Thomas Sowell, on the way the MSM chooses and frames its “scandals” (which, in case you needed it, provides additional anecdotal evidence for a media that not only skews left, but—when at all plausible—protects its ideological fellow travelers from potentially negative scrutiny):
Before the Washington Madam surfaced, the big scandal in town was the Bush administration’s firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. But it was not a scandal, as far as the media were concerned, when Bill Clinton fired every single U.S. Attorney in the country.
Everybody knew then—but seem to have forgotten now—that all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire any of them or all of them, at any time, for any reason or for no reason.
In the case of Bill Clinton, U.S. Attorneys back in Arkansas had been investing corruption in his administration as governor before he became president. Firing all of them covered the fact that he was getting rid of those who were investigating him.
But that was no scandal, as far as the media were concerned.
The loudest critics of the US Attorney firings have focused primarily on two things: Gonzales’ fumbling of the explanation (the Scooter Libby gambit for ginning up the appearance of impropriety in the face of no actual impropriety, which wasn’t applied to, say, Tim Russert); and “the timing” of the firings—which, while it didn’t follow precedent, is nevertheless irrelevant. A break from tradition is not a break from the law—but the break did allow Bushco critics once again to do what they do best: gin up the appearance of impropriety in order to drive their carefully-crafted narrative of Executive overreach and Bush Administration malfeasance.
Bush has been one of the staunchest promoters of returning Executive power to what he believes is its Constitutionally-protected place—a direct affront to the other branches of government, which over time have taken power from the executive (see, for instance, the battles over AUF, FISA, etc.). And this, I believe, is what drives much of the animus toward Bush, even among libertarians, who traditionally support close Constitutional readings (but, of convenience, seem to reject them when they believe the person wielding the powers is too authoritarian).
So even periodicals like Reason have directed much of their political ire at Republicans of Bush’s stripe, while a more useful strategy for promoting libertarianism would be to recognize and respect the President’s responsibility for forging foreign policy (correctable by way of elections and certain Congressional maneuvers, for those who disagree with it) and concentrate less on turning the magazine into what amounts to a non-interventionalist foreign policy white sheet, and more on what would happen should a Democratic candidate (with the possible exception of Bill Richardson) win the election, and have a Democratic majority to work with in Congress.
But again, it’s all about choosing your scandal—and it seems that some who profess to be “objective” or “neutral” think it okay that their selective editing of what is or is not “news” plays a crucial role in public perception, which in turn determines election results.
Along these lines, Sowell continues:
It was treated as a scandal in the media when Newt Gingrich received a large advance from a publisher while he was Speaker of the House. But it was no scandal when each of the Clintons received larger advances from publishers.
For conservatives, the media standard is not “innocent until proven guilty” but “the appearance of impropriety.”
When Senator Harry Reid received a million dollars from a questionable real estate deal involving property that he no longer owned, but whose owner had gotten favorable treatment from the government, that was apparently not even an appearance of impropriety as far as most of the media were concerned.
We have heard a lot of outrage being expressed because, under the Patriot Act, the government can find out what books you have checked out of a public library. That is considered a scandalous invasion of privacy.
[…]
It was a scandal when shock jock Don Imus made a typical shock jock kind of cheap remark about black girls on a college basketball team. But it is no scandal when black “leaders” like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson make racist remarks.
Yet who has more influence—most of it bad—on race relations in this country? Outrage at Imus by people in the media who give Sharpton and Jackson a free pass is a little much.
But that is not a scandal, since the media are who determine what is and is not a scandal.
Fortunately, market forces in information dissemination have forced the hand of the mainstream media—online or alternative media buzz, whether it be Monicagate or Rathergate, etc., can eventually create so much pressure that the legacy media can no longer ignore it—but the leftosphere has since arisen to discredit media critics, its biggest players concentrating much of their energy on promoting what they themselves have referred to as a “unified narrative,” one that seeks to defang critics by first marginalizing, then dehumanizing them.
This takes a special effort—and a special kind of illiberal arrogance—but it is part of a larger strategy to control the way debates are framed, and so the way information itself is ultimately disseminated.
Controlling the message is the single most important aspect of any kind of totalitarian form of governance—even one that, like “progressivism,” envisions itself as benevolent and the architect of a future Utopia.
Which is precisely why people who value classical liberal ideals must repeatedly pull back the curtain to reveal the stunted wizard behind it pulling the levers.
That’s pretty much true of most, if not all totalitarianisms, isn’t it? I mean, even the Islamic despots operate under the banner of erecting a good Islamic society in order to ensure the place of the faithful in heaven. Honestly, the thing that drives me to libertarianism more than anything else is my deep suspicion of people who want to do things ostensibly for my good.
Doesn’t that stunted little gay wizard behind the curtain resemble kos?
Indeed, the difference being, however, that progressivism has the luxury of a liberal upbringing, and rejects it.
It should know better.
So you’re saying that progressives are little snots with Daddy issues? I’d buy it.
Non-stop barrages of faux, real, or greatly exaggerated “scandal” have been a political tool since Watergate took down Nixon. Many may not recall that the press and the Dems were out to get Nixon from the day he was elected, so deeply did they hate him.
Unfortunately, both parties have learned that you can tie the other guy in knots with this stuff. But you are correct: the press filters out a good deal of the Dem’s garbage, and is happy to grossly exaggerate things like Scooter Libby to the point that most Americans believe that he is going to jail for revealing a covert agent.
Jeff, there are differences between the Clinton firings and the Bush firings. Whether those differences are truly significant in the way that the screamers say they are is something else altogether, but Clinton fired guys he didn’t hire in the first place, while Bush fired guys he did hire.
Supposedly for being insufficiently toadyish, not that’s my point.
Still, you can’t say the two situations are exactly the same.
Ok, then. So: Dick Nixon, just a guy who was framed?
But, but… the message reflects a consensus…
Give it time gentlemen, bias will bite the libs on the ass soon to come…
Slart – Doesn’t firing one of your own make it even more acceptable ? The simple fact that we are even discussing this is proof of what our esteemed host was saying in this, and various other posts.
Firing someone because he doesn’t suck up to you enough? BAD! VERY BAD!
Firing somone because you don’t want him investigating all your shady dealings back in your home state? Business as usual! Why get all worked up over it?
I’m so glad I have CBS News to explain this stuff to me.
I have to agree with what Jeff said and it makes me laugh when I think about seeing a story yesterday that the Washington madame’s list was NOT going to be made public. My reaction was that most of the johns must have been democrats, else it’d be on the front page.
Not that there’s any double standard or anything!
Mr. Foley, please pick up on line 2.
Getting inside the DNC’s head. Yike!
Like a good defense reading the offense’s next play, how about an interception?
TW: pull
As, comes the next…
“Still, you can’t say the two situations are exactly the same.”
Nor can you say that they are substantively different in that neither man acted outside the law or in a manner that was wholly unprecedented.
Clinton’s action received little negative comment and some positive “clean slate comment” (this was before Reno’s Waco kids cookout). Bush’s action received almost wholly negative framing by the socialist bootlicking press.
The press treatment of the Waco Massacre is probably more illustrative of Jeff’s point concerning framing. The press gave Clinton a pass based upon Reno’s “I won’t let the buck get to where it should be stopping”. Reno hadn’t been on duty long enough to be sure where the womyn’s room was when the Feds torched Waco. I’ll never believe it was her call and I’ll always believe that the Clinotn’s left her pretty much alone thereafter because she was willing to “roll over one more time” so easily.
Democrats believe every war is Vietnam, every Republican is Nixon, and every Democrat is JFK.
Republicans believe every war is WWII, every Republican is Reagan, and every Democrat is Carter.
All media perpetuate these memes, Fox News and the MSM included.
An old framing work-in-progress:
Quote Andrew at National Review:
Mighty broad statement there…
It is encouraging to see someone who ordinarily would be labeled “right wing” understanding what liberalism – true liberalism – means. Liberalism is opposed to not synonymous with what people call “progressivism” or just plain leftist tripe these days. Liberalism is what the United States was founded on, and is in no way is opposed to conservatism, they are virtually identical. Liberty and personal virtue are trumpeted and proposed, not statism and collectivism.
The modern fools who call themselves liberal are usually anything but.
True. How the right defines “victory” in terms of true liberation has to be the counter framing that some righty needs to step up and articulate (Fred!?) Especially since Senate Republicans may be close to jumping ship for political reasons (via HA’s Allah). Letting the military alone do the articulating is a tough row: Poor Petraeus. What a task.
Not that it is “framing” but fact. I suppose Iraq will be considered a solid democratic nation when they have a Pelosi or Hillary act-alike…
Ok, then. So: Dick Nixon, just a guy who was framed?
Nope, he did commit crimes. Whether or not he was the first, or one of several who did more or less the same is a matter of opinion.
But the point is that he found himself in a rather desperate situation. The America haters were having a field day, (egged on by the press, “heroic” John Kerry, anyone?), societal order was breaking down, (again encouraged by the press and lefty democrats), and the Russians were pressing us hard.
Nixon felt it was imperative that he get control of the situation at home while holding off the commies in Europe, and getting out of Asia.
So, snide little comments like yours above simply play to the narrative as it’s been twisted by the same media that this post referrences.
Do a little thinking before you slam a president simply because cbs says you should.
Anybody that still wants to use Nixon as a boogey man and deny that the press did everything in their power need to take a closer look at the pass the press gave to LBJ, that guy was the epitome of everything that can be dirty about politics.
Sure you can say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but if the modern prerogative of the presidency came to be understood that you can do certain things then clean up the prerogatives rather than crucify the person exercising them.
Damn, can’t anybody take any pity on poor Richard Nixon?
Anyone know if the stories about LBJ having the press follow him into the bathroom while he took a dump are true or urban myth?
Cuz, that’s dirty politics.
But given his opinion of the press then probably roughly equals mine now, I think it’s pretty hilarious if true.
And as everyone knows, a situation so desperate as having dirty hippies protesting outside the White House calls for desperate measures like breaking into the headquarters of your political opponents. Truly the leftards and the monolithic communist MSM will never understand that national security requires protecting the political fortunes of Republican presidents by any means necessary.
Is there anyone still alive who even remembers Nixon?
Huh. Moops completely ignored the text after the bit he quoted. Almost like he was intent on taking someone out of context or something.
Can’t be. He’s not that dishonest, is he?
As others have said, what Nixon did was wrong, unlike Johnson he got caught and was driven out of office.
Or, how’s about ‘subversive agents of a foreign (Soviet) power fomenting open revolt.’
I guess it’s all a matter of how you define your terms.
Moops, you’re either blind or stupid.
Does the word Venona mean anything to you?
What you’ll go to your grave denying is that the anti-war groups were funded and deeply penetrated by a trail of communists leading all the way back to KGB headquarters. You, and your lefty buds, are the children of a subversive movement started by a country that no longer exists. You just don’t know you’re standing on a corpse to take swings at a decent man. That’s why the commies called you “useful idiots”.
Actually, the biggest scandal was the DiFi scandal. The fact that DiFi received almost no coverage in the MSM further supports the point of the post.
And still doesn’t get coverage right to this very day. So…curious, no?
Fortunately, market forces in information dissemination have forced the hand of the mainstream media … but the leftosphere has since arisen to discredit media critics, its biggest players concentrating much of their energy on promoting what they themselves have referred to as a “unified narrative,†one that seeks to defang critics by first marginalizing, then dehumanizing them.
I don’t buy this notion that the media as a whole has been co-opted by some insidious leftist agenda. That assumes way too much organization and plotting on the left’s part. I’d like to know where this unified narrative comes from and who’s in charge of it. It also implies that the general public is composed of feckless marionettes, which is the very cynicism required to hijack conventional news gathering and reporting, and replace them with mind control beams. The “market forces in information dissemination” are the consumers of the media’s product. The mainstream media manufactures these scandals, and the direct response of consumers and the reaction in alternative media propels them. It’s a new day; it’s interactive, no longer a one-way data stream.
Mr. Sowell is criticising what he views as a media bias, but I don’t see him being pilloried and shouted down. In fact, I would agree with him about the Imus stink. As for the US Attorney firings, the central issue is whether or not they were vetted for political affiliation and politically pressured to conduct criminal investigations, which are bad things.
Broad brush. Short strokes. You’re over-reaching, BlueNight.
No, I noted the dirty hippies outside the White House.
No I won’t. Unlike you, I’m not a raving buffoon who believes whatever stupid tripe flatters my ideological predisposition.
And please explain, enlightened student of history, what Soviet infiltration of anti-war groups has to do with breaking into Democratic Party headquarters? Do you even know what Watergate was about?
You got it, Rickinstl. I’m just pissed I don’t have the good and decent Dick Nixon to kick around anymore. Poor guy got such a bum rap.
That comes kind of close to being a strawman, there. I don’t think anyone here worth taking seriously is taking seriously any notion of some kind of Master Plan.
The difference in mindset between progressives and non-progressives is what has made the difference in this. Non-progressives never realized until too late what power such institutions as the establishment news media could wield if dominated by people sharing a worldview that regards the abuse of such power as not only permissible, but as a moral good.
By contrast, progressivism is always drawn to institutions because its adherents are convinced, as staunchly as any cult member, that only through institutions can anyone’s life have meaning. They didn’t invade or infiltrate, they didn’t have to because no one would have thought to oppose them even if they had noticed. They just moved in and the takeover was a fait accompli before even they realized it.
Many of them still don’t, and deny it ever happened—even as they fight tooth and nail to defend the status quo.
And he’s so relevant and timely.
Man, that’s some serious alphie-dumb ya got there, pardner.
Moops, the decent man I was referring to is W, not Dick Nixon. My bad for not being clear. I should have phrased it “to take swings at decent people”.
What you’ll go to your grave denying is that the anti-war groups were funded and deeply penetrated by a trail of communists leading all the way back to KGB headquarters.
No I won’t. Unlike you, I’m not a raving buffoon who believes whatever stupid tripe flatters my ideological predisposition.
So, do you acknowledge that the Soviets funded the lefty groups that were the parents of Int. Answer and the other bunches of nutjobs parading around the country today wearing paper mache heads or not?
Watergate was about dirty politics. It was also about stampeding Nixon out of office by methods other than elections. If you’ll remember, Nixon curbstomped the left/media’s golden boy in ‘72.
I really don’t think I need go much beyond pointing out that that great bastion of journalistic integrity, Dan Rather, was near the front of the baying pack during this especially edifying episode.
I have no idea what a link to the Birchers has to do with any damn thing anyone in this post is talking about. Must be a case of your believing whatever stupid tripe flatters your ideological predisposition.
Now, go ahead and spout more lefty conventional wisdom ca. 1977. It’s fun to watch you guys jerkin to the oldies. Takes you back to those heady days when hating your country just felt so… right.
Today’s secret word is tripe.
cynn,
Rick Ballard debunked the MSM-conspiracy theory here yesterday, when it was raised from someone on the Right (which Moops might want to note when casually accusing folks here of being lockstep ideologues). You might also want to see my addendum to Rick’s comment.
For that matter, you might want to read my most recent post here, as it was inspired in part by you. In fact, I would note to all that it addresses Nixon-hatred as a bonus.
Did somebody say something about dirty hippies?
cynn,
They are what they want to be.
I am a Pittsburgh Penguins fan.
Les Binkley, Jean Pronovost and Bob Woytowich did not co-opt me.
No, wait. Yes they did.
BECAUSE OF OWNERSHIP ONCE TRIED TO TEACH A REAL PENGUIN TO ICE-SKATE BUT IT DIED OF PNEUMONIA !!!
They are who they want to be, actually.
Karl: Interesting, thanks. I can grasp the notion of affinity informing media product. It’s like a relay race, or a game of telephone. But it goes both ways, right and left. Spy vs. Spy. I don’t see that as a bad thing; people naturally gravitate toward representations of “the news” that best reflects their stance. The perceived ascendance of “leftist” media may simply be because we are more vigorous and loudmouthed consumers.
I also see the sharp division between hard left and right as a benefit to public discourse. It forces people (the ones willing to expose themselves to opposing views) to constantly hit their minds’ refresh button to absorb new perspectives.
As for moribund, I doubt it. We lefties are shapeshifters, while the right has the admirable but unfortunate quality of stubbornly adhering to prinicpal and precedent. It’s the difference between pivoting and turning a battleship.
It’s the difference between principle, precedent and lust for power.
If you pivot only on the left foot you tend to create a circular path. I would never argue the ephemeral and malleable nature of leftist principles but I would argue that a reasonable examination of anything proposed as progressive and new in the past 40-50 years is new in the sense of New Improved Tide.
The left died intellectually some time ago, morally it was stillborn, what remains is pathetic reiteration buoyed by the deep ignorance of followers lost in admiration of the embalmers skill.
We won’t know *who* these itinerant people are for awhile, except for the basic demo information, but that’s pretty dramatic. The article doesn’t really explain that the most likely explanation is that viewers are dispersing to cable, but what the significance is, nevertheless, is that the premium networks have traditionally commanded for their ad slots becomes increasingly unsupportable.
Happyfeet,
I sure hope women, children and people of color aren’t suffering unduly as a result.
Did you know that gas prices are going to go up this summer? Now that will definitely hit the WCPoC like a sledgehammer. Those damned patriarchal white capitalists are at it again.
Conflict of Visions, baby.
I just wanted to emphasize that I think Thomas Sowell is a great American.
Rick, I know I don’t have to tell you that we need to keep everyone that will be touched by this in our prayers.
That’s never been the point of anyone on either side of the issue, as far as I’ve seen.
More to the point: it’s completely irrelevant.
I like you; you make me laugh.
That aside, though, I do have this aversion to slapping yet another coat of high-gloss on a guy like Richard Nixon just to feed the anti-MSM backlash. I’ve got as little regard for the news media as the next fellow; I hardly need to polish actual turds to make that point.
I do think most Republicans view most Democrats as future Carters, but the idea that most Republicans think anyone, much less any, Republican is Ronaldus Magnus is idiotic.
Just plain stupid.
Too bad, dude has a good blog.
Rick Ballard, You are quite the obstetrician. Your off-handed ability to diagnose a doomed pregnancy is matched by your fatalist desire to bury all traces of the slaughtered mother. How’s that for feminist rhetoric? Stillborn? It depends on the climate.
No, Richard Nixon wasn’t framed. However, as a Texan, I can tell you that aside from the Vietnam coverage, LBJ got a whole lot better press coverage than Nixon ever did. A lot better than he deserved, considering his “Landslide” [by 87 votes] Lyndon nickname.
Carter and Clinton also had more media fawning over them than any Republican since I don’t know when.
And people say that there is no media bias.
P.S.+ I totally adore this Slart person. Just an aside.
Cynn,
Nah – it was morally stillborn. Hegelian historicism and all of its varied offshoots are dependant upon the false premise that differences in economic status are the result of coercion and/or theft. It’s as if the concept of selecting seed from the most productive plants in the field to plant for the next crop was totally unknown to Hegel (and subsequently to Marx). Both men showed remarkably limited powers of observation, particularly when one considers their fervor in assigning concepts derived from natural science such a place of prominence in their justifications of their delusions.
Having reached the false conclusion that all dissimilarities in economic outcomes were due to some type of “theft” having occurred, the great moral leap was made to the position that it was moral to use coercion to steal those unjust gains right back – and distribute them “equally” (with a small cut to those in charge of the measuring process).
It might have been “logical” (in a very perverted sense) but you have to be of the “two wrongs = one right” camp to make any “moral” claim.
Me, too, but not in a way that might involve restraining orders, etc.
It was Kos and the Townhouse crew who talked about a unified narrative—and who criticized the New Republic for breaking ranks and sullying the consensus.
You see this same kind of thing happen to Black politicians who are expected to adhere to particular unified identity narratives that are essentially political in scope: they are excommunicated for differing, deemed inauthentic, traitors to the race, Uncle Toms.
For its part, the New Republic was branded by Kos as “right wing” for not falling in line.
Speaking of which: you don’t have to fall in love, just fall in line.
Said the top Democratic candidate for Pres…