I never understood the exalted place Woodstock holds in the mind of the mainstream media. Unaccountably, this massive mud-wrestling event accompanied by a concert has acquired mythic proportions over the past four decades. Finally, though, some discouraging words are being heard.
In Mark Hosenball’s article at newsweek.com (“I was at Woodstock. And I hated it”) a less hagiographic view emerges:
As an authentic Woodstock attendee (or should I say victim?), I hate to
rain on the procession of warm memories and good vibrations, but I will
say this: wake up, folks. For some?maybe quite a few of us?who made the
journey, Woodstock was, if not a nightmare, then a massive, teeming,
squalid mess.
He is joined by Mike Conklin of beachwoodreporter.com:
The social importance of Woodstock is a myth propagated by
entertainment and media industries that continue to make money off a
legacy they created. The concert rates high on the list of seminal
events simply because it occurred near New York City. This meant the
country’s most powerful TV mediums had great footage for the evening
news. …In the 60s, I held my share of placards, did a little marching, and
worked for Gene McCarthy, but I have yet to meet one person – some of
whom were there – who thought Woodstock was important; fun, but
certainly not some great symbol of a changing America.The real significance of Woodstock and the barrage of retrospectives
emanating from it, to me, is this: It serves as prime evidence how
starved editors and producers are for ideas. Quite possibly it has
become the No. 1 example for shallow, reflex-action coverage meant to
appeal to baby boomers.
Funny how many problems come back to the same cause: Shallow editors and reporters.
