“There’s a saying popular in Hungary”, he says. “The future is certain. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
This statement from László about the historical significance of the picnic made me think about journalism as a form of archive production. László alludes to the fact that the past is always a battleground. The meaning of historical events is constantly being shaped by the evolving priorities and value systems of the present. While it may be possible for journalists to uncover part of the truth, facts can never fully be untangled from the subjectivity of the narrator. László is also alluding to the question of interpretation which, in many ways, is the piece of any writing that does not neatly exist within the writer’s sphere of influence. While facts can be more or less contentious, what they suggest almost always is. This is why thirty years later (at the time of Longo’s writing) the Picnic still remained a source of controversy. While the author did not necessarily address what these controversies might be, one can imagine that they surround the way it was eternalized (or not) in the social consciousness and its true significance. I enjoyed how Longo seamlessly incorporated the archives and historical facts into an engaging narrative that juggles multiple perspectives. I am curious about the tact of emancipating oneself from the constraints of a given form while adhering to the established conventions. I wonder how the author went about taking that liberty while honoring what seems to be, at least in important ways, didactic, archival work.
László’s statement is one that could be used to illuminate some of my reactions to Goudeau’s recounting of the progression of the US’s migration policy. While reading Goudeau’s piece, I could not help but imagine what the post-Covid era (2020-2030) entry would look like. Over the past five years, we have noticed a progressive shift rightward in the US’s migration discourse, as well as in the country’s policy. In the next few days, the Biden administration could expand the “temporary” asylum restrictions that were enacted in June into “a central feature of the asylum system” (Hamed Aleaziz, New York Times). This would be especially surprising given that the Trump administration attempted a similar move in 2018 which was blocked by a federal court. Goudeau would suggest however that migration policy in the United States has always been fluid and a reflection of the preoccupations of the time. If the past is indicative of anything, it is that what is happening in US politics today is a continuation of historical processes that have always defined the US’s approach to migration. Is there then anything fundamentally different about the rise of anti-immigrant sentiments in US politics right now?
Finally, I found the discussion about the lead interesting insofar as it problematized the purpose of a lead. Is it to grab the reader’s attention? Is it a summary? Can a good lead be memorable, provocative, or should it be simply informative?
