Bill Press, former host of “Crossfire” (and, last I checked, not a card-carrying member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy), argues that the media (in its aggregate, which is, at least if one counts political self-identification of reporters as a factor toward selection bias, overwhelmingly “liberal”) has
changed from reporting on the primaries to deciding the primaries. They pick their favorites, they give them preferential treatment, they tear down their opponents, and they anoint their winning candidates even before voters have a chance to go to the polls.
Step one occurs early in the primary process, when network executives decide which candidates get covered and which ones don’t. Among Republicans, too bad for Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter. Once the media suits decided they weren’t serious candidates, they got no media attention, which, of course, resulted in their never being taken seriously as candidates.
Step two occurs once the field narrows, when members of the media fall in love with their favorite candidates and start slobbering all over them. Is there any doubt, for example, that everybody in the national press corps is in love with John McCain? If you believe what you hear and read in the media (always a dangerous proposition), McCain can do no wrong and Romney can do no right.
[…]
Barack Obama gets the same worshipful treatment. We hear constantly about how “liberal” Hillary Clinton is too liberal, in fact, to get elected. Yet Obama’s liberal credentials leave Clinton in the dust. Unlike Clinton, for example, Obama favors granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. As reported by the Washington Times alone, he also supports the decriminalization of marijuana. And the National Journal named him 2007’s Most Liberal Senator. Who’s the real liberal here?
Of course, none of what Press says is much of a surprise — and in fact, his ties to Sen Clinton call into question his motives.
But motives aside, what we have here is a liberal industry insider admitting to the role the media plays in deciding our political choices — in effect, serving as potential kingmakers.
Certainly, there are instances where the press has failed, despite its best efforts: Bush over McCain in 2000 being just one example.
But what we shouldn’t overlook is the effect an advocacy media that continues to operate under the cover or “objectivity” has on the very foundation of our nation.
In this case, by giving us McCain — something that Republican voters are only now doing in any great numbers thanks to what has been a manufactured bit of momentum aided both by an adoring and calculating media, and a broken primary system — the media, regardless of November’s outcome, has succeeded in pushing “conservatism” to the left, at lest ostensibly.
And if perception is reality, then such machinations are successful even when they fail — because each failure simply provides feedback for how best to manipulate the process in succeeding election cycles.
Sadly, though most Americans express skepticism about the mainstream press, their options — at least with respect to original reporting — are limited. And in a soundbite culture, selective editing, along with bias by commission and omission, have unnaturally tilted the political landscape.
Couple this with a couple generations’ worth of inculcating a set of relativist principles as an epistemological undergirding, and we as a nation have set the stage for a drift toward the linguistic turn, where Truth is subsumed by consensus masquerading as truth, and a will to power is being forged daily by the gatekeepers of information and their accomplices, those that teach the “philosophy” behind information dissemination.
oh jeffie i do love u.
it is neuroliguistic hacking isnt it?
i can call up the visual/audio image of Brit Hume mornfully declarin victory for bilary tuesnight…..yet…things are not wat they seem are they?
As the continuing fray over whether Richard III murdered the princes in the Tower attests, it’s the “mainstream,” “authoritative” news-reporters who decide what the peasantry thinks.
I was just talking to my husband out this the other night. The press, theoretically, stands as a foil against the government. To balance the power- uncovering the unjust and whatnot. But now, the MSM, with the help of the entertainment industry, has managed to become the power we feared. Not a conspiracy … more like a hive mind.
Perception Is Reality
thers ur book title.
;)
I think that this summarizes the overall effect of their reporting. One wonders how this happened, and also if there is any concerted effort going on or is it more like a herd mentality. I tend to think the latter simply because conspiracies are just too difficult to maintain outside of fiction; there is always someone who will blab about them. Of course, you can always let them blab and then do character assassination to discredit them.
Hmmm.
psychotic_break
{
ROSIE WAS RIGHT!! FIRE CAN’T MELT STEEL!!
}
Either way, I’m not sure how to fix this. The new media ultimately has had little effect in the overall scheme of things. The vast majority of people get their news from teevee, and that will not change very soon.
Again, I despair.
trudat Carin…..a hive mind….or more likely swarm intelligence.
“If there was a consensus, it was simply because all the national political reporters lived in Washington, saw the same people, used the same sources, belonged to the same background groups, and swore by the same omens. They arrived at their answers just as independently as a class of honest seventh-graders using the same geometry text — they did not have to cheat off each other to come up with the same answer.”
Tim Crouse, “The Boys on the Bus”, 1973.
hmmm……did u know that is a basic tenent of quantum mechanics theory jeffie?
information is reality
Herd mentality it is, cranky, but part of a herd always moves first. Such “conspiracies” don’t need to be “maintained,” only begun. They finish themselves — and they conceal themselves, via participants resistance to admit, to themselves or anyone else, that they’re part of a herd.
Sound familiar?
(If you pretend Stone’s JFK was meant to be entirely fictional, when he makes this point, it’s the bit of psychological verisimilitude that makes the story work.)
cranky-d:
Either way, I’m not sure how to fix this.
Ironically, I think that the only means to combat the press’s willful or unwitting manipulation is to promote a culture within the media which strives to pursue Truth and Objectivity. Unfortunately, the MSM has been complicit in demolishing the existence of any belief in such Idealistic principles.
He’s wrong on so many levels it’s silly. Yes, the press did not cover Tancredo, Hunter, et. al. They also didn’t cover Mike Huckabee until he began popping up in the polls in Iowa.
And you’re dead on the money about Press’ real bitch which is that he supports Obama. Everybody thinks their candidate doesn’t get fair coverage. It’s called confirmation bias. When the press writes a glowing story about my candidate, they’re just covering the news objectively. When they write a negative story about my candidate they’re showing their bias.
And the same applies to the media themselves. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes still labor under the misapprehension that they were canned for reporting the news and that there was no bias in their hit piece on Bush. The documents fit exactly what they believed and so they must have been true, or at worse, fake but accurate.
DOH! Press’ real bitch is that he supports Hillary.
Academia, MSM, and the entertainment industry. An unholy trinity.
nah….its biology.
conformation bias, cognitive dissonance reduction, consensus effect, memory illusions, false consesus effect, generation effect, source monitoring deffects,……..and more.
btw that list is from cultural anthropolgist dr. pascal boyer.
I agree with the general thrust here, but would pick a couple of nits.
First, Jeff refers in passing to the “broken primary system.” I have seen this other places as well. How has the system changed?
More state GOPs have moved to proportional representation, instead of winner-take-all. That change had little effect on the outcome in this cycle. If anything, McCain benefitted the most from WTA states in the Northeast (which were likely set up as WTA to help Rudy, who is also one of the more moderate candidates).
The other change is the acceleration of the schedule. This does not seem to have affected the outcome much either; for a the first phase of the campaign, none of the candidates seemed to get enough momentum from a win to carry them to victory in the following contest(s). McCain’s win in SC may have helped him in FL, but it is likely that the late endorsement from Gov. Crist provided McCain’s margin there. And McCain’s success on Super-Duper Tuesday had much more to do with Giuliani’s withdrawal and endorsement than momentum from FL, if McCain’s weak showing in the South is any indicator (and I think it is).
The problem for conservatives/libertarians/ classic liberals has had much more to do with the field of candidates this cycle. The only cnadidate who had the real potential to get all three legs of the stool fully enthused was Fred(!), whose candidacy was troubled from the outset. Folks who were anti-Giuliani powered Huckabee, who then drained evangelicals away from candidates like Thompson or even Romney, which in turn made stopping Huck a priority — but one which McCain self-interestedly avoided. The Giuliani bubble burst (like HRC, albeit for slightly different reasons) and McCain got all of the establishment vote.
Which leads to another point not to be overlooked — McCain may have done no outreach to the Right since 2000, but he did have the experience of a previous run, and hired a lot of ex-Bush 2000 staff who know something about running a national campaign. These were an additional benefit that kept him afloat, even after Johnny Mac drove his own national numbers into the teens with McCain-Kennedy.
This has really got me thinking. It seems consistent. Having never seen JFK, I don’t know if that was your idea or if it was in the movie. I like it.
The question then arises as to the motives of there part of the herd that does move first. In the case of the media, I would expect that it is merely a person or small group of people who are less interested in whatever passes for objectivity these days, or more interested in making a name for themselves.
I think just the fact that they depend on advertising revenue, and that blue journalism sells more crap, precludes this from happening from an inertial standpoint. To change directions, one must be willing to survive the likely financial depredations of their minority status.
It’s always about the money.
Brainster,
Although I’m on record as saying you’re one of the more reasonable pro-McCain visitors to PW, if you try to argue that the press is not generally fond of McCain and that said fondness has not colored his coverage, you will likely become a laughing-stock. Of course, now that he has de facto won the nomination, the press will increasingly turn on him in hopes of electing Clinton or Obama. It will be interesting to see how McCain deals with that.
cherchez l’argent
follow the money
cranky,
JFK actually proposed a conspiracy “at the most secret point.” Here the “conspiracy” is not a true one — more like the flocking of birds in flight (a phenomenon easily replicated by computer with a few simple rules, btw).
two observations about media bias:
1. Everyone talks a lot about reporter’s affiliation, which is important. And I don’t question that most of them are left leaning. But what about management and ownership, which tends to make a lot of descisions and be more conservative? Ya can’t selectively choose to look for bias at one level of the system while ignoring bias at other levels.
2. I also agree that the press have become self-appointed king makers – but with alot of help from both party’s leaders. The media always seems to push the moderates because both parties want to win the election – and Tancredo and Kucinic just ain’t gonna do it. Put another way, if the the media is SO liberal and wants to choose the liberal candidate, why not Edwards (or Kucinic, to stretch the e.g. a little further)? Edwards was clearly the most liberal “real candidate” for the dems – i.e., the one most likely to try and play Robin Hood with your tax $.
So where you see a trend toward liberal, I see a trend toward the middle with MSM and party leaders working hand and glove. Not that it has to be toward the middle – it has to be toward the candidate with the best chance to win the general election in party strategist’s estimation. Being in the middle is usually seen as an advantage in general elections.
I don’t know, it seems stretching the schedule out has required a lot more money. I don’t remember hearing as many stories about campaign financial struggles in previous elections. OTOH maybe it’s the economy and I’m stupid. ;D
“Fred(!), whose candidacy was troubled from the outset”
This I believe was also a meme set in stone by the media which later said one unnamed inside source had said to a reporter that Fred wasn’t serious about his campaign. This was then amplified and repeated in various ways until it became “truth” and then affected and infected reality.
Hrmmmph. When I says it people just think I’m being neurotic. When Mr. Bill Press says it it’s ooh what a big deal how insightful you are Mr. Press.
I’m gonna go see if NG wants to go get some guacamole.
Karl, I certainly agree that the media have generally been favorable towards McCain. I think that the “slobbering” comment by Press is overdoing it, but again, that may be confirmation bias on my part and yours and Press’s as well.
If you decide to support McCain (I know Jeff probably won’t), you’ll suddenly see it a little differently, which of course may confirm the claim by many that the media’s support was a trap. Check out the Newsweek cover story this week. I of course read it and thought the praising parts were objective and the negative parts were bias. But I know enough to account for my own bias in the matter. Press clearly doesn’t.
Because while the press is liberal, they aren’t, for the most part, that liberal. They lean left, but they aren’t way out there. Or at least their centroid isn’t, and we can only talk about them in general terms by referring to their centroid.
If there were no bias, their centroid would be in the middle. The placement of that centroid in the middle can be disproven by their default stances on gun ownership and abortion, just to name two factors.
Note that they also promoted the leftmost “conservative” candidate (anyone who runs under the R banner is a conservative to them); this fact tends to disprove your thesis. Obama gets promoted because of the novelty and the identity politics.
But what about management and ownership, which tends to make a lot of descisions and be more conservative?
Simple assertions is not enough. If you believe, or even just suspect that this is the case then show us. Make the case.
Brainster,
I would agree that Press overdoes it with “slobbering,” and it may be confirmation bias or (something I have learned guesting here) the temptation to hype as an attention-grabber. Indeed, the MSM coverage probably has the same pressure.
And as already noted, I fully expect the press to turn on McCain now.
“Simple assertions is not enough. If you believe, or even just suspect that this is the case then show us. Make the case.”
1. Then link to the source that says most reporters are liberals.
2. If YOU don’t know ownership’s affiliation, then how can you agree with assertions of liberal media bias w/o knowing what affiliation ownership holds?
3. That most CEOs are flamingly liberal IS well known – so you got me.
And once again, hotness wins out overall. It’s why the human race has survived.
geoffb,
The press may have amplified the internal turmoil in camp Fred, but it was there, I wish I had the link handy, but there was a piece written by one of Fred’s IT guys that was pretty revealing as to how the staff turnover affected the trajectory of the campaign (and the author was not fired or anything that would have made him disgruntled).
That set of relativist principles is THE epistemological undergirding, Jeff, in these our postmodern, multicultural, progressive, tolerant times. Where perception is a reality almost as popular as the reality of wishes.
As they also say about computer standards, the nice thing is that there’s so many realities to choose from.
I see Obama’s now being outed in some press as the Obamessiah he is — the pointless, vapid, feel-good, Other-wise political mystic who, by sheer dint of the inertia of BushMcChimpyCo derangement syndrome (CHANGE!) from the bread and circuses crowd, suddenly once had all the credentials he needed for role of Commander in Chief — which likely leaves “centrist” gender feminist, character disorder, and all-around Marxist Hilary Clinton (S-Carpetbagger) as the anointed one.
Why? Because being morally, legally, principally, factually, historically, and evidently wrong, suddenly she feels right. Because of the D.
While you were not addressing me, I don’t need any appeals to authority to note that when someone is reported to have more than one or two guns, it is reported that he has an arsenal. Nor do I need such appeals to note that when a conservative politician does something wrong, his party affiliation is immediately stated, while when a liberal politician does something wrong, his party affiliation is often buried after the jump.
The bias is usually subtle, but it’s very real. I doubt the average liberal would even notice it, because the average liberals I have known think their centrists.
The candidate has to be electable. But they will make sure that the candidate makes concessions to the base before allowing the candidate to lurch toward the center in time for the general election.
As to the bit about ownership being more conservative, this has been covered at length. Ownership tends not to have anything to do with editorial control. They are corporations interested in making money, and they leave the news to the news people.
Unless they happened to be named, say, Ted Turner.
Or they’re, whichever. PIMF.
“As to the bit about ownership being more conservative, this has been covered at length. Ownership tends not to have anything to do with editorial control. They are corporations interested in making money, and they leave the news to the news people.”
If covered at such great length, a link shouldn’t be too hard to muster.
I am amused at how newsmakers are fawning over Mike ‘take the nation back for Christ’ Huckabee after the last seven years of newsmakers screaming about President ‘the Christofascist’ Bush.
I have no idea how the newsmakers will handle Barack ‘the Messiah’ Obama.
These things have been linked before, Steve. So howsabout doing your own research? Here’s one for you, though. For what constitutes a “moderate,” see, eg., Joe Gandelman.
I can’t find the survey showing that something like 9 out of 10 journalists are registered Dems, but it’s out there. Just like 9 out of 10 Humanities Profs register as Dems or leftward (again, somewhere here I linked to a study; for now, though, this is all I can find).
yah jeffie…..its for our own good.
the media seeks to guide the ignorant proletariat, in a purely benevolent exercise of power.
wow…….two posts?
oh frabjous day!!!
hey….wait a minnit….how become its ok for carroll to make up words an not me?
“The question then arises as to the motives of the part of the herd that does move first. In the case of the media, I would expect that it is merely a person or small group of people who are less interested in whatever passes for objectivity these days, or more interested in making a name for themselves.”
Uhhh… Fox? From my vantage point, it seems as though the type of sensationalist journalism that gave Fox an edge in the ratings in the 1990s led to imitation from CNN and MSNBC (e.g., Olbermann is a direct consequence of O’Reilly) and then that phenomenon was used by Rove to Bush’s advantage, and the usefulness of such a system became common knowledge in the corridors of power, it was re-enforced by those who stood to profit from it, it became the status quo, and now that machine plugs in its data and spits out McCain.
Which leads me to look to my right and say “Sorry suckaz, you lived by the sword. This is what you get.” The GOP is tying itself in knots because McCain isn’t a real conservative, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of mention in the same circles that Bush wasn’t much of a conservative either. He energized the evangelicals with his decidedly unconservative nanny-state ideas, and now they’re screwing things up? Boohoo. Here’s a quarter. Call someone who didn’t point that out six years ago.
I know that’s a little unstructured, but I’m really distracted. Do you see what I’m trying to say?
Then link to the source that says most reporters are liberals
Folks, we have been round and round with this one before. Reporters have voted 80%+ for Dems, and that is described as leaning left. The UCLA study outlined the tilt and bias clearly, but will be discounted out of hand, by those that refuse to see.
steve – Is Ted Turner left or right?
What am I, your search monkey?
Do your own fucking searching. Or else admit that you’re flinging accusations and hoping to make something stick without having bothered to do any research yourself.
JD, Ted Turner is a fucking moron, although I don’t think that’s the question you asked.
I’ve seen the UCLA one – and stated above that I didn’t refute. I only refuted sarcastically because someone wanted a link from me shoeing that CEOs tend toward the conservative.
I do like the idea that I should have ‘done my homework’ (i.e., read PW more thoroughly) as these things have been linked here before. Almost as much as the notion that one should know each and every source (not that I belive any of you do) that’s ever existed re: any matter before having a friggin’ blog conversation about said topic. Just super.
Thanks for the link all the same.
Here’s a link to the UCLA overview, noted above.
Here’s how the media vote.
As for a link to proving a negative — namely, that owning a media corporation does not give one control over what it puts out — well, that has to do with common sense. Unless greedy conservative corporate types are hiring liberal editors as beards, then secretly changing the entire slant of the paper / report before it goes to print/airs by way of some magic Halliburton memory loss spray.
Amazing that you consider yourself a thinker, steve. You’re like the hucksters I met in academia who learned that turning everything into a fraught question — a means of putting your interlocutor on the defensive — saved them the trouble of having to think critically or process information. More avoidance.
Sad, really.
Karl,
I wasn’t saying there weren’t problems, I didn’t see the piece you mentioned, but that the media more by the choice of what they report and what they bury determine the way candidates are viewed overall.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this if the Press was either unbiased or had many visible competing biases. Like the blogosphere has for instance.
On the Fred campaign I was referring to the story I heard that after Thompson dropped out Carl Cameron said he had been told by someone (unnamed) in the campaign that Fred was only in it to be VP. If this had been reported when it happened then it could have been dealt with for good or bad. As it was it was a rumor among the reporting class and affected every story but nothing was out there in the open to refute or confirm. This I believe made for a “friction” (as per Clausewitz) on the campaign which greatly increased it’s possibility of failure.
Jeff – I’m not looking for a link re: the attitude of reporters. i believe this bias exists, as I said.
I want a link re: this assertion:
“As to the bit about ownership being more conservative, this has been covered at length. Ownership tends not to have anything to do with editorial control. They are corporations interested in making money, and they leave the news to the news people.”
This I have trouble believing.
flinging assertions is what they do.
Their tired mantra is that corporations, or people of means, must be conservative because the rich had been demonized by the left in their little class warfare games. The simple fact is that having means does not make one conservative. Look at Turner, Gates, Buffet, Cuban, Soros. They assume corporations are conservative, because they have personified corporations as being evil, which again, must be conservative.
Ted Turner is a prime example of how fucked up their worldview must be to believe the pablum that they spew.
Here’s a bit about universities.
Now you have links, steve. Will we see responses? Or will you just slither away until you feel like enough time has passed for you to express doubt, then make the same demands for proof yet again?
steve, given a golden opportunity to back up an assertion with facts, or at least with a source that can lend support to why he believes something, decides instead to punt. I wish I could say I was surprised.
I’m gonna go see if NG wants to go get some guacamole.
Don’t tell nishi happy. She will stone-cold shoot ur ass. She has guns. Real ones.
steve, are media an intellectual adjunct to academia? Do media gain their methods largely from academia?
There is also literally millions of pieces of anecdotal evidence showing which words are chosen to represent various opposing concepts, which at some point begins to coalesce into something like data.
For example, the morning after Super Tuesday the WaPo (express version) posted picture of 2 candidates on their front page. Can you guess which two?
i do hav guns…..but why wud i ever wanna shoot happyfeets?
im in love with the happyfeet skull furniture.
I can’t give you a link to business 101, steve. But what you posit requires an enormous conspiracy — with the Dem-voting reporters and editors complicit. You know, for having not blown the whistle on this corporate conservative control of how the news gets reported.
I think steve just wanted some one-on-one time with you Jeff.
Ooh that reminds me. I need to put a load of socks in the wash.
I’ll ban myself. Thanks.
This I have trouble believing.
Your inability, or lack of desire, to think outside of your little echo chamber of nonsense does not create some kind of homework for everyone else. Your assertion, and it is nothing more than that, is premised on the ridiculous idea that corporations in general, and ownership in particular, are conservative. That is your assertion, and your burden of proof. We offered up Ted Turner as an overtly liberal owner, and you still claim to be unable to believe. That is on you. Not us.
Huh, messed up that last comment somehow. Should have read more like:
…which stories are reported on, where they are placed, and which words are chosen to represent various opposing concepts…
How’s that guacamole taste now happyfeet?
Missed your link above.
“As for a link to proving a negative  namely, that owning a media corporation does not give one control over what it puts out  well, that has to do with common sense. Unless greedy conservative corporate types are hiring liberal editors as beards, then secretly changing the entire slant of the paper / report before it goes to print/airs by way of some magic Halliburton memory loss spray.”
Ohhhh – common sense tells you. OK. Can I cite your common sense? I think it’s equally common sense to think that corporations know they can’t control what kind of people are taking up jouranlism in college, but can sure as hell tell editors what stories to de-eemphasize or softball or not pick up at all. Oh wait – I can cite Jeff Goldstein’s common sense that his is not the case.
“Amazing that you consider yourself a thinker, steve. You’re like the hucksters I met in academia who learned that turning everything into a fraught question  a means of putting your interlocutor on the defensive  saved them the trouble of having to think critically or process information. More avoidance.”
Check out my address, Jeff? So brilliant. You’re quite a thinker.
You didn’t miss tenure by any chance, did you? Bitter any? Or maybe your thin skin hasn’t healed from the other night when someone had the temerity to challenge you right on PW and put a wedgie in your little thong. Get over it. Besides, insulting me isn’t going to get you tenure, Jeff, so your chip on the shoulder toward everyone in academia isn’t nearly as productive as it might be.
“Sad, really.”
Yes. Yes it is.
I am always amused when someone like steve makes the claim that ownership somehow has control over media content generally, mostly because the very liberal people producing said content would scream blue bloody murder if (or when) the biz types tried to interfere with their illusory sense of ethics.
BTW, I have something scheduled to post at about 2:18 — just a heads up to Jeff, in the event that he wants to push it back.
I blame pollsters more than the press. Polls, with their either-or fallacies built into their questions, generally drive me nuts, but that’s what the press reports most of all. Too many “newsreaders” and newspaper hacks can’t really discuss the issues intelligently, so they report the process, the horse race, and the general public remains uninformed about important issues, e.g. the “fair tax” vs. the “flat tax”.
Lastly, I was dismayed and appalled by the ignorance of Iowa and New Hampshire voters. I never saw evidence of their “wisdom” and the “seriousness” with which they take their responsibilities as voters. I saw way too many egocentric (he’s only had coffee with me twice) and ignorant idiots who claimed they would make up their mind on election day. (If you make up your mind based on political principles, character of the candidate and electability etc. you know much earlier who you will vote for.
I agree with Senators Nelson and Levin who want to have regional primaries which rotate who goes first. And I think caucuses should be abolished. They disadvantage those who most vote by absentee ballot — which includes the military.
OK, I’ve had enough fun with y’all today. Goombye, as the Italians say.
hikes and turns steve. hikes and turns.
eats shoots and leaves, more like.
Bye steve. Guess you won’t be spelling out the rational basis for leftism then, eh? You know, that part where a history of collectivist failure doesn’t matter because there really is a solid basis for defeating free markets and limited, divided powers.
I’ve literally been asking for such a platform for decades. Crickets. I guess because nannies aren’t accountable to children.
fuck off, asshat.
I love the blind assertion that all CEO’s, since corporations are chaired by evil capitalistic white men who smoke cigars and murder puppies, are Republicans. I just wonder why the left thinks they are all Right of center. Is it because they are heads of evil capitalistic entities or is it because they are rich and “the rich” are bad?
steve drops by, makes a pile of unsubstantiated assertions that fly in the face of reality, and then gets all knickered up when he is called on it. In response, rather than defending his original assertions, he calls names and takes cheap personal shots while running away. A cowardly asshat.
Bravely ran away, away.
Oh, and that part where we define centrism as socialized education, medicine, retirements, entitlements and compensations, paychecks, families, behavior, work relations, safety standards, corporate policy, and soon to be, personal insurance; I guess you won’t be delving into that either then, steve?
Fully 2/3 the guys signing the DOI, I hear, were into that stuff. Centrists split policy even then.
Ooh, and the “failed academic” thing as he runs out the door!
Jeff’s never heard that one before!
Can I cite your common sense?
I think the question you are being asked is, can you cite anything to support why you believe that a supposedly conservative media management structure acts as a proper foil to the uber liberal journalist set? What’s really sad is that you don’t even try. Even if you disagree with Jeff, you must admit that he is more than willing to show you why he believes something.
If you actually have a conscience, this kind of thing can keep you up at night. Am I right? Why do I think I am? Can I support it with something? If I’m wrong could it adversely effect someone, or equally bad, me?
Do yourself a favor and try to answer some of these questions honestly.
EG,
That’s an awfully big “if,” isn’t it?
Jeff G.
In the link you put to the WaPo article about liberal bias in colleges I saw this line which I think is an example of liberal bias in this article.
“The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women’s Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.”
The reason I say this is because I never see any study or revelation into who funds global warming hysteria, Iraq death toll reports, or the latest Bush sucks memos that leak out every other week. Those are both rendered as bi-partisan or non profit.
In steves defense, it can be hard to see the obvious when there is foreskin over the eyes.
The limp dick.
The section excerpted here reflects not a whit of liberalism (unless one considers anti-abortion, war-mongers liberals….oh, I forgot, you do). It expresses the widely held belief, shared by me and lots of other progressive liberal types, that the stinking press has way too much influence on these races. These moronic traffickers in conventional wisdom demand exorbitant ad rates, demand that anyone who can’t meet them is a non-candidate, and winnow the field before most of us even get a chance to vote.
Again, the excerpt listed here rails against the press’s role in loving McCain (they indisputably do) and Obama. They hated Thompson, they loathe Hillary (esp. Chris Matthews), they hated Romney, they denigrated Ron Paul, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, etc. They announced months ago the Dem race was a two person race. They decided Huckabee was loser despite winning one state, while McCain is a winner after winning one state. Certainly, according to the tired old bias theory, they should have behind both the “liberal” McCain and the “liberal” Huckabee.
Their role is so much more disgusting and powerful than mere political bias. They are the kingmakers, they know it, and they think it is a proper role. They are the problem with elections in this country.
In my opinion anyway
Well, no.
Just like you don’t see much delving into just how big “Center for Science in the Public Interest” is when the press is turning CSPI’s latest press release into a story.
“They are the kingmakers, they know it, and they think it is a proper role. They are the problem with elections in this country.”
And McCain-Feingold anointed them so.
Karl,
I guess. I can tell you from personal experience that back when I used to argue as I believe steve does, from an “I’m good so my opinions must be correct” standpoint, that I was haunted by those sorts of questions.
steve missed comment 55, too, I see. Allow me to repeat it:
Now, to the rest of steve’s tiresome attacks:
1) check out his address? I have no idea what that means.
2) steve writes:
Allow me to answer these in turn:
1) No
2) No (see 1)
3) Someone challenged me the other night? Well, I remember somebody dropping by and spouting nonsense about a “unitary” executive, dropping John Yoo’s name, then leaving. Hardly consider that a “challenge.” But I do like the (frequent and entirely predictable) counter that, because I responded to said “challenge,” that must mean I have thin skin.
We used to call that “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Today, we just call it “troll thinks he has a trump card.”
4) Insulting you won’t get me tenure, no. But that assumes I’m looking for tenure. Which I’m not. So insulting you for being a mindless gatling gun of tired talking points, or for your one rhetorical trick of posing fraught questions designed to do nothing more than slow the debate until you can find a way to scurry off, has no ulterior motive: it is, instead, entirely descriptive.
5) As to the supposed “chip” my shoulder “toward everyone in academia”…well, this is rather silly. Though I was at the top of my class, I decided to stay home with my son rather than go into academia full time. The people I went to grad school with, however, have gone on to full time academic work — and they remain my friends to this day, liberal or progressive or socialist as they may be. As do many of my former professors, who — though disappointed I didn’t go into academic work — still respect me, I daresay.
But leave it to someone like you, steve, to try to turn legitimate critiques of portions of academia (you know, like campus speech codes, and “diversity” pledges, etc) into some sort of psychological obsession. Like, maybe an academic tried to kill my daddy — and that’s why I’m going to war?
You are a joke. Your arguments are transparent, sophomoric, and crudely constructed. I may not be in academia any longer, but that fact doesn’t somehow magically strip me of my academic training — nor of my ability to continue to read and debate scholars. Which, as those who’ve been reading here for some time know, I’m quite happy to do.
So please. Put your “failed academic” spitball back into its little cardboard holster. It is as impotent as it is puerile.
Oh. And don’t be a stranger!
Compare and contrast styles, there.
Unrelated, Major John is off to Kuwait, presumably to get hoodwinked by right-wing talking points.
Kuwait is in the Middle East isn’t there where evil corporations go to steal oil and oppress brown people?
Absolutely. We are building an empire, baybee, and no one can stop us. Halliburton rocks!
I don’t know about you, but I’m loving all that free oil we’ve been getting. I pour it down the storm drain so it kills the critters in the rivers and oceans, because I hate the environment.
Jeff,
I took steve’s “address” crack to mean that you checked his IP addreess and that it resolves to an .edu domain.
Which I also took to mean that steve has a greatly inflated sense of how seriously anyone here treats him.
I could be wrong, but steve isn’t here to correct me, having run away from his virtual pantsing.
Pretty hikes and turns today…excellent snow! btw. JD. Telemark(eting) skiing is considered Nordic..not Alpine. Glad you tried it. Why ain’t you out skiing today?
Anyway, going to NY state in a few mins. so I won’t make apologies for the other ‘librul’ steve. It’s part of the bloggosphere….being rude but I’ll respect this place more than that.
Still I think the librul media thing is a bunch of Hooey. like Rupert Murdock, and Captain America…(eh, ted turner wasn’t a librul when he was down dar in Geeeorgia getting all flaggy patriotic about new zealanders winning the America’s cup..was he? But how about all the serious discussion of either Kucinich or Nader in the last few elections. The Real Left gets no respect in the press. Go on heap it on those two…but you know I got a point. The press might just be more
Classically LiberalCentrist than you think.Let’s meet in the middle and say the Press is Centrist and leans status Quo-y. capicsi? Think of how little respect Socialists get in the Press…or Hugo Chavez. Man, the NYTs dumps on that guy almost as much as Fox keeps calling him a
elected“dictator”.Also, how did the Right take over the once respectable word “Liberal” and turn it into a word that in the popular mind means ‘socialist, communist, and Leftist? The removal of the fairness doctrine turned radio into a right wing propaganda machine (at least on the AM dial…but that wasn’t new .. Father Coughlin propagandized for Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler just prior to WW2. How little has changed..ala Rush L. Annie C. and O’Wiley.
Oh those guys aren’t the Press!!! but the “Fuck-you”* demographic believes their “news” as if on faith. {*actually a pollster said that….meaning guys who aren’t well educated, fairly anti female, Nascar leaning rednecky types who like Bush ’cause of the lack of ambiguity and macho talk. )
enough there to digest? but sometime I’ll go into the “Personal is Political” thing, Jeff. As you are a noble and thoughtful host even though I disagree about premises and ideas. Conservatives in my experience have had Personal problems attributed in their mind to “Liberalism” or Relativism such as a local Republican writer and matron who is quite comfortable with my time as a writer of local newspaper with her story of how she was dumped by her liberal grad student husband leaving her with two kids to support w/o adequate means..turning her into a conservative. Or being “mugged” turns one into a conservative. Sorry, those show e.g.s of Personal…leading to the Political too. So, Personal is the Political or all politics are local…but that’s whole different argument.
alas, i digress.
Jeff refers in passing to the “broken primary system.†… How has the system changed?
I would say it has become a media event rather than a rational selection process. Open state primaries have also destroyed any real party cohesion, as anybody can vote in any primary at their whim. Look at how the Libertarians or other minority parties pick their delegates and have conventions to see how it used to be for the Big Two. Conventions now are just pep rallies and vacation rewards for the party loyalists and workers who get picked as delegates, they used to be where professional politicians picked candidates and hammered out platforms.
(data)dave, do you always get high before you visit this site?
some magic Halliburton memory loss spray
I wish they made this.
Karl – I think that was more of flashing one’s ass, a virtual mooning if you will.
Taking a break, datadouche. Worn out. You try a black diamond while telemarking, and tell me it is not alpine. The rest of your little furball was as predictable as it is incomprehensible.
data dave — Coughlin was a leftist populist. Fascism was a leftist ideology springing from socialism. Mussolini was a dedicated socialist much admired by Lenin. I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism, or simply going back and reading the American Prospect or New Republic from around that time period. Progressivism is tied to fascism, and in fact once sought intentionally to emulate it in an American context.
Beyond that, I’ve provided links showing how the press votes. So no, we can’t just “agree” that they’re centrist-y when the are objectively not so. Unless you believe the Kos trope that progressivism is centrism. It’s not. It’s demonstrably leftist, and has been from its inception.
Damn! What I’d get to know wtf that actually was. Is there a secret progressive decoder handshake? Do you push on the wall someplace?
When God created the Universe, He didn’t keep it a secret. Surely this is no less important.
Oh, and daterdave, #71.
So, give.
Sure you do. Because you’re ignorant.
Wasn’t the right that did that. ‘Twas the left. That’s also how it came to pass in the US that classical liberals are called conservatives.
Also for FDR. Until FDR didn’t go socialist enough, fast enough, for Coughlin. Then he turned on him.
Bigoted, much?
Why is it lefties can’t come ’round here without waving their bigotry around like it’s a Polaroid? Do they think we can’t see it? Or are they so steeped in it they’re incapable of seeing it?
I’ll bite, so to speak.
daterdave, as you set about defining The Real left, kindly also define “female”. As you, at least, see the definition of the word as you just used it. Because as I read it, you’re either 180 out of phase or a bigoted asshole.
Many of them actually believe the cartoon character they’ve collectively created is a factual representation of reality. It isn’t bigotry, you see, because it’s true.
I am the Real Left. Accept no imitations. You will know us by our correct spelling and grammar and our recognition of irony. By these signs can we be discerned from the pod people who hijack our flag. Damn you, pod people!
“Because as I read it, you’re either 180 out of phase or a bigoted asshole.”
Put me down for $10 on the latter.
What, no berets?
Gabriel, is dd you? Was that a joke? Because, man, if it is, you do crazy very well.
It expresses the widely held belief, shared by me and lots of other progressive liberal types, that the stinking press has way too much influence on these races.
Then why do so many progressive liberal types support campaign finance laws like McCain-Fiengold, which restrict the political speech of private citizens and give even more power to the press? And believe it or not I agree with your premise completely.
Berets require the wearer to commit entirely, or risk embarrassing hat-head. Our peripatetic nature will not permit such devotion to an accessory, so we must abstain entirely. Even though we’re pretty sure we would look quite dashing.
How about ascots?
Well Jeff – you’re the one who simply cannot deal with anyone who disagrees with you. I’ve gotten into it it with alot of people here but you’re the only one who get nutz w/i 10 seconds when people don’t agree with you. i didn’t call you stupid and all the BS you called me, but once you did, fuck you. Learn to be civil or grow a thicker skin.
I like to wear a beret, only pulled down real low, with eye holes cut out of it. Like Dumb Donald, only with a continental twist.
Gabriel, if you won’t wear a beret, then all the “myths” about liberals that you hope to refute, must endure.
Well, okay — if you won’t wear a beret you could just burn off an eyebrow. But it has to be one or the other.
Well Jeff – you’re the one who simply cannot deal with anyone who disagrees with you.
LOL!
And to the rest of my fan club here, one little note:
You can neither be brave nor cowardly on a BLOG. Nothing of any real consequence can happen to you, so bravery and cowardice is really not applicable. That any of you who commented about my “cowardice” feel that it is explains a lot about you.
I mean what are you gonna do? Call me dumb? Oh! It hurts!!! Jesus Christ….
How about if our little collegium were just to call you tedious and boring, steve?
I mean what are you gonna do? Call me dumb?
Not so much dumb as rhetorically incompetent.
“How about if our little collegium were just to call you tedious and boring, steve?”
Oh, I take it back. NOW it hurts. Now ya got me. Fuck. I gotta get outta here….
. I gotta get outta here….
Promises, promises…
#105
Then learn how to defend your position. Gratuitous assertions don’t count. Come prepared or don’t show up at all.
The good news for you guys is that I am getting tired to commenting at PW. Not because you insult me so much as bore me. Dan’s posts are funny and Karl’s and Jeff’s can be thought provoking, so I’ll probably still check you guys out. I still think it’s a pretty good blog, even if Jeff goes from making sense to douche bag when I dare question him.
Oh, you mean, like, having the temerity to respond — that kind of “cannot deal with” disagreement?
I have an open comments section. I can deal with disagreement just fine. I think you’re confusing your distaste for how I deal with it with my ability to do so in ways that I find satisfying and effective — one of which is to point out how feckless little anklebiters like you rely on shopworn and disposable rhetorical techniques to try to game an argument, because you haven’t the chops to introduce anything of substance into the mix.
My skin in plenty thick, steve, or I wouldn’t have a website with my name on it, and on which I’ve made public arguments for more than half a decade.
Meanwhile, you’re known simply as “steve” (without even a linked email address), and yet it galls you to no end when I swat away your little barbs with a degree of patience that you could never muster.
Talk about thin skin…
But go on. Tell me again how I’m a bitter academic failure while you pretend toward the rhetorical high ground. It kinda makes me giggle.
Not because you insult me so much as bore me.
How the hell do you think we feel, steve! snooooze.
New rhetorical high ground term: “douche”.
I don’t think suggesting I’m a thin skinned academic failure who is out to “get” the academy because I’m embittered is “questioning” me, steve. I think it’s a rather predictable attempt to insult and diminish me.
Meanwhile, go back through the thread. See who it is who provided links and answers to being “questioned.”
Seriously. A little self-evaluation might do you some good.
Yes, yes. How dare someone ask you on what basis you believe something steve. That many here are unwilling to just receive your truths is just so rude.
….even if Jeff goes from making sense to douche bag when I dare question him.
I think it is time to change to the second reel, steve, we have already seen this part.
Whose turn to get popcorn?
After steve thought he had the kill shot on the other thread and then totally humiliated himself he hasn’t been the same. The horror and shame have been too much for him.
“Well Jeff – you’re the one who simply cannot deal with anyone who disagrees with you.”
This is just not true. I once articulated my adoration for a certain single malt scotch and Jeff disagreed, saying that he thought it a little dull and listless (paraphrasing from what my old mind can remember). Anyhow, he has been more than cordial to me ever since.
Yeah – thick skinned Jeff writes his life story in comments to dispell the notion of some idiot commenter who calls him a failed academic. Like water off a duck’s back. Right.
Look Jeff – I don’t think you’re dumb at all, and I enjoy alot of what you write. I just think you’re a little sensitive, that’s all.
Seriously. A little self-evaluation might do you some good.
Or make him suicidal. Depends on his capability for real self-awareness.
“After steve thought he had the kill shot on the other thread and then totally humiliated himself he hasn’t been the same. The horror and shame have been too much for him.”
Really? I better up my game…
OK – my cue to leave is Jeff admonishing me for name calling. Plus I don’t want raise his blood pressure anymore. I think he’s had enough of me.
Unfortunately for the rest of you, this does mean that the occasion for coming up with those really, really funny one liners is over. Well, you know what they say – all good things….
Meanwhile, you’re known simply as “steve†(without even a linked email address)
Yeah you anonymous puss. Hey how did you guys like me in Scent of a Woman?
“Well, you know what they say – all good things….”
What? All good things…what? I wanna hear the rest of what “they” say.
I didn’t write my life story, steve. I simply countered your erroneous assertions with truthful ones. Sometimes I do that, other times I don’t. Depends on my mood, or (often) whether I happen to be sitting in front of the computer.
You seem to think my responding to you is a sign of sensitivity, making me wonder why it is you address me in the first place. Is it to “prove” that I’m sensitive for responding? Are you trying to trap me, steve?
Tell you what, I won’t respond to you any more. But don’t dare use that as proof you’ve made a valid point. Because that would just show you up as a manipulative fraud.
Your rules, not mine.
Steve,
I think you’ll find that if you provide reasoned commentary, you’ll get reasoned (for the most part) discussion even (or especially) if the majority in here disagree with you. Ask Scott Kaufmann (commenter SEK). We may not agree with their viewpoints, but we can be cordial.
However, when you enter a thread as you did in comment #21, get asked in comment #27 to make an argument, and then have the temerity in comment #29 to demand someone else make another argument for you (see your #1 in comment 29), you’ll find that the commenters here are less than receptive. A commenter asked you to make an argument, you demanded the commenter (and then Jeff) do legwork in making arguments for you.
We’ve dealt for a long time with thread-jacking pseudo-leftist trolls who turn comment threads about interesting topics of Jeff’s (the Host’s) choosing into lame “it’s all about the troll” sessions since at least 9/11. We’re sick of it.
If you have something to contribute, great. But be prepared to defend it. And, remember, in someone else’s house, it’s not about you.
If only.
Hey, I’m tired of you commenting here. I think we have a synergistic moment. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
how become its ok for carroll to make up words an not me?
Because he throws in a few bones for us semi-nappy headed bo’s?
I believe we’ve found some common ground. Just a little, mind you, and I really don’t have the patience to look for any more. So I’m ready to agree on that point and leave the rest alone.
You’re a real giver Pablo. They can never take that away from you.
the trouble of having to think critically or process information
I take polls.
a link shouldn’t be too hard to muster
Indeed.
And I’ll fed-ex it right out to you, s.
First thing in the morning.
And so the conversation turned until the sun went down and many fantasies were learned I guess but mostly I missed a lot of them cause I went for guacamole and came back but the boss never did show up so then we had cigarettes on the patio upstairs and also a muffin.
You know how you can listen to NPR and be fully cognizant that the interviewer isn’t asking a question he doesn’t already know the answer to? Right. I think when people don’t get for-real questioning modeled for them things go off the rails. Same thing with original reporting not done in a spirit of inquiry. It’s not about options. It’s a deeper aesthetic thing. People aren’t particularly repelled by this sort of packaged and framed narrative-driven journalism thing. And they’re not really all that skeptical really. They don’t know how to be. They’re never shown how for real.
I would be too.
So Steve? What’s your philosophy? How’s it all really work in your utopia where no neocon blogs exist to upset your long, linear trains of progressive thought?
No pun, but the platform is certainly yours.
That really depends on how annoying you are. There’s a thing called an IP address. Look it up. Learn its implications.
Internet privacy is nothing more than a gentlemen’s agreement.
@ #60 Comment by steve
Sorry folks, you won’t be hearing fom me anymore.
I… I’ve lost my other kidney.
GOLD, JERRY, GOLD !!!
Hey Jeff, could we get an e-mail or text alert for the especially stupid trolls?
I miss all the best morons.
this does mean that the occasion for coming up with those really, really funny one liners is over
Links, please
Period.
Gosh. Steve. It was a real dishonor to have you here. Don’t come back soon.
What, no berets?
And sandals. With socks if they’re from North of the Border.
Or Cascadia.
Romney was favored by the Networks, the stunningly ignorant multinational corporations, and their talking heads, – but you cannot fool the average trooper, who went and suppported a real honest person named john mccain. Mac is back! That’s a folk affection, not business.
Obama is favored by the Networks, the stunningly ignorant multinational corporations, so far removed from average people with real problems. The folk think Hillary is more willing to fight for meat n’ potatoes issues. There you have it, Joe Public likes Centrists, Moderates – not the extremists of ideology, and people with swollen heads because of their pride in their own DOGMA. Humility helps; “God giveth grace to the humble, but He resisteth the proud.” (St James: Reading for Ash Wednesday)
You know how you can listen to NPR and be fully cognizant… ?
No.
@ #139
But to your larger point, yes, ‘feet.
And so what is the canned Jeff G. response, if I may ask, to how the liberal media aligned with George Bush to get us into the war(s) in the first place – the same war(s) the liberal media thinks we should not be in now. This just causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
You say that like bringing freedom to all those people was a bad thing.
Jeff G asked steve:
You’re supposed to meekly accept what he says, not question him.
I think you’ll find that if you provide reasoned commentary, you’ll get reasoned (for the most part) discussion even (or especially) if the majority in here disagree with you. Ask Scott Kaufmann (commenter SEK).
Or Gabe Fry or cynn, both of which consistently engage in honest dialogue. Or Im Just Sayin, who has tried to at least once, now.
And so what is the canned Jeff G. response, if I may ask, to how the liberal media aligned with George Bush to get us into the war(s) in the first place – the same war(s) the liberal media thinks we should not be in now. This just causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
Your enigmatic, yet seductive use of (s) exposes your fundamentalist morality like the flash of a fleshy ankle neath the burka of reality.
Begone, thy evil temptress.
Comment by Roman on 2/8 @ 9:05 pm #
And so what is the canned Jeff G. response, if I may ask, to how the liberal media aligned with George Bush to get us into the war(s) in the first place – the same war(s) the liberal media thinks we should not be in now. This just causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
When did the “Media” get a vote in the House or Senate authorizing use of force against Iraq? Man I must have missed something.
crush crush shred shred
Roman may be drunk. Please allow for this in your responses. The Ukraine is next, mofo. Though, Roman I may be back off the “wagon”. I had a few tonight and feel pretty good.
This could obviously apply to liberals who agree with the viewpoints of liberal reporters and newscasters overall. I personally would want to take account of the political leanings of editors, publishers, and the television equivilant of both, but I get the argument as regards liberal consumers of news.
Conservatives, however, would find their blood boiling the more they saw coverage they considered slanted. Except for those who were sheep, who would eventually be won over by repetition.
Quick, abbreviated version of B Moe’s standard Chicken Little story:
If Chicken Little says the sky is falling, and the local paper ignores him, nobody buys the paper.
If the paper blares THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! in the headlines, they sell an assload.
A leftist bias in the news media is unavoidable, it is human nature.
I just found out an old friend ate a bullet tonight, I am going to get fucked up now. Hug a loved one for me.
I’ve never figured out how to deal with that. It better never happen again.
Sorry to hear that B Moe, about your old friend.
I’m very sorry to hear that.
I was simply asking Goldstein how he would frame the liberal media’s treatment or investigation of Bush’s claims for invading Iraq. Why didn’t a liberal media so against the war now vet the facts when they were actually presented? Maybe it is because of the hypocrisy – but I would be interested in how Mr. G in his lilting yet precise prose would describe that particular scenario.
Why didn’t a liberal media so against global warming now vet the facts when they were actually presented?
Why didn’t a liberal media so against the war now vet the facts when they were actually presented?
Probably because they weren’t facts then, they were speculation and opinion because Saddam Hussein REFUSED TO FUCKING LET THE INSPECTORS ESTABLISH THE GODDAMN FACTS YOU RETARDED FUCKING MORON! How Goddamn long are you stupid sonuvabitches going to keep trying to rehash the same old tired ass fucking bullshit? How stupid are the people you hang around with that you can talk shit like this and they don’t slap you up the side of the head and tell you to shut the fuck up? Jesus Christ on a fucking pogo stick go flex your little peabrain over at Firedoglake or somewhere somebody gives a shit.
If the media has the power to arbitrarily make or break candidates, then whoever owns the media owns America. Just who does own the media? Who has controlling blocks of stock? Grits
I think Roman’s point is that a medium completely hostile to Bush could have been expected to be more skeptical of the WMD claims. Yes, there were rational people who believed in them, in part because of Saddam’s behavior – but surely your whipping boy – a frothing at the mouth Bush Derangement syndrome type media – would have rejected them no matter what the apparent evidence.
Myself I disagree. The vast left wing conspiracy knew Bush’s popularity would be at record lows about now, so they played rope a dope – and roped their dope!
The media hated Reagan. They were going to crush him, but outing him would have involved giving away the secrets to looking good on camera used by liberal media people, so they went easy.
If the media has the power to arbitrarily make or break candidates,
It isn’t arbitrary, and this assertion:
…then whoever owns the media owns America.
Only makes sense if we become a socialist state.
Think about that awhile, then get back with us.
David – There was consistency between the facts presented by the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration regarding Sadaam, so why would doubt be created in the eyes of the media. The only difference was that Bush ran out of patience with the games Sadaam was playing, while Clinton did not. But WMD were not the sole reason, as you well know, for the invasion.
daley, that reminds me, watching MTP last Sunday, they were rambling about why Hillary had so much trouble just saying she was wrong about voting for the AUMF in Iraq. and I said, “well, because she would have to throw Bill under the bus to do it”
I think Roman’s point is that a medium completely hostile to Bush could have been expected to be more skeptical of the WMD claims.
How long are you planning on saving all that nuance, David?
The media loves a sob story. They always sell to the people. When they’ve picked their favorite subject, then it’s time to sensationalize/exaggerate it.
frame the liberal media’s treatment or investigation of Bush’s claims for invading Iraq
I can’t speak for our esteemed host, R, but I would go with two-inch brushed stainless steel and one of those double-mats. Think Streamline Moderne, if that helps. Hold on and I’ll see if I can muster up another link.
And so what is the canned Jeff G. response, if I may ask, to how the liberal media aligned with George Bush to get us into the war(s) in the first place – the same war(s) the liberal media thinks we should not be in now.
You see Roman, the problem here is that you refuse to remember exactly what was going on at the time of the “run up” to war. The fact is that there wasn’t anyone around, outside of those who troll for dates at Burger King, who seriously thought that Iraq didn’t have WMDs.
Nobody.
Nada.
So your willful ignorance notwithstanding, the media wasn’t carring anybodies water nor covering anything up.
The short answer is easier – They were for it before they were against it. Wait a while and they’ll be for it again. And they’ll deny they were ever against it.
[Teh Media] could have been expected to be more skeptical of the WMD claims.
Whether in the text or the captions, every article about railroading that Teh Media chugs-out has at least one, glaring, entry-level type error. Referring to the individual cars of a train as “the trains,” or captioning an obvious locomotive as a “little house,” off the top of my head. Slipshod, that.
The spines of their Reference Books remained uncracked.
I blame Teh Editors. Where in tarnation are they?
Or maybe they would have been forced to conclude that OIF was the right thing to do, because the question would’ve still stood.
How? They’re just following the lead of the left-hand aisle of Congress, that’s how.
Sure, cause-and-effect missing. I’m just following the lead of the rush-into-war crowd.
The real answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
I blame Teh Editors. Where in tarnation are they?
Down here, with m… me.
*hic*
The media, cause of the paramountcy of Vietnam, really for sure wanted the Democrats to look strong on Iraq, so they wouldn’t get tagged as being weak on defense again. So the reporting in the run up to Vietnam was crafted to give Dems cover. Then the media, cause of the paramountcy of Vietnam, they couldn’t help themselves, so Iraq became Vietnam to give Dems cover. Murderous vets on the homefront are the cherry on that sundae.
Oops. Just woke up I did. That’s *run up to Iraq*.
[Teh Media] could have been expected to be more skeptical of the WMD claims.
Completely uncurious, the lot of ’em. About anything. So why do you suppose they became Journalists?
Oops.
Ditto.
But me, I was for the war, before I was against it.
Sure, that makes me a craven, opportunistic bastard for not owning my own vote, but hey, ME for president!
See, this is just my continuing despair over the quality of folks running for public office, speaking. I’m considering the wisdom of draft. Not a military one, a public service one. How bad could it get if we decapitated our entire government, and then drafted replacements from an unwilling pool? It’d be civil liberties nightmare, for sure, but sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Or so we’re told.
Indeed, where did Teh Editors go?
I DEMAND A BLUE-RIBBON PANEL !!!
#165
They were also Bill Clinton’s claims as well. The subsequent facts prove that Saddam was playing a dangerous game of poker, trying to bluff his enemies into thinking he had WMDs at hand. Since his past performance showed he was willing to use WMDs if he had them, the prudent course would be take them out before he had a chance to play them. The collateral benefit was to have a ME country friendly to the US and its interests squarely in the middle of our enimies. It also placed an unfriendly Iran between two countries friendly to the US. Cairo is nervous. But Bush couldn’t possibly be that smart. Could he?
When Bush said ‘long war’ he meant decades, not years.
They were also Bill Clinton’s claims as well.
They were everybody’s claims.
I’ve tried asking over the years for someone to tell me who, exactly, was stating otherwise about WMDs prior to the war. And of course the answer is “nobody”. You would think with the tens of millions of dollars the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and the UN had tied up in OFF kickbacks, they would have jumped up and down shouting “NO WMDs!” to prevent the invasion, but they all kept quiet.
There is no logical answer to why they did what they did other than they actually believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Baracky knewed everything. He was the only one. He tried and tried to save Saddam. He voted present emphatically but it just wasn’t enough. Mamabama gave her only son and what did we do? We are shamed.
The answer, from my perspective, is simple: I don’t accept the premise of the question. Congress voted overwhelmingly — and bi-partisanly — on AUMF. Democratic senators were on record speaking out strongly about Saddam’s weapons and the threat they posed.
So the press didn’t give cover to “Bush’s” war.
See, President Bush (who, according to someone in a recent threat, couldn’t persuade a thirsty dog to put its tongue out, or some such nonsense) used his magically persuasive (yet folksy) rhetoric to convince all of Congress, even the Democrats who would ordinarily know better (when they’re not falling under Satan’s spell), that if they voted to go to war with Iraq, that this would constitute a mere threat, not an actual commitment to go fight, somewheres. Surprise!
Thank God Kerry came back to his senses and let us know what was happening, even if it was years too late to actually save us from folly. We really need a guy with the integrity (not to mention, gall) of a John Kerry in the Oval Office.
Perhaps the liberal media will choose to be for Obama and McCain before they choose to be against Obama and McCain.
I think it’s dangerous to flagellate on the theory of a liberal media in one instance and then not be able to extrapolate to other instances – it’s a nod to form over content.
Obama and McCain? I had no idea they were running mates.
Flagellate safely, people. Let’s be careful out there.
I think it’s dangerous to flagellate on the theory of a liberal media in one instance and then not be able to extrapolate to other instances – it’s a nod to form over content.
By completely ignoring the fact that your “other instance(s)” were completely dismantled, I’d say you are the one coming (heh) close to flagellation.
Tommy B –
I was simply hoping for WMDs to be dismantled and for the embedded media to cry fowl when the initial premise for the war did not pan out. Of course, when you’re reporting on people who are also protecting your life your point of view shifts a bit.
It’s all hypocrisy, isn’t it?
Father Coughlin propagandized for Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler just prior to WW2.
Also for FDR. Until FDR didn’t go socialist enough, fast enough, for Coughlin. Then he turned on him.
That’s the most full of shit thing I’ve heard. C. had his own agenda that was to defend the Church and fight secular humanism. When C. started his path on radio he was concerned about rampant poverty affecting his growing flock. and nearly everybody except the very rich supported FDR due to the severity of the Depression . FDR was an elitist and conservative relative to what would be “liberalism” of today. Newt Gingrich saluted FDR as a saviour of capitalism as he was certainly was.
But anybody who says the main American propagandist for Franco’s war against the Republican govt of Spain…can by no measure be called a “Leftist” as Jeff and the one quoted above.
The rewriting of history by the modern conservative movement would seem to include Genghis Khan and Timothy McVie and anyone else defined as ‘evil’ as being Leftists. From that viewpoint of Authoritarianism all crime is caused by “cultural relativism”, atheism causes pimples. and all placentas are humans with a right to vote. That’s how far the would be defenders of Waco’s Branch Dividians have become.
I was simply hoping for WMDs to be dismantled and for the embedded media to cry fowl when the initial premise for the war did not pan out. Of course, when you’re reporting on people who are also protecting your life your point of view shifts a bit.
No. This is what you said:
And so what is the canned Jeff G. response, if I may ask, to how the liberal media aligned with George Bush to get us into the war(s) in the first place – the same war(s) the liberal media thinks we should not be in now. This just causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
That doesn’t look anything like “dismantling WMDs” or “cry(ing) fowl” (sic).
Why don’t you try again?
#196
If you read the house resolution that enabled the war in Iraq you’d have seen that WMDs were second or third on the list of reasons. Are you sure you want to accuse conservatives of rewriting history? So far your position has gone to proving Jeffs point.
But he got to use cognitive dissonance in a sentence.
Timothy McVie? Who’s he, Christine’s younger brother?
Or…brother-in-law?
Anyone else remember the term “material breach” and the part it played in casus belli? Roman?
[…] has one sliver of truth, insofar as it recognizes that the media does try to play kingmaker. Bill Clinton’s specific claim that the press has only been active in this cycle, however, […]
[…] Joan Walsh joins the growing list of those in the media (including fellow liberals like Bill Press) noting that reporters from the establishment media swoon over Barack Obama and hate Hillary […]