Reza Aslan is to religion what Fareed Zakaria is to politics: easily the most interesting, informed, and impartial TV commentator in his field. Each man is like an oasis in a vast desert of empty-headed twits parroting partisan talking points as insightful commentary.
This is why CNN firing Aslan means a far greater loss for us than him.
CNN no longer believes in Believer, the non-fiction series it launched earlier this year with Reza Aslan, the Iranian-American author and religious scholar. …
In the tweet, Aslan called Trump ‘a piece of sh*t’ and expressed dismay at Trump’s use of the tragedy to promote his desire for a so-called ‘travel ban’ on certain kinds of people hailing from specific countries in the Middle East. The author later apologized, saying, ‘I should have used better language to express my shock and frustration at the president’s lack of decorum and sympathy for the victims of London. I apologize for my choice of words.’
(Variety, June 9, 2017)
For the record, here is the tweet that provoked his outrage, followed by the tweet that got him fired:
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 3, 2017
This piece of sh*t is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) June 3, 2017
Yet I am more disappointed in Aslan for posting that offensive tweet than in CNN for firing him. This excerpt from “Twitter Rant: Take 2,” November 27, 2012, explains why.
__________________
This medium does little more than give voice to people who really should just keep their mouths shut. …
A sure sign of the oft-cited decline of Western civilization is a faux celebrity like Kim Kardashian making more money writing idle-minded tweets about her cash-driven life than a Pulitzer Prize-winning author like Philip Roth makes writing psychoanalytical books about his angst-ridden life. …
What is surprising, however, is that erstwhile pillars of Western civilization are taking to Twitter like hood rats to crack. …
Getting self-interested attention seems to be the prevailing reason for tweeting. And every twittering twit in the twitterverse seems to think that the only way to get it is to be as obnoxious, incendiary, and/or bellicose as possible.
Twitter is like a virtual schoolyard where not just one but most kids act like bullies or rabble-rousers. So just imagine what this portends for public debate – having politicians, CEOs, and professors compete with celebrities, athletes, and trolls to see who can attract the most twits with their mindless tweets on everything from public policy to daily gossip.
This is why I firmly believe that Twitter has about as much redeeming value as Twinkies. And it’s why the mainstream media are no better than Hostess in this respect. Because the contrived tweets (i.e., junk thoughts) of self-promoting buffoons like Trump would never enter public consciousness, let alone public discourse, if networks like FOX did not routinely report them as BREAKING NEWS.
__________________
Of course, with nearly every tweet since my rant five years ago, Trump has only vindicated my casting him as the poster boy for rude, narcissistic, and often self-destructive tweets. And his improbable election as president of the United States has only blown that poster up a thousand times.
Given this, it should speak volumes that I am as big a fan of Aslan as I am a critic of Trump. I clearly expected more of Aslan.
More to the point, though, it only reinforces my take on Twitter’s debasing lure that he got hooked on and trapped by this social-media addiction. Because only this explains a religious scholar like him tweeting a profane insult like that in the name of public debate.
That said, I hope you’ll pardon this parting shot from “Why I Hate Twitter,” February 1, 2013.
__________________
Not so long ago celebrities evoked a blissful illusion that made them seem larger than life. The paparazzi destroyed most of that. But far too many celebrities have destroyed what little illusion remained by engaging in pedestrian, often petulant exchanges with fans/followers on Twitter. …
Meanwhile, am I the only one who sees the Orwellian folly inherent in using the term ‘social networking’? After all, it refers to the act of huddling alone with one’s PDA to socialize, electronically, with friends (real and, more likely the case, virtual). The irony only compounds this doublespeak. After all, PDA once stood for ‘personal display of affection.’ Now it stands for the ‘personal digital assistant’ that enables users to engage in the kind of impersonal and anti-social networking that has become so fashionable.
And don’t get me started on the misguided fools who seek relevance and self-esteem by having arguments on Twitter – complete with baying spectators; you know, like chicken-scratch gladiators.
__________________
Related commentaries:
Twitter rant…
Why I hate Twitter…