This fish tells one heck of a story

Don't let this be the one that got away. Stanley Fish, a distinguished academic, dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and author of 10 books, writes a blog for the New York Times about politics and current events.

The blog, as it should, goes beyond the realm of typical mainstream media fare and provides thoughtful commentary on topical issues. His incisive blogs deftly blend the probing, analytical mind of an academic with the scintillating prose of an accomplished writer. His commentary is smart and clever and often employs cutting wit. Despite his lofty credentials, his style and voice is accessible. As a result his blog, I believe, caters to a wide and diverse readership.

The columns help readers deconstruct the politics and spin that pervade media today and help people put a frame on the issues of the day.

Take for instance his column on the Don Imus firing:

"Early on in the Don Imus firing controversy I took an abstinence pledge, vowing never to write anything about it. I now go back on that pledge, not because I have anything to say, but because there isn’t anything to say, although almost everybody in the world has been saying a great deal. What I mean is that there are no serious issues that might be appropriately – as opposed to opportunistically – attached to this incident. The story should not be filed under 'free speech' or 'racist speech' or 'the culture of indecency' or 'double standards'; it should be filed under 'blunders with unexpected consequences' ...

"In Mr. Imus’s case, what followed his disparaging of the Rutgers women basketball players was unanticipated not because he had intended no insult, but because intending insults has always been his line of work, and he had no reason to believe that this five-second instance of his ordinary practice would bring everything crashing down. Many commentators have said that Imus should have distinguished between his usual targets – Hollywood celebrities, politicians, sports icons – and 10 innocent and vulnerable young women. But this criticism assumes that behind what Imus said over the years was some kind of social or moral or philosophical calculation. There was nothing at all behind his daily performances; he was just occupying a professional niche – Don Rickles with a network – and doing exactly what he was paid to do."

I don't typically read many blogs during the day, but this one is a staple. Try reading it yourself and you'll get hooked too.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/