george magazine
one of the notes' calendar notes got my attention this morning. the harvard institute of politics is hosting a forum, tonight, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the late john f. kennedy, jr., esq.'s "baby"--george magazine. it seemed like a nice enough idea, but i'll admit to being surprised that an organization would have the notion to stage a whole event to honor the magazine, particularly since the passing of its founder in 1999, and the magazine's sad but unsurprising end, shortly afterwards. and then i found out that the institute is a living memorial" to the career of jfk, and that there's a jfk, jr. forum for political speech, discussion, and debate. it made more sense.
but still. surely george didn't get that much "love" in or outside the beltway when mr. kennedy was alive. it was an enterprise that people seemed never fully sold on--some (like me, at least) loved the idea of it, sure. and it was fairly well- executed, considering it was "breaking new ground" as the first publication to acknowledge, highlight, and capitalize upon that uneasy, (and to some still) unholy marriage of celebrity and politics. george might actually have suffered the most for being merely "liked." if memory serves, it was sexier as an idea, that it was in its execution (except for that time when john himself appeared within the pages, in his altogether), it was definitely not salacious (a good thing), and it wasn't skeptical enough--it was as earnest and well-liked as its founder. maybe that's why it didn't make a spectacular vault into the public consciousness.
but richard bradley points out that the impact of kennedy's "george," while neither striking or obvious, was quite far-reaching, and that george was the precursor to the kind of political journalism, and political criticism, that we have today.
so, perhaps no one should be surprised that tom brokaw is leading a panel of "big names" (roger ailes, paul begala, judy woodruff, former president clinton, and ca. gov. arnold schwarzenegger). surely, the event is a nice coda to the career of john kennedy jr., who was always "loved" as america's son, but whose professional accomplishments, while very well-chronicled (surely at times to his frustration) were not so fully appreciated as now.
but still. surely george didn't get that much "love" in or outside the beltway when mr. kennedy was alive. it was an enterprise that people seemed never fully sold on--some (like me, at least) loved the idea of it, sure. and it was fairly well- executed, considering it was "breaking new ground" as the first publication to acknowledge, highlight, and capitalize upon that uneasy, (and to some still) unholy marriage of celebrity and politics. george might actually have suffered the most for being merely "liked." if memory serves, it was sexier as an idea, that it was in its execution (except for that time when john himself appeared within the pages, in his altogether), it was definitely not salacious (a good thing), and it wasn't skeptical enough--it was as earnest and well-liked as its founder. maybe that's why it didn't make a spectacular vault into the public consciousness.
but richard bradley points out that the impact of kennedy's "george," while neither striking or obvious, was quite far-reaching, and that george was the precursor to the kind of political journalism, and political criticism, that we have today.
so, perhaps no one should be surprised that tom brokaw is leading a panel of "big names" (roger ailes, paul begala, judy woodruff, former president clinton, and ca. gov. arnold schwarzenegger). surely, the event is a nice coda to the career of john kennedy jr., who was always "loved" as america's son, but whose professional accomplishments, while very well-chronicled (surely at times to his frustration) were not so fully appreciated as now.
posted by lahat at 3:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home