretapping equipment, burglar fees and “hush money,” and moved right onto the food service expenditures. We saw the usual sugar coating; initial reports said that the snacks, such as Dunkaroos, Hi-Hos and Oreos, were distributed evenly. But, like a fine swiss cheese, this story was full of holes, and we would not leave it provolone.
Further super-hard-hitting investigation revealed shocking truths about presidential snack time, the period between 1:00pm and 3:00pm when President Nixon and his aides share a light snack, chat about who in the Oval Office has cooties, and take a 45 minute nap sprawled out along the Oval Office carpet. The expense reports pointed to an unsavory trend: an alarming amount of snack funds were spent on cottage cheese and ketchup, President Nixon’s favorite snack. Seemingly no thought was put into how inequitable this was, to force the other aides to partake of this snack that only Nixon favored. Did anyone care that Halderman liked waffles with lingonberries, that Erlichman was partial to strawberry Fruit by the Foot, or that Dean had a constant craving for tuna sashimi? This story was getting a little bit fishy.
The slow burn was starting to build into a fiery roast that could blow the top right off of this crockpot of intrigue. Then we found them: the Watergate tapes. We fast forwarded through all that random gobbledygook about cover-ups and payoffs and national security criminal conspiracy whatnot-whos-its. But then we heard it: irrefutable evidence that, as a matter of fact, all of Nixon’s aides were given regular old Oreos whereas Nixon, that conniving bastard, was given Double Stuf Oreos. That means that the President was literally given double the stuf. If that’s not a scandal, I don’t know what is. This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, unlike a mushroom, our President is not of high morel character. Like a pot of alphabet soup left unattended over an open fire, this can only spell disaster.
To finish off our investigation, we met with an anonymous informant who only goes by the name of “Deep Throat.” Unfortunately, he was completely unresponsive to our inquiries about snack time, instead rambling on about international conspiracy this and massive political scandal that. We would have listened to Deep Throat’s rambling, but we found his codename misogynistic and highly problematic, so we would hear from him no more.
But it doesn’t matter. The damage is done. President Nixon has been caught orange-handed. That’s right, he double-dipped his fingers into those Dangerously Cheesy Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, and now he’s bound to get burned.
And that’s how you do journalism, Washington. Now it’s your turn!
Print
Email
#1: 11/19/2009 at 9:57 a.m.
I have no idea what this is/was about, but I loved it -- especially the provolone pun. Thank you for your elaborate piece of writing!
— Anonymous Admirer | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#2: 11/19/2009 at 10:18 a.m.
Hilarious.
— 5 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#3: 11/19/2009 at 10:50 a.m.
Dear Peter,
I love you.
— 2012 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#4: 11/19/2009 at 12:06 p.m.
AA, see this: http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2009/11/3/class-inequality-and-seminar-breaks/
— helpful | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 11/19/2009 at 1:13 p.m.
Dear Peter,
I want you, in whatever way you deem humorous, to bring out an original idea of your own for a change, rather than your lukewarm ridicule of anyone on campus attempting to be serious. At least those other columnists are making a point--you seem only to want to sip on the haterade. What, exactly, is so snicker-worthy about their column? Only that they criticize such a large group? Or perhaps did they spark one of the gazette's more interesting and real discussions with their seminar break article? Granted, the first column set them up as jerks, but since then it looks like their work is going places. Yours...
— wake up petey | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#6: 11/19/2009 at 2:57 p.m.
False. Their second column proved that they weren't actually interested in investigative journalism, only spouting opinions on topics they've obviously done NO research on. So many of their assertions were proved false by the comments, including:
1. Seminar breaks can easily be done in less than $15.
2. Some departments do provide funding for breaks
3. Most students DON'T oppose funding for breaks (unlike their straw men honors students who they never actually bothered to ask)
4. They wrote the column as if they were doing some kind of breakthrough work, whereas class activists at Swat have been talking about it for ages. Not that they credited them or referenced any of their work.
5. Where was the reporting about the magnitude of the problem? Where was the reporting about how professors or students actually putting on breaks felt? Answer: it wasn't there. That's the OPPOSITE of investigative journalism.
The only place their column went was to self-satisfied pseudo-prophetic preachism. And for all of the urging they did about attending the town hall in yesterday's column, Ben left half way through and Dennis wasn't even there. So, hello hypocrisy. And THANK YOU PETE.
— actually | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 11/19/2009 at 3:21 p.m.
Hey actually,
It was never our intention to discredit the important work that class activists have done on this campus. In fact, the original point of our column was to lament that while much good work is done here around political issues, it rarely gets the sympathetic coverage it deserves. You might remember that our column came into being because Ben took exception to Peter's mocking of Kick Coke activists as ineffective and self-satisfied.
We know that most students don't oppose funding for seminar breaks. That's why we wrote an article about it. We wanted to open up discussion by deliberately picking a topic that wasn't very controversial.
Finally, I'm not sure what Town Hall meeting you attended last night, but I was there the whole time, and though Ben did duck out, he returned after a few minutes and stayed till the end.
— Dennis Hogan | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#8: 11/20/2009 at 2:23 p.m.
oh actually, it seems you dropped the ball on that one, I bet you're glad you post anonymously, even though you talk about specific people. Incorrectly. I mean seriously, you claimed Dennis wasn't there when you weren't sure about it? This makes me doubt the investigative work you did to show that "most students DON'T oppose funding for breaks". Did you run extensive polling on that, or did you make that up as well?
But Peter, you kind of belabor the point, as usual. It's kind of funny, but it's too long for really only one joke. Well, that and the mushroom pun, which was wonderfully bad.
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 11/20/2009 at 2:34 p.m.
Gosh darnit James, I sure did, and I sure am. No, I didn't do extensive polling on the question, but guess what? It doesn't matter! I'm not publishing a supposedly investigative column with no investigation done on my part at all. See the difference?
But let me humor you on that one. My claim about student opposition was based on ALL OF THE RESPONSES to the column, of maybe one or two which explicitly opposed funding for seminar breaks. And Dennis, I would refer you to this paragraph in your column which not only states that it's "inevitable" students will disagree with the proposal, and ADMIT you have no idea why that might be, but still go on and invent straw men to knock down:
"Inevitably, students will disagree with the idea of setting aside money to help pay for seminar breaks. While we cannot predict exactly what arguments will be used, we imagine people will feel that providing snacks in class is not the College’s or Student Council’s responsibility, or else that the fund is a nice idea, but is too easily abused, or won’t be taken advantage of. We imagine that these students are not the same students who have to ask themselves if they can really afford to bring snacks to class when it is their turn to do so. If this is the case, would it be fair to say that their class background has influenced their opinion on this Student Council policy matter?"
— actually | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#10: 11/20/2009 at 2:57 p.m.
@ #9 — a column is not a piece of investigative journalism. Read Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman in the NYT, and you won't see in depth investigations.
Now, the topic maybe should *merit* some serious investigative journalism, and I'm sure sucha piece could be written but it is unreasonable to suggest that a column should be filled with investigative journalism.
— Miles Skorpen | Staff
#11: 11/20/2009 at 2:58 p.m.
Okay, touche actually, but in honesty is "Biting the hand" really an investigative column? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but so far it has seems very much like an opinion piece, trying to draw out discussion instead of presenting researched facts. You know, kind of like Glenn Beck. Now, you're right, I don't quite hold your ad hominem character attacks in DG comments to the rigorous code of journalistic ethics as Ben and Dennis's column, but seriously, your charge was hypocrisy, maybe you should cover your bases better.
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 11/20/2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Also, lulz, I think I just accidentally equivocated Glenn Beck to Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman.
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#13: 11/20/2009 at 3:15 p.m.
I totally agree-- a column is *not* a place for investigative journalism. But the whole "Biting the Hand" manifesto was all about how they were going to do the kind of investigative journalism that Swat's standing media is not capable of. If their goal was simply to say "hey, here are some thoughts on our understanding of some stuff to the best of our ability," I don't think they would've pissed people off. But by claiming that Swat's reporters suck, and that they were going to do better, they set a pretty high bar for themselves. And then didn't cross it.
And my charge of hypocrisy was perhaps a bit facile, and I didn't realize that they were present. But that wasn't the point of my comment. The bulk of my charge was actually in response to "wake up petey" who asked what was "so snicker-worthy" about their column, and if it was just because they attacked a large group? And my response is that it's not because they critiqued the powers that be that Peter is mocking them. He's mocking them because, as I stated, they set up an outrageously high bar to cross, and then failed to meet it, while self-congratulating the whole way.
— actually | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 11/20/2009 at 3:34 p.m.
Okay, here's how I interpret what has happened:
1. Peter wrote THE WORST COLUMN about kick coke.
2. Ben and Dennis wrote THE BITCHIEST COLUMN in response not to just Peter, but to all of Swat journalists, basically calling them all useless.
3. We, the RAVENOUS LUNATICS that comment on the DG... well, we didn't rant and rave, we asked for more decorum and hoped they would write about issues that mattered to us.
4. "We know that most students don't oppose funding for seminar breaks. That's why we wrote an article about it. We wanted to open up discussion by deliberately picking a topic that wasn't very controversial." aka THE FLUFFY COLUMN which was, at least for the DG, their first attempt at writing a constructive piece. it sparked, against all odds and reason, a THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION, in spite of their use of a TERRIBLE STRAW MEN ARGUMENT, which no one in journalism ever uses ever!
5. Peter, after making the BEST MUSIC VIDEO EVER, wrote another column, that while it wasn't the WORST COLUMN, was still pretty mean spirited, with a pretty low funny to asshole quotient. Still, Ben and Dennis were pretty big jerks in the BITCHIEST COLUMN, so it's hard to get that riled up.
So, from there I see two options: eviscerate Ben and Dennis for actually trying to spark discussions, or maybe tone it down a little and see where they go with this. Maybe next time it will be a little less inane than a seminar break fund. (and who knows, maybe next time there will be some investigative journalism)
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#15: 11/20/2009 at 3:44 p.m.
Oh, and facile? Dude, where's my Merriam Webster when I need it.
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#16: 11/23/2009 at 8:09 p.m.
James.
1) I'm pretty sure you write the WORST POSTS EVER about Peter's columns.
2) You're EASILY UPSET and are pretty WHINEY.
3) You use CAPS LOCK too much .
4) And yes, you DID just equate Glenn Beck to Maureen Dowd. Perhaps even PAUL KRUGMAN.
-SAMEJ
— samej | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#17: 11/23/2009 at 11:09 p.m.
Oh my samej (I can't tell if that's a failed attempt at reversing my name, or if it's your actual name--either way, LULZ). You got me, really, the worst posts. Worst posts, not worthy of the likes of "hilarious" or "Dear Peter, I love you" (really more of a Missed Connection than anything), BUT I LOVE CAPS LOCK SOOOOO MUCH. Also, I think it was INCREDIBLY sexist that you used caps for Mr. Krugman's name but not Dowd's. Still, I sincerely apologize for commenting. In a comments section. Like you did, strictly about me and not at all about the column.
Hugs and kisses
— James | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#18: 11/23/2009 at 11:16 p.m.
Lol innernets.
I haven't read Ben n' Dennis' column, Peter's column, or any of this conversation, but I think all of it is stupid.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#19: 11/24/2009 at 1:50 a.m.
Okay James, and remember, I'm only saying this because our names are similar, but your last post was better than your previous posts. I suppose that wasn't so difficult to achieve, since all your posts on Peter's columns are the worst ever, so don't get too uppity.
— samej | Unregistered, Swarthmore