In his New Republic book review of Lucy Riall’s Garibaldi: Invention of a Hero, Alexander Stille writes:
Riall does not overemphasize the modernity of Garibaldi; she recognizes that he is not quite our contemporary. One of the interesting cultural differences that separates us from the culture of the Garibaldi cult is the almost willful use of wholly invented stories and details in the vast majority of Garibaldi biographies that circulated at the time. Even though there was plenty of dramatic and novelistic material from the real life of Garibaldi to draw on, writers seemed to go out of their way to fabricate stories and details. As Riall observes, conforming to the canons of contemporary romance and melodrama was much more important than any notion of journalistic accuracy and historical verisimilitude. “One of the most striking features of this script,” she writes, “was the apparently seamless blend of fact and fiction, of novelistic fantasy and political truth, and this blend…seems to have been at the heart of Garibaldi’s public success.”
[my emphasis]
Perhaps that separation of cultural conventions is not so complete as Mr Stille would pretend it to be. Or maybe it’s just that someone forgot to tell Franklin Foer.
For you lawyers out there, tell me: can one get a cease and desist order letter against a rather delightful example of situational irony…?
(h/t Robert Schwartz)
The chilling effect, not much of a concern for TNR I guess. Maybe the shield law the House looks set to approve can be amended with a nod to McGee. That’ll happen.
Since it seems pretty clear now that TNR misrepresented its product to the buying public, i.e., describing it as factual, well-researched journalism, is there any legal basis for demanding a cease-and-desist against someone exposing consumer fraud?
– Apparently not. There seems to be a long tradition of “protected fraudulent speech”, as long as its the Press, and its political in nature. The only recourse seems to be if you can get the perp into a court of law under any pretext, and then catch him/her/Valirie/Joe/Kerry, lying under oath, but even then the charge is perjury, signaling that the constituency has no protection from mendacious slander, or intentional liable in point of fact, only the courts enjoy such “rights”. Citing law doesn’t mean anything since they’re rarely enforced.
– Kerry and the Plames have been advised of this by their puppet masters, so you won’t live long enough to see Kerry take O’Neille up on that 100,000 offer. The rebuff by the court to Valerie’s fairy tales was probably enough of a “close shave” that they’ll now be quietly disappearing from the national scene.
This is not a distinction without a difference: TNR’s lawyers sent a cease and desist letter, not a decease and desist order. One is an intimidation tactic, essentially announcing “if I can find a way to sue you, I will”, and the other would be an order of the court resulting from a petition of the courts for enforcement of rights.
There is no “cease and desist” order. Only a paper tiger asking for a cheeseburger.
Mmmmm, cheeseburger! Can I have mine double meat, double cheese, with mushrooms and bacon, and a side of delicious situational irony rings?
– There are no delicious irony rings on the Left….you’ll have to settle for fake but accurate simulated curley fries.
All of which are listed on the “Progressive Foods for Progressive’Kewls'” menu selections in The Narrative.™
Sorry, The Narrative™ is trans fat and reason free.
Absolutely right, Sarah. Haste makes something not as good as non-haste.
Good stuff.
I wonder what they’d do if they received in turn a letter demanding they cease and desist sending cease-and-desist letters?
– Probably launch a campaign, including a series of hard hitting journalistic expose’s, on how the VRWC is trampling on their freedom to lie rights.
McGehee – How about a cease and desist letter preventing them from publishing patent BS?
FF: “China’s just a few feet further, guys! Keep digging!”
– mojo – From the obvious political turmoil within the editors ranks at TNR, more likely its a case of: “Faster guys, pull harder on those oars….we’re losing ground to the river current, and the falls are just a few feet away”……
I believe the correct etiquette here requires the sending of a “Bite Me” letter in response. Mockery is probably suggested, though I should maybe look that up.
If I recall my freshman literature course, which sadly is receding over the horizon of history, Book 2 of Don Quixote was written about 10 years after Book 1 and begins with DQ and Sancho Panza discussing all the Beauchampisms that had been invented about them during that 10 year period. I guess that makes Don Quixote one of the earliest post-modern works of literature.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there’s an extended discussion between DQ and SP about whether they can stop these inventions with a cease-and-desist letter.
“Frank Doesn’t Want To Tell Ellie Her Husband Is A Liar, Dude”…
Sippican Cottage says:The New York Times et al., like to tell people that the internet is killing their business. Please. I can’t be the only one that noticed that the front page is the editorial section now, and the editorial……