Frank Rich is a weekly op-ed columnist for The New York Times. He came to Oberlin this week to open the 2005-2006 Convocation series, and the Review had the chance to sit down with him for some questions.

How would you define the overall purpose of your column?
I would say that what’s always informed my writing is looking at the intersection between culture and the news. Even in my years as a theater critic I was trying to break down the walls between the two. I definitely don’t write a straight political column.

Do you think that artists and cultural figures have a right or responsibility to involve themselves in politics?
I think that, of course, artists have the right to take political stands and say whatever they want. They also have the right to make art that is completely apolitical. The cultural figures that concern me more are those that may not have as much visible influence on our culture but are gradually pushing the mass media toward being just a mouthpiece for those in power.

Related link:

Times’ Rich critiques media and government

Do you think that the development of the Internet as a medium will lead to more points of view reaching a mass audience?
I think it’s too early to tell. Of course ideally a zillion flowers should bloom on the internet but history suggests that before long the Internet will be colonized by a few corporations. When radio began there were tons of radio stations. It was just like the Internet and bloggers are now. Even in a town like Oberlin every few blocks could have a radio station. Gradually, the networks developed and those millions of voices disappeared. Everyone always feels each new technology will lead to more diversity, but it still ends up being consolidated.

The “liberal media” has long been a favorite target of political conservatives, but lately liberal commentators — Eric Alterman, for instance — have been arguing that this characterization is inaccurate and, in fact, the media is predominantly conservative. Where do you stand in this debate?
I basically agree with Eric. There are newspapers that have liberal editorial pages and papers that don’t. When you get into the mass media, television and radio, they’re nearly all conservative. You almost never see a dissenting view on television. These corporations that own so much of the media get invested in a plot-line like Natalie Halloway or that moral values decided the last election. These story lines can be completely fictional, but they are always conservative in nature and allow the corporations to avoid asking questions. It can also lead to dangerous fictional narratives like the run-up to the war in Iraq.

How do you reconcile this deferential attitude of the news media with the somewhat more hostile relationship between “values-conservatives” and the American entertainment industry?
The fact is that the relationship really isn’t that hostile and they’re not really going to the mat. These entertainment companies are huge corporations where the news division is just a flea and they need money so they’re really not out to challenge Washington. A lot of what goes on in Washington is just posturing. Almost all these companies are run by Republicans. At the same time the government is not really going to take Desperate Housewives off the air. They are going to go after the one vulnerable place,, which is public broadcasting. That’s where they can defund a children’s show with a lesbian couple and everyone will look away because there’s no corporation involved.

The irony is that the great conservative Rupert Murdoch produces more sleazy entertainment than anyone in the world. These politicians like to vent about Paris Hilton but in the end they’re not going to do very much. The whole thing is an elaborate game.

There’s been a lot of criticism of the media’s Hurricane Katrina coverage, particularly in terms of issues of class and race. Do you think this criticism is fair?
The coverage was slow to point out the obvious, that mainly poor and black people were suffering. That people didn’t notice this was silly but eventually they caught up. Just as the news media didn’t give a shit about Al Qaeda on Sept. 10 and was so interested in searching for Chandra Levy, in the lead-up to this disaster they were obsessed with Natalie Halloway and went down South to lash themselves to trees and have their usual fun with hurricanes. Although I have to say, the seriousness of what was happening certainly sank in with them before it sank in with Washington.

Do you think the criticism of Bush in the wake of Katrina is a real turning point or just another flash in the pan?
I’ve taken the position that this administration is in terrible trouble politically before Katrina. This is just sort of the coup de grace. The polls show his ratings haven’t moved at all. People have just sort of turned the page. The administration’s political fate is going to be measured by the Republican Party. Nixon was only in real trouble when people in his own party turned against him. You have to wonder at what point people will need a major course correction.

One major fallout from Katrina is that I don’t think he can now name another white man to the Supreme Court.

When your Times colleague David Brooks spoke at Oberlin last year he was somewhat critical of students involving themselves in politics. What’s your view?
Well, you shouldn’t be involved to the extent of neglecting your education, but we always need more people involved in the political process, not less. We’ve all screwed it up and we need you all to fix it.