I especially enjoy this bit:
In an era of chronic concern over terrorism and anxiety over immigration, the business of determining who is who [sic] has become increasingly urgent.I try to stay out of the emmessemm-is-rotten game, if only because they furnish most of my punch lines, but the above sentence kills me. One of the few valuable things I learned writing academic papers on literary and cultural topics was to locate myself in the argument: to say, Hey! This isn't the disembodied voice of god. It's me. Here's a quick gloss of my position vis-à-vis the subject at hand. Here's a sentence noting my critical method. Shit like that. Here at Who is IOZ?, I usually get away calling myself an anarchofaggot, or what have you. (Not true! Comb the archives for hints about IOZ's socioeconomic status! His family life! His age! Wheeeee!)
So here's the WaPo, one of the two principle media interlocuters for the American government and economic establishment, nattering about "chronic concern over terrorism and axiety over immigration" without noting, even in passing, the role played by the media in fomenting such anxieties. And while I don't expect full-paragraph disclaimers on the complicity of tabloidized newsmedia in crafting a nation of corpulent pseudofascisti, I hardly think it too much to ask that the self-proclaimed neutral arbiters of our not-so-great national discourse at least give us some throwaway acknowledgement that what's bad for your feet is damn good for Dr. Scholl's.