annotations: beto male
Joe Hagan's Beto O'Rourke profile in Vanity Fair; revisiting Japan; and other things I read
Hi, subscribers old and new! I started this newsletter exactly one month ago, and there are now more than 200 of you (which is about 175 more than I expected). This is a personal milestone, please don’t tell me otherwise.
I know there are a lot of other things you could be spending your metaphysical currency on in this attention-deficit economy (Twitter! Terrace House! Bon Appetit’s YouTube videos! physical books???), so I appreciate that you’re here at this very second. Thank you.
annotated: ”Beto O’Rourke, as He Comes to Grips With a Presidential Run” by Joe Hagan, Vanity Fair
There are two ways I want to discuss Vanity Fair’s Beto cover story. One concerns the writing itself. The other concerns the optics.
But first, let’s look at the cover, shot by VF mainstay Annie Leibovitz:
Photo: Annie Leibovitz
For a photograph that was taken outside, on a dirt road in El Paso, surrounded by nature, this image looks oddly unnatural. The lighting and post-processing have flattened all the colors, creating a portrait that teeters on the edge of uncanny valley. Beto, slightly off center, nearly blends into the backdrop. His outfit, his pose, his slightly tousled hair, the unpaved road, the open pickup truck door, the dog—these are all deliberate choices to push the non-threatening image of Beto as the everyday man, the relatable candidate, the friendly neighbor who will pick you up in his truck if you’re stranded on the side of the road.
If you’re curious about the blue shirt, here’s what Leibovitz has to say:
I was in a quandary about whether he should wear a blue shirt or something more relaxed. So when we went out there, I said, “Listen, if you’re going to run, wear the blue shirt. If you’re not going to run, let’s wear something else.” And he said, “Let’s put on the blue shirt.”
Okay, now let’s talk about the text. HERE ARE MY ANNOTATIONS.
(Please annotate at will; ICYMI, my pal David added his own comments to my annotations of Michael Cohen’s testimony a couple weeks ago. I love it!!!)
The biggest thing that stands out to me about this profile is how it mythologizes Beto by effectively framing his life and the arc of his political career as a hero’s journey. Even if he doesn’t say it directly, Hagan’s framing implicitly suggests that he too buys into Beto’s mythology: that of a man who has some sort of indefinable power—an “aura,” some magic that draws people to him as impassioned followers—and who destined, or “born,” to take part in a “fight” of such legendary magnitude.
We see this in the structure (pretty linear: present —> past leading back to —> present; a closed circle), which highlights Beto’s departures, his trials and tribulations, the winding path that leads him back home and to the race against Cruz, then the loss, and now the beginning of his real hero’s journey: the potential road to the presidency. We also see it in the invocations of figures of biblical or mythological lore: Ulysses, David and Goliath, etc. Beto believes it, himself. It seems like Hagan does, too. Will the rest of the country?
Now, a note about the optics: This profile and Beto’s announcement that he’s running have been fairly polarizing. I get it. Women play a bit part in the cover story, compared to the attention and care paid to the men in Beto’s orbit, like his father and even his father-in-law. And he says dumb stuff like this:
“The government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” he says. “That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.
Finally, there’s the question of the adulatory framing and how we never really see that kind of breathless coverage given to women who are running. To that I say: yes. Bustle, please rectify this by profiling Tulsi Gabbard immediately.
read
I don’t have many links for you today, and yet it felt like I spent every waking moment in the never-ending hell that is my Pocket list, weird!!!
Elif Batuman’s “A Theory of Relativity” (also known under the hed “Japan’s Rent-a-Family Industry”) won an Ellie yesterday, so it’s a good time to re-read one of my favorite features ever. [The New Yorker]
Another good one to re-read this week, for obvious reasons: Jia Tolentino three years ago on Abigail Fisher, college admissions, and “level” playing fields. [Jezebel]
Meanwhile, 2019 Jia wrote about clothing brand Outdoor Voices and this cultural moment in cultivating a lifestyle. [The New Yorker]
An argument against being yourself. [The Outline]
No more “we.” [Deadspin]
navel-gazed
As usual, there were several media-industry things to get mad about this week, but the only one that very publicly caught the attention of the New York State Department of Labor was a job posting for a “full-time freelance” editorial assistant role for Epicurious, one of Conde Nast’s food/recipe publications.
I don’t have much else to say besides: It is bad and it is the norm in this and many other industries. It should not be the norm. It will continue to be the norm unless workers unionize, and even then, unions generally preclude these kinds of workers, who are not considered employees as covered by a contract. More and more media companies have turned to permalancers and temporary full-time contract roles similar to the kind that staff any Hollywood production. That, along with the continued TV-ification of media companies attempting to carve out revenue in the entertainment space, makes me wonder what percentage of jobs that are process-heavy and perceived as as more “come in and hit the ground running, no prior institutional knowledge needed” (social media managers? video editors?) will have become primarily contract/permalance.
Anyway read more about permalancers from Jack Crosbie in Splinter: “Full-Time Freelance” Is Just the Industry Standard
Condé Nast employs “full-time freelancers” across many of the sites and magazines in its portfolio. And it’s not just the little guys like editorial assistants—it’s been an open secret for years that even at a prestige publication like The New Yorker, many of its “staff writers” are in fact independent contractors ineligible for health insurance and other benefits.
How do I know? Because I’m in the same boat. I work 30 hours a week for Splinter, usually split into 10-hour shifts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
[…]
As a “contractor,” I am not eligible for health insurance, retirement benefits, union membership, paid time-off, or sick days. If the company classified me as a full-time employee of GMG, I would be eligible for those benefits. But that, of course, would cost the company more money. I couldn’t write a blog blasting Condé Nast’s practices without noting my own employer uses a different version of the same scam to protect its bottom line.
It’s worth noting that despite the tone-deaf job posting, the buck doesn’t stop with Tamarkin. Editors like him, or my supervisors at Splinter, are rarely responsible for the broader hiring practices inside a company. (No, they didn’t make me write that.) The people calling these shots are the same ones who are the bad guys in every other media story you read these days: the ones that pivot to video based on phony Facebook numbers, who ramp up traffic goals to meet arbitrary demands by the liquor company marketing execs they got drinks with last night, who decide that the company needs “restructuring” and that a bunch of your friends are out of a job.
P.S. It’s been a long week. Take care of yourself and also watch this:
As always, send me your recs/feedback/salutations. Ratio me in a positive manner. Share this newsletter with someone you think would enjoy it. Get some SLEEP.
Finally, a programming note: annotations will be OFF next week because I’m taking a half-vacation to celebrate the passage of time. See you the week after that!
jgz (@jennygzhang)