Criticism
What's the point of having a blog if I can't respond to some of the criticism of my book? I promise I won't make a habit of this but two months after publication I can no longer resist a few comments.
In The Washington Post yesterday, Ann Hornaday wrote a very generous profile of me. I was amused by the response she got from the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman regarding my criticisms of his role in the 2000 Presidential campaign. I have written that Lieberman's incessant attacks on youth culture pushed millions of young people away from voting Democratic. Hornaday writes: "Through a spokesman, Lieberman said that he hasn't read Goldberg's book but doesn't "feel the need to respond to the political analysis of a record producer. Suffice it to say he shouldn't give up his day job." In other words, it doesn't make any difference what I say or that The Washington Post is doing the asking -- the mere fact that I'm in the music business makes me unworthy of any attention from the Senator. The arguments are not worth responding to -- but a snide remark is apparently meant as an example of Lieberman's celebrated "wit". (By the way, I'm not a record producer. Record producers are the people who direct the recording of albums. I am a record company executive -- the person who runs my company, Artemis.)
In the past I've also been a personal manager and a PR person but never had the talent to be a producer. This is not the only time that an attack like this has been made. If it was just me personally, it would be "ad hominem" but the kinds of attacks I'm referring to are really against an entire community.
Reviews in both the Washington Post Book World and In These Times suggested that my motives in defending popular teen culture such as Eminem were suspect because I made my living from selling records. What difference does it make whether or not I make money from rap music? If my arguments are weak, why not respond to the argument instead of a personal attack? The reason, I think, is that such critics cannot comprehend that any moral person would sincerely think teen culture is worth defending. To me, this only reflects on the generational bigotry and small mindedness of the critics and reinforces my premise that the middle-aged political culture, especially on the Democratic and liberal side, is terribly weakened by such biases.
For what its worth, I've never made a penny from any of the high profile controversial records that Lieberman et al have attacked such as Eminem, Dr. Dre, Marilyn Manson, etc.. Undoubtedly, over the years, I've released some records that William Bennett would think immoral, but those have only been a small portion of my business. Currently, for example, the big record for Artemis is the Warren Zevon album, "The Wind", which offends no one. In any event -- none of the attacks on rap or rock music has cost anyone in the record business a penny. They have had no adverse effect on sales. In a few cases, such as the Ice T / Body Count album "Cop Killer", (which I also had nothing to do with) such attacks actually increased sales. So if I were motivated by greed I would want politicians to attack my music. There has been only one effect of all of the attacks on pop culture by people like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, etc: The alienation of some young people from politics.
The Post article also said that several people who work on registering young people to vote disagreed with my analysis that culture attacks had been part of reason young people didn't vote. I agree that there are other reasons, such as an excessive focus on issues like social security and little or no focus on issues that matter to younger people such as the drug war or scholarships. I have also written about the need for a moral construct for progressive politics instead of a shopping list of issues.
However, I would like to know, if not culture bashing, what IS the explanation for a dramatic decline in the Democrat margin from 19 points among 18-24 year olds in 1996 to ZERO in 2000 when Gore and Lieberman ran and emphasized attacks on culture in the campaign -- and UP to a 20 POINT margin for Democrats among young people in 2002?
In The Washington Post yesterday, Ann Hornaday wrote a very generous profile of me. I was amused by the response she got from the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman regarding my criticisms of his role in the 2000 Presidential campaign. I have written that Lieberman's incessant attacks on youth culture pushed millions of young people away from voting Democratic. Hornaday writes: "Through a spokesman, Lieberman said that he hasn't read Goldberg's book but doesn't "feel the need to respond to the political analysis of a record producer. Suffice it to say he shouldn't give up his day job." In other words, it doesn't make any difference what I say or that The Washington Post is doing the asking -- the mere fact that I'm in the music business makes me unworthy of any attention from the Senator. The arguments are not worth responding to -- but a snide remark is apparently meant as an example of Lieberman's celebrated "wit". (By the way, I'm not a record producer. Record producers are the people who direct the recording of albums. I am a record company executive -- the person who runs my company, Artemis.)
In the past I've also been a personal manager and a PR person but never had the talent to be a producer. This is not the only time that an attack like this has been made. If it was just me personally, it would be "ad hominem" but the kinds of attacks I'm referring to are really against an entire community.
Reviews in both the Washington Post Book World and In These Times suggested that my motives in defending popular teen culture such as Eminem were suspect because I made my living from selling records. What difference does it make whether or not I make money from rap music? If my arguments are weak, why not respond to the argument instead of a personal attack? The reason, I think, is that such critics cannot comprehend that any moral person would sincerely think teen culture is worth defending. To me, this only reflects on the generational bigotry and small mindedness of the critics and reinforces my premise that the middle-aged political culture, especially on the Democratic and liberal side, is terribly weakened by such biases.
For what its worth, I've never made a penny from any of the high profile controversial records that Lieberman et al have attacked such as Eminem, Dr. Dre, Marilyn Manson, etc.. Undoubtedly, over the years, I've released some records that William Bennett would think immoral, but those have only been a small portion of my business. Currently, for example, the big record for Artemis is the Warren Zevon album, "The Wind", which offends no one. In any event -- none of the attacks on rap or rock music has cost anyone in the record business a penny. They have had no adverse effect on sales. In a few cases, such as the Ice T / Body Count album "Cop Killer", (which I also had nothing to do with) such attacks actually increased sales. So if I were motivated by greed I would want politicians to attack my music. There has been only one effect of all of the attacks on pop culture by people like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, etc: The alienation of some young people from politics.
The Post article also said that several people who work on registering young people to vote disagreed with my analysis that culture attacks had been part of reason young people didn't vote. I agree that there are other reasons, such as an excessive focus on issues like social security and little or no focus on issues that matter to younger people such as the drug war or scholarships. I have also written about the need for a moral construct for progressive politics instead of a shopping list of issues.
However, I would like to know, if not culture bashing, what IS the explanation for a dramatic decline in the Democrat margin from 19 points among 18-24 year olds in 1996 to ZERO in 2000 when Gore and Lieberman ran and emphasized attacks on culture in the campaign -- and UP to a 20 POINT margin for Democrats among young people in 2002?
posted by Danny at
3:01 PM
0 Comments
