Saturday Commentary and Review #85
WaPo Shitshow, Western Media Ukraine Narrative Shift, EU Submits to America, Californian Buddhism, Anthony Bourdain and His Legacy
(Request: Please share this on social media if you are so inclined as I am restricted at present from doing so in certain places. Thank you.)
Late last night I had a chat with a very prominent and incredibly wealthy American businessman about the shitshow that was the Washington Post this past week. Being a cynical sort, I still left open the possibility that elite institutions, at least some, were rather two-faced in that they must mouth the platitudes that conform with the prevailing social and cultural trends due to a sense of pragmatism, and that they don’t really believe all of this shit. This past week disabused me of that notion. The inmates ARE running the asylum. My friend told me that he has long been convinced of this, due to his multiple daily interactions with counterparts ranging from the new trainee all the way to the top of various multinationals. Horrifying thought, but this where we now are.
The stereotype of the newsroom being full of jaded, cynical, and sarcastic types, prone to wisecracks and hard liquour habits is about as contemporary and relevant as Reagan conservatives. They have been replaced, and those few who haven’t have been cowed into submission by a new generation of ideologues brought up in privilege, unlike they were. Gone is the collegiality (yes, this wasn’t always the situation) where reporters and scribblers would set aside their opinions to hit the bar after work and share a drink or ten. In its place is a culture of suspicion, of fear, of retribution, and of immature individuals demanding that the world cater to their psychological needs.
The news is being transmitted to us by people with mental issues, often compounded by pharmaceutical regimens that are rather toxic to the person ingesting them. Where once the story required that the journalist remove themselves as much as possible from it, the situation now is that the news must flow through their “traumas”, their personal tics, and especially their own agendas. Is it any wonder why trust in mainstream media has collapsed?
Vanity Fair got an inside peek at the WaPo meltdown of this past week. I am certain that it has been very sanitized, but it is still rather ugly, quite sad, and very much an indictment of this current prevailing culture that now has its hands on the steering wheels of elite institutions in the USA (and beyond). If this culture is not removed in time, we are all fucked.
The public outpouring of Post pride—which I’m told political reporters were urging one another to take part in—followed executive editor Sally Buzbee’s memo reiterating workplace policies and promoting collegiality among staff. The memo dropped following a few days at the Post that have been, as one reporter described it, a “clusterfuck.” Dave Weigel, a national political correspondent, is, as of Monday, suspended without pay for the next month after retweeting a sexist tweet last week, which he then promptly unshared and apologized for after a colleague called him out both on the company Slack and publicly. Hours after news of Weigel’s suspension broke Monday, that colleague, political reporter Felicia Sonmez, was urging the paper to take action against a different colleague, Jose Del Real, who on Saturday took aim at Sonmez for “the cruelty you regularly unleash against colleagues.” (He made this point after commending Sonmez for “your bravery in sharing your story,” adding, “I support your fight against retribution for doing so.”)
Meanwhile, in another corner of Twitter on Saturday, Taylor Lorenz—the star Post tech writer and social media lightning rod—was explaining how a “miscommunication with an editor” resulted in an error in a recent Post piece while also hitting back against critics and CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, who was covering the incident.
The Post drama spilling out publicly onto Twitter has upended the newsroom, where there’s no shortage of opinions on the continued fallout. “I think Felicia initially was right—that was a gross Dave Weigel tweet, and we were all grateful she called attention to it,” one Post staffer told me. The problem, the staffer added, was in “continuing to make it an issue and go after more and more colleagues.” And as a reporter said of Lorenz: “Taylor is very talented, but her personal antics frequently overshadow her journalism.”
One cannot help but feel for Sally Buzbee as she is in charge of a newsroom full of coddled third graders. Yet at the same time, her outfit has encouraged this behaviour, this culture, to become what it is today. You really do get what you asked for.
Adult in the room:
In the Tuesday memo, Buzbee stated shared newsroom values and emphasized how employees should treat one another. “We do not tolerate colleagues attacking colleagues either face to face or online. Respect for others is critical to any civil society, including our newsroom,” she wrote. “The newsroom social media policy points specifically to the need for collegiality.”
“In the last year, we have enforced, through conversations, mediation and disciplinary measures, egregious violations of our social media policy, just as we have enforced our overall standards,” Buzbee added. “As we have said, we plan to update the social media policy. Until then, the current policy remains in effect. It states: When it comes to your colleagues, be constructive and collegial: If you have a question or concern about something that has been published, speak to your colleague directly. We respect and do not wish to inhibit any employee’s right to raise legitimate workplace issues. We know it takes bravery to call out problems. And we pledge to openly and honestly address problems brought to us. We moved quickly to show our intolerance for a sexist re-tweet sent by an employee last Friday.”
This last line is key because they either do not realize, or refuse to acknowledge that they left the door open to allow this mania to come in. Many of you have seen the joke that Weigel retweeted (and then un-retweeted, and apologized for), and noted just how anodyne it was. But give them a finger and they’ll take your whole arm and continue to demand even more. Once again, you get what you ask for.
How it played out:
Here’s how things played out: On Friday afternoon, Sonmez called Weigel out for his tweet, first in an internal Slack channel and then, two minutes later, on Twitter. Within 90 minutes, Weigel had apologized and taken down the tweet, and National editor Matea Gold (who replaced Steven Ginsberg, whom Sonmez named as a defendant in her suit) had, in the same Slack channel, put out a note to “assure all of you that The Post is committed to maintaining a respectful workplace for everyone” and “we do not tolerate demeaning language or actions.”
Twenty-four hours later, Sonmez was still tweeting about a lack of accountability. “Imagining a world where news organizations evenly enforce their social media policies, rather than allowing certain reporters to feel entitled to tweet racist/sexist things without fear of repercussions, thus turning their colleagues into targets of online hate when they object,” she wrote. Minutes later, Del Real got involved. “Dave’s retweet is terrible and unacceptable. But rallying the internet to attack him for a mistake he made doesn’t actually solve anything. We all mess up in some way or another.” Buzbee on Sunday morning sent a memo to staff that said, without mentioning Sonmez or Del Real by name, to be respectful and to bring issues to H.R. or leadership—a response that one reporter called “meaningless,” and that Sonmez said on Twitter “provide[d] fodder for *more* harassment.”
Come Monday morning, some staffers were waiting to see if there’d be a firmer message from leadership. Meanwhile, another staffer, video technician Breanna Muir, who three months ago was misidentified on Twitter as Breonna Taylor by a colleague (who publicly and privately apologized for the error), had replied-all to Buzbee’s Sunday memo. Her note to the entire newsroom included a screenshot of that tweet, as well as one of Weigel’s retweet, and praised Sonmez “for speaking out against harassment, discrimination and sexism.” Meanwhile, Sonmez was still tweeting. Hours later, news of Weigel’s punishment broke. The reaction was mixed among journalists. Some praised Sonmez for demanding accountability. Others felt like the Post caved to pressure or, at the very least, overreacted in the heat of the moment. “The paper has put optics and politics before ethics and fairness,” tweeted New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi.
Children. One of the first lessons learned in a group setting is to not air out your dirty laundry. In this case, the laundry wasn’t even dirty, not even stained. But the culture of “selfish virtue” demanded heads must roll.
“Working at a huge news organization—the Post, The New York Times, CNN—is like living in a big city where there are always emergencies,” one staffer said. An embarrassing correction for the Styles desk might be a fire; a story the Times beats the Post on, a flood. “As a colleague, you probably should be trying to help fund the fire department or city services and make it a better place to live; at worst, you’re not paying your taxes,” they continued. “And then you have Felicia, who is essentially pouring gasoline on every fire and inviting people to watch.”
Sonmez responded Thursday on Twitter: “To borrow an analogy, working at a big news organization is like living in a big city. Emergencies like corrections come up every day. That’s normal. Are sexist or racist tweets ‘normal’ emergencies? Is the denigration of a class of people a ‘normal’ emergency? Or are those things a sign of deeper problems within a newsroom rife with unequal treatment?”
The Washington Post is the second most important newspaper in the world. It is staffed by privileged, petulant children who are convinced that the world must cater to their psychological needs, and who insist that the news that they serve the wider public be filtered through their mental issues, as these same issues are just as important as the news itself.
Many of us have been saying that the western media has been lying to us about the state of the war in Ukraine since the day it erupted. We are now being vindicated several times daily, as this same media has begun to publish a torrent of reports indicating that the Ukrainian armed forces are getting the shit kicked out of them by the Russians, and that the situation is increasingly critical.
We told you so.
The feeling of being right pales in comparison to the knowledge beforehand that the Ukrainians would be suffering the most in this unnecessary conflict due to their misguided approach and their misplaced trust in the USA. It didn’t have to be this way, but it is.
A friend of mine has just returned from the Donbass where he was embedded with Ukrainian forces, and he and I spoke last night. He says that the situation is even worse than I imagined. I promised my friend that I would not reveal more details, but they will be coming out soon enough.
Even UK media has begun to publish reports that run counter to the prevailing narrative that dominated the first two months of this war, the one where “plucky” Ukraine was beating Russian forces handily:
Ukrainian forces are outgunned 20 to one in artillery and 40 to one in ammunition by Russian counterparts, according to intelligence that paints a bleak picture of the situation on the front line.
……
The grinding battle in eastern Ukraine is having “a seriously demoralising effect on Ukrainian forces as well as a very real material effect; cases of desertion are growing every week”, the report says.
The desertion comes as Russian forces capture more territory in the east.
Meanwhile, the Kyiv government’s bargaining position is being weakened by a growing disparity in the number of prisoners being held by each side. The number of Russian soldiers held by Ukraine has fallen from 900 in April to 550 after a series of exchanges.
Moscow has more than 5,600 Ukrainian troops in captivity, enlarged by the surrender of 2,500 in Mariupol including members of the Azov battalion.
To this number will be added several thousand more, if the Ukrainians do not retreat in time from Severodonetsk to the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk line further west in the Donbass.
The intelligence report says: “Russians insist on a one-to-one prisoner exchange. This means that under the status quo, 4,500 Ukrainian prisoners may be in Russian jails until there is a peace deal.
"Moscow is likely to use this as a lever to internally destabilise Ukraine unless there is social protection for their families and clear communications.”
The assessment was compiled before the UK promise to supply a small number of M270 multiple-launch rocket systems.
The intelligence report states: “It is plain that a conventional war cannot be won if your side has several times fewer weapons, your weapons hit the enemy at a shorter distance and you have significantly less ammunition than the enemy.”
The report warns that the Russians are fully aware that a relatively small number of Western weapons have been sent and the delivery into combat positions is slow.
Not to be outdone, the Guardian UK published the most negative assessment of the Ukrainian side that I have seen thus far from western media:
Any way you count it, the figures are stark: Ukrainian casualties are running at a rate of somewhere between 6oo and 1,000 a day. One presidential adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych, told the Guardian this week it was 150 killed and 800 wounded daily; another, Mykhaylo Podolyak, told the BBC that 100 to 200 Ukrainian troops a day were being killed.
It represents an extraordinary loss of human life and capacity for the defenders, embroiled in a defence of the eastern city of Sievierodonetsk that this week turned into a losing battle. Yet the city was also arguably a place that Ukraine could have retreated from to the more defensible Lysychansk, across the Siverski Donets River, the sort of defensive situation that Ukraine has fared far better in.
The sheer number – more than 20,000 casualties a month – raises questions about what state Ukraine’s army will be in if the war drags on into the autumn. The same is true for the Russians too, of course. But the invaders already control large chunks of Ukraine, and they can pause the fighting with the territorial upper hand.
The Russians have only committed some 6% of their overall potential capacity to Ukraine.
Western officials prefer not to discuss the impact of the war on the defenders, instead highlighting the problems for the Russians in their briefings. This week, one of those officials said their estimate was that the invaders had lost “15,000 to 20,000 dead”, out of an invasion force that was 150,000 or more. Yet despite this, Moscow’s army has still not lost its offensive capability.
But they chose not to provide similar estimates for Ukraine, which can create a lopsided impression that the Russians are faring worse. In fact, with an artillery overmatch of 10 or 15 to one, according to the Ukrainians, it may well be that the invaders’ casualty rate is far lower at the moment, because they are able to deal death from a greater distance to defenders who cannot see them.
and
Ammunition is certainly running short on the Ukrainian side, again by their own admission. Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has said Ukraine is using 5,000 to 6,000 artillery rounds a day, and has “almost used up” its stockpile of Soviet 152mm standard shells. It is now relying on Nato-standard 155mm howitzers; it is unclear how many of these it has.
The big question: is there a Ukrainian counteroffensive being held back to be unleashed later this month or in July? I am starting to doubt it, based on what my sources are telling me.
I have recently written two pieces on the EU and its future, and particularly how it has pursued and incredibly short-sighted policy regarding the war in Ukraine that will be very detrimental to the continent as a whole going forward. You can find them here:
Vibe Shift: Europe Chooses Irrelevance
These are think pieces, and they discuss topics that are very broad which I cannot cover in their entirety. Others can fill in gaps, or, as in the case of Wolfgang Streeck, do better than I did in illustrating a point.
Assuming that the history of the European Union begins with the European Economic Community (EEC), which was formed in 1958, it has now lasted almost two-thirds of a century. It started out as a six-country alliance jointly administering two key sectors of the postwar economy, coal and steel, making it unnecessary for France to repeat the occupation of the Ruhr Valley, which had contributed to the rise of German revanchism after World War I. In the wake of the industrial strife of the late 1960s, and following the entry of three more countries, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark, the EEC turned into the European Community (EC). Dedicated to industrial policy and social democratic reform, the EC was to add a “social dimension” to what was on the way to becoming a common market. Later, after the neoliberal revolution and the collapse of Communism, what was now renamed the European Union (EU) became both a container for the newly independent nation-states in the East eager to join the capitalist world, and an engine of neoliberal reform, supply-side economics, and New Labourism in twenty-eight European countries. It also became firmly embedded in the American-dominated unipolar global order after the “end of history.”
The democratic deficit:
That this construction suffered from what came to be euphemistically called a “democratic deficit” did not go unnoticed. Indeed, among insiders in Brussels, the joke is often heard that, with its current constitution, the European Union would never be allowed to join itself. In recent years, efforts were made by the European Commission and, in particular, the so-called European Parliament to fill the democratic gap with a politics of “values” to be enforced by the EU upon its member states. Human rights, according to contemporary Western interpretations, would serve as a substitute for the debates over political economy that had become excluded from the Union’s political system. Above all, this involved educational interventions in the countries of the former Soviet empire to convert governments, parties, and peoples to Western European liberalism, economic but also social, if need be by withholding part of the fiscal handouts that are intended to support these countries’ transformation into bona fide market-economies-plus-capitalist-democracies. Increasingly top-down educational programs of this sort, the mandate for which was derived from ever-more extensive and indeed intrusive interpretations of the declaratory sections of the EU treaties, culminated in a crusade against so-called anti-Europeans, identified by social scientists and political spin doctors as “populists.”6
Different histories and different governing cultures produce disconnects that the EU tries to paper over through undemocratic means:
Furthermore, on the Union’s eastern periphery, countries carry a historical legacy of cultural traditionalism, political authoritarianism, and nationalist resistance against international intervention in their internal life, the latter reinforced by their experience under the Soviet empire. Efforts to impose western European mores and tastes on these societies, especially when accompanied by threats of economic sanctions (as in the case of the Union’s so-called “rule of law” policies), caused “populist” opposition and resentment against what was perceived by many as an attempt to deprive them of their newly recovered national sovereignty.8 Conflicts in the European Council over cultural issues went as far as western heads of governments more or less explicitly urging their eastern colleagues, in particular those from Hungary and Poland, to exit from the Union if they were unwilling to share its “values.”9 Combined with the threat of economic sanctions, this in effect amounted to nothing less than an attempt to bring about a regime change in fellow member states.
The vision of Europe that has won out:
War is the ultimate stochastic source of history, and once it is underway there is no limit to the surprises it may bring. Still, even though the war in Ukraine seems far from over at the time of writing, one may feel justified observing that it has put an end, at least for the foreseeable future, to any vision of an independent, non-imperial, cooperative state system in Europe. The war also seems to have dealt a death blow to the French dream of turning the liberal empire of the European Union into a strategically sovereign global force, credibly rivaling both a rising China and a declining United States. The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have answered the question of the European order by reinstating the model, long believed to be history, of the Cold War: a Europe united under American leadership as a transatlantic bridgehead for the United States in an alliance against a common enemy, then the Soviet Union and now Russia. Inclusion in and subordination to a resurrected, remilitarized “West,” as a European subdepartment of NATO, seems to have saved, for the time being, the European Union from its destructive centrifugal forces, without however eliminating them. By restoring the West, the war neutralized the various fault lines where the EU was crumbling, some more and some less, while catapulting the United States into a position of renewed hegemony over western Europe, including its regional organization, the European Union.
Above all, the reintegration of the West under American leadership settled the old issue of the relationship between NATO and the EU in favor of a division of labor that established the primacy of the former over the latter. In an interesting way, this seems to have healed the division between continental Europe and the United Kingdom that had opened in the course of Brexit. As NATO rose to supremacy, the fact that it includes the UK together with the leading member states of the EU restores a prominent European role for Britain through its special relationship with the United States. How this affects the international status of a country like France was recently illustrated by a strategic agreement—the so-called aukus pact—between the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Under aukus, Australia canceled a 2016 deal with France on French diesel-powered submarines, instead committing itself to developing nuclear-powered submarines together with the United States and the United Kingdom—an event that showed France the limits of a French-led EU as a global power.
This is a brilliant essay (not just because it agrees with my takes) that has far too many quotable portions for me to share with you, so you’re going to have to read it yourself…..and you can thank me later.
There is always a segment of people who go for the exotic due to contempt that familiarity breeds. This can result in people who expatriate to foreign countries, dating others from foreign lands, or seeking wisdom and/or enlightenment from faiths not native to one’s own soil.
In recent times, we have seen western converts to Islam make the news quite a bit, usually for horrible reasons. In the late 60s, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi enticed celebrities like The Beatles and The Beach Boys to spend time with him in order to gain knowledge and ancient wisdom, until they realized he was a horny and pervy creep who lusted after their wives and girlfriends.
Buddhism became somewhat popular on the West Coast in the USA around the same time and still persists to this day, albeit in an altered form. Ethan Edwards takes a look:
Legend has it that during his own lifetime, the Buddha prophesied the end of the path to enlightenment. The Candragarbha-sutra gives us his words: “In the final 200 years, even monks will not practice in accordance with the True Dharma. They will seek worldly profit and fame; their compassion will be meager, and they will not live according to the precepts…at that time, the True Dharma will disappear. And even the letters of the scriptures will become invisible.”
If your only exposure to Buddhism is how it’s practiced in America, you’d have good reason to think the prophecy has already been fulfilled. Each morning, millions of Americans meditate, and Buddhist scriptures are available in every bookstore. But monks are few, and it’s rare that they follow the full rigor of monastic discipline. Many meditators do not claim to follow the True Dharma, and it’s not uncommon that they haven’t heard of it at all. The mindfulness movement has become an incredible source of profit and fame.
As I’ve said in the past, the genius of America is its ability to co-opt anything and everything and monetize it!
Co-option and adaption:
Buddhism had to gradually adapt and be adapted to become a part of the modern Western religious landscape. It’s a process that began as soon as Europeans systematically studied it in the nineteenth century. Meditation practices were stripped of their traditional context and given new purpose while still retaining the allure of their oriental origins. Books portraying Buddhism as the religion of modernity excited people’s interest, and accessible retreat-based meditation programs were meant to keep it. This transformation, a collaboration between Western countercultural figures and Eastern religious reformers, tells a story of how a modern religion is shaped and the contours of its future.
First European encounters, and colonial crises:
When modern Europeans first encountered Buddhism, it resembled nothing so much as popular myths about the “superstitious” dark ages. In the eighteenth century, French-Walloon engraver Bernard Picart referred to the Dalai Lama as the “Supreme Pontiff of all Tartarian idolaters” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau classified the religions of Japan and Tibet with Roman Catholicism as the “the religion of the priest…so clearly bad that it is a waste of time to prove it as such.” To these observers, Christendom had left behind folk piety and the rule of monks, but Buddhism was still trapped in this more primitive mode. The encounter and the biases behind it would shape not just the colonizers, but the colonized Buddhist world as well.
In much of the Buddhist world, the sudden changes brought by colonialism caused a sudden crisis for the clergy. In Burma and Sri Lanka, royal sponsorship of Theravada Buddhism was replaced with a supposedly neutral British colonial government and Christian missionaries. Removed from their traditional role, Buddhist institutions had to reground their religious authority. In both countries, a new generation of monks became the leaders of this renewal.
Buddhism as a surprising competitor to Christianity in the West:
At the same time Buddhist traditions were evolving, traditional Christianity faced increasing competition for satisfying the spiritual desires of the changing West. The Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation had moved both branches of Western Christianity from medieval, localized saint cults and pilgrimages to a more centralized, systematic, and confessional religion. The 1700s, in turn, had seen the rise of liberal, freethinking societies—including classic secret societies like the Freemasons—informed by the Enlightenment.
But in the 1800s, a more eclectic and occult form of spirituality had begun to ascend across Europe and America. Interest in alternative spiritualities rose, with thinkers like Arthur Schopenhauer and orientalist scholars like Eugène Burnouf popularizing Eastern religions. Initially, Europeans had been repulsed by Buddhism; now they were curious about its potential for spiritual renewal.
The moment lined up with a convergence between science and the new occultist philosophies. Various groups tried to apply the scientific worldview to the supernatural. One such group, the Spiritualists, applied empirical methods to interactions with ghosts and spirits, and devotees sought hidden powers that could connect them with the dead. Later in the century, the Theosophists led by Helena Blavatsky believed that Aryan masters hidden in Tibet held the ancient wisdom of humanity, and that this true religion was imperfectly realized in the religions of the East. Theosophists from Europe and America would later become instrumental in popularizing Buddhism and other Asian religious traditions among Western disciples and enthusiasts.
California:
The spiritual and occultist movements of the nineteenth century were the purview of socially influential but numerically small circles. This remained more or less the case in the early twentieth century as well. Then came the Baby Boomers.
In the 1950s, beginning with the Beat Generation, a new subculture began to imagine new life paths, values, and experiences against what they saw as the conformism of their parents’ generation. Foreignness, particularly Asian and “oriental” foreignness, became a distinct mark of authenticity.
It was not long before these spiritual seekers discovered books on Buddhism, and found in them a religion attuned to the needs of the time. Early Beats like Gary Snyder, Jack Kerouac, and Allen Ginsberg all had notable encounters with Buddhism through reading. Usually, it never went beyond that. But many wanted to go beyond words and into experiences and practices. Before long, they would discover meditation.
Like psychedelics, music, and sex, it was an intensely physical and mental experience for the individual. Although altered states were more difficult to achieve through meditation than through pharmaceutical means, it offered something more natural and grounded in the authority of sacred wisdom. For some, it even offered a purpose for life: the ultimate goal of enlightenment.
Most Buddhist sects traditionally identify enlightenment with freedom from rebirth with many profound signs and miracles, some with becoming a Boddhisattva and eventually a Buddha possessed of godlike powers. It is a process that takes countless lifetimes. But Buddhist modernizers had gradually begun describing it as something more akin to inner peace. This new enlightenment was presented as both the ultimate goal of practice and as what the original Buddhas had meant all along.
….and like much of everything else in the West, Western Buddhism has gone through a process of secularization removing the religiousness from it while leaving behind “feel good” rituals that cater to the individual. Read the rest of the article to understand how this took place.
This week we leave you with a look at a tragic figure, Anthony Bourdain. A wildly popular TV presenter and chef, his self-effacing style drew in millions but did not bring him happiness in the end.
Since chef, writer, and television star Anthony Bourdain’s suicide in June 2018, colleagues and friends have struggled to understand the reasons for his death and to define his legacy. Two recent projects—a film from acclaimed documentarian Morgan Neville (Best of Enemies, Won’t You Be My Neighbor?) and an oral history edited by Bourdain’s longtime assistant, Laurie Woolever—search for the real Bourdain. Their efforts reveal a man both more and less admirable than the one we thought we knew.
Bourdain was witty, striking, and unconventional, and he had a tremendous work ethic. (Imagine a drug addict who was never late for work; that was the young Tony Bourdain.) Even so, the source of his success is difficult to pin down, because it’s hard to say what exceptional talent he possessed. The book that launched him at 43, Kitchen Confidential (2000), was vivid and original, but most of his writing had a larkish or catchpenny quality: two culinary crime novels; another memoir; two cookbooks. He always thought of himself as a writer, but he died at 61 never having written the kind of serious book to which he aspired. It was our good fortune that his restlessness took him away from his desk and to bistros, noodle joints, and hotel bars across five continents.
His two longest-running shows, No Reservations (The Travel Channel, 2005–2012) and Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown (CNN, 2013–2018) were travel documentaries that pushed beyond cultural and visual clichés. Bourdain romanticized travel, but he also recorded its moments of exhaustion and dysphoria. Whatever Bourdain’s mood was, it always got through the camera; he would have rebuked editing designed to make him more affable or telegenic. This was his offbeat charisma: a reluctant performer, craving respect but wary of attention, he seemed both easy to like and somewhat unknowable. To his admirers, he was a symbol of integrity in a corrupt world.
Both shows were putatively about food, but as the seasons passed, Bourdain ate less and less and moved politics and culture to the center. He seemed determined always to thwart expectations. A cinéaste who disdained television, he was not anchored to what had come before and was determined not to repeat it. “I would rather make bad television than competent television,” he said. Like Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling, Bourdain struggled against the medium, ridiculed it, transformed it, and owed his immense success to it. Neither could outrun it.
Thank you once again for checking out my Substack. Hit the like button and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment below if the mood strikes you. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already done so.
Hit the like button and use the share button to share this on social media, where I am presently restricted. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you, and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Also: please consider joining our book club where we are covering the excellent, excellent "The Last Pagan Generation", by Edward J. Watts. It's a 2015 publication covering 4th Century AD Rome, and contains a fuckton of parallels to our present culture, both political and social.
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/fbf-book-club-the-final-pagan-generation?s=w
We are two entries in, with a third coming up tomorrow.
For effect: please do share today's weekend review on social media. Thank you kindly.
Vanity Fair can't even call Weigel's retweet a joke, which it was. Our media is a bunch of puritanical thin skinned bores more interested in keeping on the right side of progressive history than truth-seeking. This is a massive problem.