Slate's Bizbox
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Chatterbox Answers His Critic

Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, June 16, 2000, at 5:51 PM ET

Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and MSNBC, took not one but two swipes at Chatterbox this week. Hey, Eric, lighten up! In his MSNBC column (and also in this "Fray" post), Alterman objected to Chatterbox's suggestion that Bruce Springsteen wrote his Amadou Diallo song, "American Skin," with the idea of helping elect Hillary Clinton to the Senate. (Chatterbox presumed the Boss wrote the song before Rudolph "Zero Tolerance" Giuliani pulled out of the race.) In his Nation column, Alterman objected to Chatterbox's assertion that readers of midlist books (as opposed to authors of same) are well-served by the status quo in book publishing. Let's take these one at a time.

Alterman's Springsteen complaint echoes that of many Springsteen fans who wrote in. Alterman argues that Springsteen had too written about "real live political events" before "American Skin." (Click here to listen to an excerpt from the song. Click here to read the lyrics. And click here to read Slate's Jodi Kantor describe the scene at Madison Square Garden when Springsteen sang "American Skin" there earlier this week.) Chatterbox's point, though, wasn't that Springsteen had never before written about "real live political events." It was that Springsteen had never before "made explicit points about specific news events." Songs like "Roulette" and "Youngstown," which do indeed focus on social issues, are nonetheless more evocative and less didactic than "American Skin." (Chatterbox doubts very many people even know that "Roulette" is supposed to be about Three Mile Island.) Not that didacticism is necessarily wrong, incidentally; protest songs have a long and distinguished history. (The New York Times's Jon Pareles makes an interesting but, Chatterbox thinks, ultimately unconvincing case in this concert review that "American Skin" is "determinedly evenhanded" about the Diallo shooting.)

Chatterbox's guess that Springsteen wrote "American Skin" to help Hillary Clinton win a Senate seat is what seems to have caused the most offense, however. Chatterbox's readers seem uniformly to have concluded that, if true, this would be unforgivable. Indeed, Chatterbox's guess was all the New York Post's Kenneth Lovett and Maria Alvarez needed to brand Chatterbox a "conservative commentator." (In addition to getting Chatterbox's political complexion wrong, the Post neglected to credit Chatterbox with breaking the story that Springsteen was being boycotted by the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. But we digress.) Alterman called Chatterbox a "high-minded liberal," which will do in a pinch, but wanted his readers to know that "Springsteen has never cared a whit either for electoral politics or the Clintons." Alterman's boy Springsteen is too good for politics! Chatterbox finds this an odd argument to be waged by anyone who writes for a political journal like The Nation, much less one who's spent the past decade telling anyone who'll listen that George Stephanopoulos is his best friend. Just as Chatterbox has no beef against Springsteen for writing a protest song, he has no beef against Springsteen for trying to help Hillary Clinton get elected to the Senate. Hell, if Chatterbox lived in New York, he'd probably vote for Hillary himself! (As a factual matter, in any case, Alterman's claim that Springsteen doesn't care who succeeds Pat Moynihan in the Senate is contradicted by this "Fray" reader's report that at the June 12 Madison Square Garden concert Springsteen took a playful swipe at Hillary's opponent, Rick Lazio.)

On to Alterman's Beef No. 2, concerning Chatterbox's summary of the Authors Guild report on the "midlist crisis." Chatterbox had merely observed that an oversupply of poorly marketed midlist books is good news for anybody who wants to read one (as opposed to anyone who wants to write one). Alterman, with no evidence, argues that a "virtual vow of poverty for serious writers" equals the "impoverishment of our culture. ... Timothy Noah argues in Slate that this is good news for the consumer, but Tim has never written a book, much less tried to live on the income from one." Alterman is correct: Chatterbox has never written a book. Chatterbox doesn't write midlist books; he reads them. How exactly does this disqualify him from judging what's good for readers of midlist books? (Incidentally, the Authors Guild report suggests that, if anything, today's serious writers probably have a little more financial savvy than their predecessors.)

What is Alterman's motive in attacking this venerable column on two separate fronts? Chatterbox guesses that Alterman is waging a war of attrition to get Chatterbox to link to It Ain't No Sin To Be Glad You're Alive, Alterman's quickie Springsteen bio (which Chatterbox hasn't read). "How about a link to my book here?" Alterman wrote in the "Fray," with characteristic modesty. "Slate would make a nickel or so." Although it's Chatterbox's usual policy not to bargain with terrorists, in this instance the stakes seem sufficiently small that he has complied. He just hopes other authors don't get ideas.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Response in The Fray from Eric Alterman:

Chatterbox doth protest way too much. I could spend a lot of time going over the minor mistakes as well as the major ones, but I will discipline myself, as I am not getting paid for this, and I am not a knucklehead.

I don't think I need to spend any more time on the "Springsteen for Hillary" argument. Tim had no evidence when he raised it. He has no evidence now. It is prima facie ridiculous, and as I said, could only occur to someone either physically or intellectually imprisoned inside the Beltway. When I note that Springsteen does not care about the Clintons or electoral politics, Tim writes, "Chatterbox finds this an odd argument to be waged by anyone who writes for a political journal like The Nation," and then goes on to take the low road with a petty personal remark. The first sentence is logically nonsensical. Just because The Nation cares about electoral politics or the Clintons doesn't mean Springsteen does. He is not a Nation columnist, after all. And as for the personal stuff-- well, there was nothing personal in my disagreements with Tim and I am further resisting the urge here to respond in kind. I mistakenly believed it was possible to have an intellectual disagreement with someone of Tim's stature and self-confidence without inspiring childish attacks. I won't make that mistake again.

Regarding mid-list books, our difference is merely one of perspective. Tim seems to think it fine if midlist authors live financially impoverished lives so that he might be able to purchase their books for a couple of bucks less. My sympathies here are with the writers. So presumably are those of the people at the Authors' Guild, which ordered up the study, and specifically Nick Lemann who oversaw the study at the request of the late Tony Lukas. So Tim's real problems are really with Nick and the now deceased Tony. I will drop the matter here, but I think Nick is in the book if Tim cares to continue.

Finally, why did I do it? Tim says it's to plug my book. Perhaps. But the other possibility is that I did it because it's my job. I'm a media columnist. Writing about the media--however thin-skninned--is what I get paid to do. Hello?

--Eric Alterman

(To reply, click here.)


Chatterbox replies: Springsteen is not a Nation columnist, but the tone of Alterman's comments on The Fray and in his MSNBC column is that Springsteen is too good for politics and too good for the Clintons. Otherwise why take such conspicuous offense? In fact, Springsteen is not indifferent to electoral politics or the Clintons (he mocked Lazio onstage!), and I don't see why a political writer and very public Stephanopoulos crony (pre-All Too Human) would pretend otherwise.

--Tim Noah

(To reply, click here.)

(6/17)

Round 2 from The Fray: Alterman again...

Tim should quit while he is not too far behind. In the first place, no one said Springsteen or anyone else was "too good for politics" or for the Clintons. I merely said he has no interest in them. I have no particular interest in 1950 Rolls Royces and 16th century Flemish masters. Does that mean I think I am "too good" for them? Moreover, Springsteen did not "mock" Rick Lazio. I was there Monday night (and Tim was not). Springsteen merely jokingly introduced Clarence Clemons by saying "Forget that kid from Long Island, here's the next senator from New York, the big man...." If one wanted to read this as literally as Tim tries, one would have to conclude that he was mocking Hillary, as he assumed Lazio to be the natural winner of the race. But of course such an assumption would be too stupid for words. And so would continuing this ridiculous exchange.

--Eric Alterman

(To reply, click here.)


...and Chatterbox again:

I will give this a rest, since we seem to have reached the "Is too" "Ain't neither" stage of argument.

--Tim Noah

(To reply, click here.)

(6/18)

.... and Chatterbox's positively final word:

A "Mr Bruce Springsteen" of Rumson, NJ who identifies himself as "Self-Employed/ Entertainer" donated $1,000 to Bill Bradley's presidential campaign on Feb. 23 of this year. Does that sound like a guy who (Alterman's phrase) "has never cared a whit...for electoral politics"? (This Federal Election Commission info is available at http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/lookup/AllCands.htm)

--Tim Noah

(To reply, click here.)


Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Biden Brings It On
Cohen | He gave us a window onto America -- and into himself.
Lane: A Little Less Doubtful NowMeyerson: Divided in Denver?
PLUS » Froomkin: Karzai to Bush: Not So Fast