Rolling Stone's exclusive Bush farewell "interview"

Unless you've been living under a rock or in self-imposed isolation for the past eight years, it shouldn't come as much of a newsflash that music magazine titan Rolling Stone has a strong liberal bias. More specifically, the publication makes it known that it hates former President George W. Bush and his administration.  Not that I feel any differently; how could I be in favor of an administration that not only breached the Constitution on countless different grounds, but manipulated and withheld enough information from the American public to keep its twisted facade going for two full terms?

All the same, I can't help but feel mildly turned off by Rolling Stone's feature article from their January 22, 2009 issue, which details a mock farewell interview with George W. Bush.  I'm in favor of injecting a little humor into the journalistic world, but it has to be incorporated with tact.  In this article, writer Matt Taibbi displays writing tactics that feel deceptive, sensationalistic and -- you guessed it -- tasteless.

Nowhere in the article's foreword does Rolling Stone make it clear that the interview is false.  Although, to the publication's credit, they do label it the "farewell interview we wish he'd give" on the cover, the feature itself includes no such evidence of its fictional nature: The piece's construction is identical to the other legitimate news pieces in the issue, and if a reader happened not to read the cover carefully -- or, even more likely, if the reader only accessed the online version -- there's a distinct possibility that he or she could assimilate the article as factual truth.  It's almost as if Rolling Stone is saying, "This is a fabricated conversation... but if you happen to believe it actually took place, that's just fine by us."

Obviously, Rolling Stone's readership demographic is predominantly liberal, so it assumes its perceived audience will find the article hilarious.  But this means, of course, that it consequently places too much faith in the audience's ability to take a joke.  I mean no offense to Rolling Stone's readership -- in fact, I'm very much a part of it -- but the fact of the matter is that some people are completely blind in their devotion to Obama and hatred for Bush.  Coupled with the lack of clarity regarding the piece's validity -- not to mention readers' presuppositions to typically encountering factual articles in the magazine -- this mindset becomes problematic and could lead one to truly believe that what they are reading.

The article presents another more clearly visible and less analytical problem to the reader: What is the point?  Okay, we all know the gist of what's been happening in the American political landscape -- Bush screwed up extensively as President, the public became aware of this, lost its confidence in the GOP and the conventional "white ruler" image, and opted for change, which has manifested itself in our first black president, Barack Obama.  Obama won, and Bush is finally out of the picture. So what more could Rolling Stone OR its readership possibly ask for if everything worked out to its favor?  That's why I had to ask myself what the point of a mock interview with Bush is -- if there is even a point at all.

The facetious nature of the article did supply a handful of laughs and, in select places, provided some sharp wit and satire.  But for the most part it reads like a smug reminder of Bush's failure, serving little purpose except to rub it in Bush's and his supporters' faces one more time.  In my opinion, the article uses sensational journalistic tactics to beat a dead horse and offers hardly anything of substance, leaving little more than a foul taste in the reader's mouth.  Or at least mine.  Sure, Bush is an idiot, but we've all known that for years now -- just let the man be.  There are much bigger fish for journalists to fry in the current state of affairs.