Press Rogue — April 5, 2019, 3:58 pm

Exit Left

The American press is obsessed with explaining Brexit. Just this week, the New York Times published four Brexit explainers. CNN has run at least eight since January, including a video that uses Legos to illustrate the United Kingdom’s customs relationship with the European Union. The Washington Post has demonstrated a similar fondness for the format, posting a glossary of Brexit terms, a pair of “What’s Next for Brexit?” videos, and a clip that promises an explanation for “confused Americans,” led by a “pop culture host.” “It’s not your fault if you don’t know what’s going on,” she says. “Because nobody knows what’s going on.”

This includes the journalists doing the explaining. “Brexit Remains Impossible to Understand,” went one Atlantic headline last week; “What the Fuck Is Going on With Brexit?” wondered Vice. Even Vox, the crème de la crème of explainer journalism, has been remarkably circumspect on the subject, with one headline hedging, “The Brexit Extension Drama, Explained as Much as Possible.” All this apparent confusion has manifested in an avalanche of explainers, each reassuring the reader that her befuddlement is justified before proceeding to deepen it.

Many of these articles take the form of flowcharts and Q&As, each attempting to distill the vital facts of the case into easily digestible nuggets. The Q&As tend toward the humor you’d expect from a biology teacher wearing a trout-shaped tie: take New York Magazine’s tepid “But why should I, a completely self-centered American, care that this happened?” or CNN’s try-hard “Wow, this is… a lot.” The flowcharts are more sober but no more useful, as a distinct fatalism pervades their efforts to schematize the range of potential Brexits. The Wall Street Journal offers a rectilinear graphic reminiscent of electrical wiring diagrams one might find in a washing machine manual, with a discouraging “start over” placed at the foot of the image, as if the designer had already admitted defeat. The Times uses a more traditional branching-tree chart, but each limb is accompanied by several paragraphs of explication which forestall any clear takeaway.

A  successful explainer, like any piece of journalism, answers two questions: “What are the starting conditions?” and “What has changed?” The format’s classic use is in spelling out the details of a new legislative initiative, but it has also been deployed to great effect in coverage of global instability. As separatist violence spread through Eastern Ukraine in 2013, the Guardian ran a solid item laying out the political and cultural divisions in the country, and in 2017, when a military crackdown on the Rohingya drove several hundred thousand members of the little-known ethnic group out of their homes in Myanmar, the Times published a comprehensive yet digestible explainer on that people’s precarious history. These sorts of explainers hardly claim to be encyclopedic, but they provide invaluable context for the casual observer. In its piece on Myanmar, the Times provides a clear answer to the two aforementioned questions in one line: “The Rohingya have faced violence and discrimination in the majority-Buddhist country for decades, but they are now fleeing in unprecedented numbers from violence that the United Nations … has called ‘a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.’” The article goes on to detail the history of that “violence and discrimination” and the horrid details of that “ethnic cleansing.” By assuming the reader hasn’t the foggiest idea who the Rohingya are, and perhaps only a marginally better grasp of Myanmar’s history, the writer is empowered to simplify, clarify, and then add context.

Brexit explainers, on the other hand, typically exhibit an inability to properly calibrate the reader’s knowledge of the situation. One Vox article from October begins in media res with Theresa May jetting off to Brussels, before offering a “quick reminder of how it all began.” A Times explainer, updated a month later, works in a similar seesaw fashion, leading with the initial rejection of May’s deal before jumping to 1973 and Britain’s accession into the European Economic Community. CNN, in an article from January that’s as patronizing as it is useless, offers a point of departure suitable for kindergarteners: “The European Union is arguably the world’s most powerful bloc. But it’s about to lose the United Kingdom, one of its biggest members.” Another clarifying point: “Britain+exit = Brexit.”

More frustrating than the uneven posturing is how often efforts to, in Vox’s words, “take a big step back and lay it all out clearly and concisely,” lead to writers missing central developments, or even passing along misleading information. John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has become a major player in the negotiations. In January, he allowed an initiative that diminished May’s leverage, and in mid-March, he dashed the prime minister’s hopes of holding a third meaningful vote. Yet Bercow went entirely unmentioned in American explainers. Likewise, these articles roundly dismissed the possibility that the original March 29 deadline could be extended. A January CNBC article took Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay at his word that such an avenue would not be pursued, while Reuters stated in December that “the date is set in law.”

Then there was May’s decision this week to elicit support from Labour, even if it means renegotiating the terms she’s agreed to with Brussels. In the past few months, such an idea was scarcely mentioned by the American press. Yet there May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were on Wednesday, spending two hours together in an attempt to begin hashing out a compromise. For a reader relying solely on Brexit explainers, this week’s news must have come as quite a shock. The Post described it as a “dramatic swerve across her own red lines;” Bloomberg styled it as a “last throw of the dice.”

If one were following the story by reading the excellent daily reporting coming out of London, it’s hard to imagine being so startled by this week’s developments. But then, if Brexit were covered more like a standard political crisis, the negotiations probably wouldn’t seem all that hard to understand, either. Opposed interests have staked out competing positions, with a notion of pending economic damage the lone incentive for compromise. The specifics change, but the dynamic remains the same. If this story were framed like one of Washington’s regular funding standoffs, I suspect May’s resorting to working with Corbyn would be more readily understood as a natural, even inevitable, development.

By forcing Brexit into a series of tongue-in-cheek questions and answers, or a flowchart, or a Lego demonstration, the American media has dug itself into a hole. Yes, trade policy can be dense, and yes, the Troubles and the history of the EU are useful context. Journalists should, of course, try to make their reporting accessible. But meeting a reader where they are shouldn’t mean inflating their confusion. Brexit isn’t a four-dimensional chess puzzle, nor is it an episode of Blue’s Clues. It’s a story about a political standoff—if there’s one thing our press corps should be well equipped to analyze, it’s that.

Share
Single Page

More from Kyle Paoletta:

Press Rogue May 23, 2019, 2:59 pm

One Horse Town

Press Rogue May 16, 2019, 4:00 pm

Playing With Fire

Press Rogue May 9, 2019, 4:00 pm

Boys on the Bus

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2019

Gimme Shelter

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Body Language

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Trash, Rock, Destroy

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Make Way for Tomorrow

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Red Dot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Gimme Shelter·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I.

That year, the year of the Ghost Ship fire, I lived in a shack. I’d found the place just as September’s Indian summer was giving way to a wet October. There was no plumbing or running water to wash my hands or brush my teeth before sleep. Electricity came from an extension cord that snaked through a yard of coyote mint and monkey flower and up into a hole I’d drilled in my floorboards. The structure was smaller than a cell at San Quentin—a tiny house or a huge coffin, depending on how you looked at it—four by eight and ten feet tall, so cramped it fit little but a mattress, my suit jackets and ties, a space heater, some novels, and the mason jar I peed in.

The exterior of my hermitage was washed the color of runny egg yolk. Two redwood French doors with plexiglass windows hung cockeyed from creaky hinges at the entrance, and a combination lock provided meager security against intruders. White beadboard capped the roof, its brim shading a front porch set on cinder blocks.

After living on the East Coast for eight years, I’d recently left New York City to take a job at an investigative reporting magazine in San Francisco. If it seems odd that I was a fully employed editor who lived in a thirty-two-square-foot shack, that’s precisely the point: my situation was evidence of how distorted the Bay Area housing market had become, the brutality inflicted upon the poor now trickling up to everyone but the super-rich. The problem was nationwide, although, as Californians tend to do, they’d taken this trend to an extreme. Across the state, a quarter of all apartment dwellers spent half of their incomes on rent. Nearly half of the country’s unsheltered homeless population lived in California, even while the state had the highest concentration of billionaires in the nation. In the Bay Area, including West Oakland, where my shack was located, the crisis was most acute. Tent cities had sprung up along the sidewalks, swarming with capitalism’s refugees. Telegraph, Mission, Market, Grant: every bridge and overpass had become someone’s roof.

Article
Body Language·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I am eight years old, sitting in my childhood kitchen, ready to watch one of the home videos my father has made. The videotape still exists somewhere, so somewhere she still is, that girl on the screen: hair that tangles, freckles across her nose that in time will spread across one side of her forehead. A body that can throw a baseball the way her father has shown her. A body in which bones and hormones lie in wait, ready to bloom into the wide hips her mother has given her. A body that has scars: the scars over her lungs and heart from the scalpel that saved her when she was a baby, the invisible scars left by a man who touched her when she was young. A body is a record or a body is freedom or a body is a battleground. Already, at eight, she knows it to be all three.

But somebody has slipped. The school is putting on the musical South Pacific, and there are not enough roles for the girls, and she is as tall as or taller than the boys, and so they have done what is unthinkable in this striving 1980s town, in this place where the men do the driving and the women make their mouths into perfect Os to apply lipstick in the rearview. For the musical, they have made her a boy.

No, she thinks. They have allowed her to be a boy.

Article
Trash, Rock, Destroy·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The writer and filmmaker Virginie Despentes lives in a nondescript modern building in the Belleville neighborhood of Paris. I know it well: it has a Bricorama—like a French Home Depot—on the ground floor, where we sometimes had cause to shop back when we lived in the neighborhood. The people who work there seemed to hate their jobs more than most; they were often absent from the sales floor. In the elevator to Despentes’s apartment, I marvel that while I was trying to get someone to help me find bathroom grout she was right upstairs, with her partner, Tania, a Spanish tattoo artist who goes by the name La Rata, like someone out of one of Despentes’s novels.

In an email before our meeting, Despentes asked that we not do a photo shoot. “There are so many images available already,” she explained. Much had been written about her, too. A Google search yielded page after page: profiles, interviews, reviews, bits and bobs—she read from Pasolini at a concert with Béatrice Dalle; someone accused her of plagiarizing a translation; a teacher in Switzerland was fired for teaching her work. The week I met her, she appeared in the culture magazine Les Inrockuptibles in conversation with the rapper-turned-actor JoeyStarr. The woman is simply always in the news.

Article
Burning Down the House·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Discussed in this essay:

Plagued by Fire: The Dreams and Furies of Frank Lloyd Wright, by Paul Hendrickson. Knopf. 624 pages. $35.

Frank Lloyd Wright isn’t just the greatest of all American architects. He has so eclipsed the competition that he can sometimes seem the only one. Who are his potential rivals? Henry Hobson Richardson, that Gilded Age starchitect in monumental stone? Louis Sullivan, lyric poet of the office building and Wright’s own Chicago mentor, best known for his dictum that form follows function? “Yes,” Wright corrected him with typical one-upmanship, “but more important now, form and function are one.” For architects with the misfortune to follow him, Wright is seen as having created the standards by which they are judged. If we know the name Frank Gehry, it’s probably because he designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. And Gehry’s deconstructed ship of titanium and glass would be unimaginable if Wright hadn’t built his own astonishing Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue some forty years earlier.

Article
The Red Dot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

That night at the window, looking out at the street full of snow, big flakes falling through the streetlight, I listened to what Anna was saying. She was speaking of a man named Karl. We both knew him as a casual acquaintance—thin and lanky like Ichabod Crane, with long hair—operating a restaurant down in the village whimsically called the Gist Mill, with wood paneling, a large painting of an old gristmill on a river on one wall, tin ceilings, and a row of teller cages from its previous life as a bank. Karl used to run along the river, starting at his apartment in town and turning back about two miles down the path. He had been going through the divorce—this was a couple of years ago, of course, Anna said—and was trying to run through his pain.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

Shortly after the Regional Council of Veneto, in Italy, voted against climate-change legislation, its chambers were flooded.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today