|
|
|
|
|
|
by etal
5731 days ago
|
|
|
The word you probably want is "truthiness". If there's a fundamental difference between the weaselly narratives constructed by Fox News and the psychedelic screeds Thompson put out, it's that most reporters aren't making it explicit that their stories are fully personal, opinionated interpretations of true events -- they record some isolated facts, sample a few quotes and make vague references to public sentiment to back up any narrative they need. But they present all of this as objective information. This was happening well before H.S.T. (see "yellow journalism") and happens outside the U.S. too (see Daily Mail). Thompson's approach was (1) a veil of entertaining literary showmanship over (2) complete, self-accountable interpretations of the events being covered. He was clear that his stories were subjective, and that freed him to explain exactly why he felt the way he did about Nixon, drug laws, Southern culture, etc. |
|
|
He once wrote a lengthy, 15-page feature piece for Rolling Stone about how the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 72, Muskie I believe, was addicted to an obscure stimulant found in an African root. The whole tale was entirely fabricated, and he never let on that he was joking. I'm pretty sure it would have qualified as libel. But in the process of telling the (deprave) story he managed to pinpoint everything wrong with Muskie's campaign at the time. Muskie sank to those very weaknesses (basically being a weakling/faker who was led around by his staff, in HST's estimation), and lost the sure thing nomination to a nobody named McGovern.
HST also once shaved his head before a debate while running for Sheriff of some county out in Colorado. He then spent the whole debate referring to the Republican in the race, clean-cut guy with a crew cut, as "my long-haired opponent". That one's not as profound, but it's hilarious. And says something about the media as well.