Wonking Off
Ana Marie Cox dishes about scandal, sex, journalism, and leaving her popular blog for the literary life. A Reason interview.
Self described "pretend journalist" Ana Marie Cox is no stranger to the media world she regularly savages, having put in time at publications like Suck, Mother Jones, and The American Prospect. Nor is she unfamiliar with journalistic backbiting, having been fired from or asked to leave most of them. But as Wonkette—her sex-obsessed, hard-drinking, foul-mouthed internet persona—Cox managed to turn the ready sarcasm that made her unpopular in the office into a skill that has earned her notoriety on and off the Web. With the launch of Wonkette, Cox found a loyal following of readers who like their political coverage superficial, mean, and gratuitously profane. No less impressively, she managed to place herself at the center of a D.C. sex scandal without being a politician or having to sleep with one. ?
It was that scandal—the unmasking of one-time Hill staffer Jessica Cutler as sex-diarist and blogger Washingtonienne—that inspired Cox' new novel, Dog Days, in which a fictional blogosphere spawns a scandal-inducing site by the name of Capitolette. Having fictionalized the strange truths at the intersection of web logs, DC politics, and sex, Cox is now planning a work of non-fiction—a feat, as she explains on her blog, that will require her to both "leave the house" (though she promises to leave a trail of breadcrumbs) and leave the site in other hands. Assistant Editor Kerry Howley spoke with Cox in January. ?
reason: You've called yourself a pretend journalist. Are there any real journalists?
?
Ana Marie Cox: I often speak mockingly of the difference between real journalists and pretend journalists. Journalism is what you do; it's not what you are. And anyone can produce a piece of journalism. It's on the page that the distinction is made.
?
reason: Along those lines, is there an "alternative media" and a "mainstream media"? Does that distinction make sense? ?
Cox: I suppose that there has to be a way to distinguish those of us that don't get paid very much from those that do. So I do think that there is an alternative media. There is media that is produced independently from the mechanisms that existed for a long time. Big companies and such.
?
In a way I think, to the extent that there is an alternative media, there is definitely more than there was before. I'm not a big fan of blogs myself, and I look forward to not having to keep up with them so much. Most of the writing sucks. But I am for the idea of blogs. I think more voices are always better, even if some of those voices are whiny and irritating.
?
reason: How have blogs evolved since you started?
?
Cox: It's become a more mature medium. And as it gets more mature it begins to get more like what we would call mainstream media. It begins to get more cliquish and jealous; it becomes easier to game the system. And as a social class becomes established the meritocracy diminishes.
?
When a medium first comes into existence, the only way to get readers is to be something worth reading. Now you can get a link from someone else more popular and create your own little clique.
?
reason: Dog Days is essentially a book about scandal. Is there a Washington scandal you can call a favorite?
?
Cox: Wow. Well, obviously I like the ones that involve fucking the best. But the Abramoff one—even though people are only being screwed metaphorically—I think is going to work out pretty well. I think the body count is going to be high, which always makes for a good scandal.
?
I wish people paid more attention to Washington because this kind of stuff is fascinating and there are whole other novels to be written about it. I mocked someone for wanting to write a novel about the Plame affair, but let's face it—this stuff is crazy.
?
reason: Does scandal play a necessary role in Washington?
?
Cox: In a way, scandals keep people honest. What happens in Washington—the longer you get away with something, the more it becomes a part of the backdrop and you stop thinking about what's wrong with it. And that's when someone screws you over, and it becomes public. And it's an interesting balancing, a self-regulating system in a way. Not quite self-regulating—we need prosecutors and whatnot—but I think people need to be reminded that Americans are watching.
?
reason: And consuming scandal as entertainment helps that process along.
?
Cox: Yes! I think it's perfectly healthy to consume scandals as entertainment. And as moral instruction.
?
reason: Have sarcasm-drenched political blogs and snarky TV shows like the Daily Show changed about the way people talk politics?
?
Cox: I hope that what has changed is that people realize that you don't have to be part of the professions of journalism or politics to have an opinion. And to feel strongly about it and want things to change. I think the Daily Show and Wonkette and blogs in general have democratized the debate about politics. And hopefully—I mean, this is where I can get sappy—what I really hope is that if laughing about politics gets them interested and caring about it, they'll vote.
?
reason: Or does the debate just becomes even more superficial?
?
Cox: I wouldn't say that I'm not superficial. I would say that you need superficial. You need dessert. Americans grow up thinking that politics is all spinach and broccoli, that paying attention to it means that you're doing something that's good for you and you're doing it like a punishment. But I think there's another side to it. One shouldn't live on dessert alone and one wouldn't want to live on broccoli alone. So I think there is a part that Wonkette plays in a balanced media diet.
?
reason: Why do most political novels suck?
?
Cox: Mine may suck too. But mine may suck for entirely different reasons. I do think that most political novels tend to be stories of redemption in which some young person comes to Washington and is appalled by this scandal and spectacle of it, maybe tempted, but then renounces the dark side and becomes somehow redeemed. I do think there is no one redeemed in my book. This redemption saga is not faithful to what is interesting about Washington.
?
reason: Which is?
?
Cox: That it doesn't matter if you're redeemed or not. When the founding fathers put together the structure for the way that government is run; dishonesty is built into it. The idea that people will be self-interested is a very important factor. I don't want Washington to be run by angels. I think that it wouldn't work very well if everyone was Ned Flanders. Homer for president!
?
reason: Do you have a favorite political novel?
?
Cox: Billy Lee Brammer's The Gay Place. His novel is well written and has real characters and plot and stuff.
?
reason: That was ambitious. Did it influence Dog Days at all??
Cox: It did inspire me in that his is the first political novel I've read that isn't about the people at the very top level of politics. It's about the people who do most of the work and have most of the affairs and drink the most. And it is just a really funny book.
?
reason: Your protagonist refers to D.C. "special olympics of sex." Is that just an overall impression you've formed? Did you have some special olympians in mind?
?
Cox: That was my overall impression. I am so glad I came to D.C. married. I can't imagine how awful it would be to be single in D.C.
?
reason: Which is why we have to fight the D.C. smoking ban. Everyone looks better through a carcinogenic haze.
?
Cox: That's a really good point. There is another phrase I like—I gave Kristin Gore a bad review but she did have a line in her novel which I liked a lot and almost stole, which is "hot for D.C." I definitely think you're graded on a curve.
?
reason: Any hopes for 2008?
?
Cox: Um, anyone but Hillary? I think it's really early to say. I really like John Edwards a lot. I like what he has to say. Almost as important as his political views: He seems honest. Which is something you can't say about a lot of politicians. Even if they're not lying, that doesn't make them honest.
?
reason: Do you value politics chiefly as entertainment?
?
Cox: I don't value it chiefly as entertainment—that's more like a bonus. And I happen to be able to make something of a career out of it. But I care very deeply about politics and issues at work today. I'm outraged about the NSA spying on Americans. I feel like I can't understand why there isn't marching in the street about it. And I have like a passing interest in women's rights.
?
It's embarrassing for someone who is professionally cynical to get earnest about this. But that's why I vote, and it's why I pay attention in the first place. And that paying attention leads to mocking is a kind of natural evolution.
