Mary DelGrande Response to Andy Ferguson

Mary DelGrande

Andrew Ferguson is an obvious advocate for real journalism, real “meticulous debunking,” as he states in his “A History Hobby,” article. For someone who is as conservative as he is, I was surprised to find how sarcastic his articles were. I consider conservative writers to be uptight, non-sarcastic, direct and to the point. Ferguson is the total and complete opposite of that. His style of writing reminds me of Joe Garden from the Onion, like I’m reading his articles but saying them out loud at the same time.

He laughs at twittering, and “Twits on Parade,” was the best name for that article on twittering and how it’s the new form of blogging. Whenever I hear the word “twit” I think of a moronic idiot who has no idea what they are either talking or writing about. Ferguson proves this to be true in his article. He discusses a woman who works for the New York Times, Kate Phillips, and she just repeats whatever is said during the debate instead of voicing her own thoughts and opinions. This woman is the perfect example of a twit, an idiot, someone who can’t formulate their own ideas so they repeat what other people are saying and hope no one has heard it before. Ferguson describes how boring it is by comparing it to a “baseball game with a dotty uncle. ‘Oh, he’s swinging now, hits the ball with the bat, there he goes, better slide.’” No emotion whatsoever, just stating what’s going on in front of his eyes like no one else can see it except him.

His article on “The Literary Obama,” is different from the other articles he wrote for The Weekly Standard. This is not sarcastic, rather throughout the entire article is asks, “where did the writer go who wrote Dreams from my Father?” On the second page of this article Ferguson states, “Audacity is the work of a professional politician under careful watch of his advisers.” On the fourth page of the article, Ferguson states “the promises of religion ring false to him,” which is ironic because in this current presidential election religion is a major factor that both campaigns have touched on. In this article, Ferguson has stated what many people fear about Obama: that his plans claim to be detail oriented yet don’t give the details, he’s not proud of his country, and his only real motivation for anything is race and the color of his skin.

His opinionated response in the Wall Street Journal was an interesting look at history and how one man, James Hall, was the perfect journalist even though Ferguson called him an amateur historian. Ferguson loved the way in which Hall worked so hard at studying the history surrounding Lincoln’s assassination, and after he retired he dedicated his life towards it. Ferguson states, “James O. Hall knew more about Lincoln’s murder than anyone who ever lived, including John Wilkes Booth.” I think Hall impressed Ferguson very much because what he did after he retired embodied exactly what Ferguson thinks a journalist should be. Sleuthing around until the answer is found and until the entire mystery is solved. In Hall’s case, he died before he could finish doing all his research, but he died trying and that is commendable in my eyes.

Ferguson and Hall worked together, and seems so impressed with Hall and how he has attempted to trace down all the living ancestors of anyone remotely tied to the assassination, doing exactly what a journalist should do. In an earlier article, Ferguson mentions that until a journalist becomes a senior editor the hours are terrible, pay is even worse, and you really do not have a desk but you do it because you love it. Hall is the perfect example of this because he is doing exactly what he loves, searching around trying to find the hidden truth on a subject matter even if it is uncomfortable. At the end of Ferguson’s piece, he mentions, “But Mr. hall was without professional vanity; that’s what it means to be an amateur, after all.” Ferguson knows that Hall is the optimal journalist and that many people should aspire to be like him as journalists, doing it not for fame or recognition, rather so that they can know the facts and present them for historical purposes.