Not Anymore
Jamison Foser at Media Matters has a lengthy post titled “GOP media lemming alert” that highlights some points that we’ve seen discussed elsewhere.
<!The 2008 presidential campaign may well be decided by the way the news media cover the candidates over the next few months. The ability and willingness of the political media and pundit class to affix narratives to each candidate that shape subsequent news coverage
- and voter attitudes -has been repeatedly discussed here and elsewhere.These narratives tend to have a few things in common:
• The narratives about progressives tend to be negative—Al Gore was a liar and a wimp, Howard Dean was crazy, John Kerry was a flip-flopping wimp, etc.). • The narratives about conservatives tend to be positive (John McCain is a straight-talking maverick, Rudy Giuliani is “America’s Mayor,” etc.) • The narratives about progressives (our focus today) are often based in large part on the media’s endless repetition of snarky comments, stories, and anecdotes about purported personal qualities. • Progressives and journalists often blame the victims of these narratives, chalking them up to inept candidates and campaign staff. No matter how many different progressives get unfairly defined by the media as soft and dishonest and ineffectual, too many people refuse to hold journalists accountable.
The bad news is that this week brought confirmation
- as if any were necessary -that the problem wasn’t with Gore, Kerry, Dean, and the Clintons: that any and every progressive is going to face the same relentless and petty caricatures at the hands of a news media that, however unwittingly, promote right-wing talking points and themes at every turn.
After Greenfield’s comments drew the wrath of progressives, he claimed he had simply been kidding—and lashed out at his critics, blaming the “hair-trigger instincts” of bloggers and “partisans” who “routinely assume the worst about their adversaries” and complaining about “a tendency to find malice aforethought.” Greenfield suggested that those unruly progressive bloggers should have taken a lesson from “the habits of the Mainstream Media.”
Greenfield’s lecture didn’t go over very well, and for good reason. As Bob Somerby pointed out, the “mainstream media” has peddled silly
- and damaging -garbage like this for years. [...]Most of all, Greenfield simply isn’t in a position to lecture anyone else about the “habits” of journalism. Not until he apologizes for his role in doctoring a video clip of Hillary Clinton to portray her as a liar. Perhaps not even then.Greenfield may not like it, but that criticism he took from progressives is the good news of the week. There is a growing
- though still insufficient -recognition among progressives of how these snarky, silly, ridiculous storylines the media peddle about progressives skew public opinion and damage the country—and a willingness to do something about it.That wasn’t the case in the 2004 presidential campaign. A look back at how thoroughly two similar incidents came to define John Kerry and John Edwards is useful in preparing for what is to come.
Mr. Foser then details how the mainstream media beginning with the New York Times picked up their verbal cues for ridicule from the Bush White House and continued to use those cues even a year later, spurious though they were. (The entire article is worth reading if you have the time.)
Mark Barrett of The Premise cautions that progressives had best pay attention to what’s happening.
In the meantime the press and the GOP are going to work, yukking it up with jokes that everyone knows aren’t true – like how Al Gore invented the internet and John Kerry lied about throwing his medals away.
Funny stuff. Hilarious. And deadly.
Then again, if Barack Obama eventually succumbs to a collective political effort to tie him to crazy Middle-eastern leaders simply because of the color of his skin, those progressives who are currently championing him can savage him themselves for not having fought back hard enough, or against suddenly overwhelming odds. And if that seems impossible right now, just ask Arianna Huffington about Ned Lamont.
Markos summed it up well this week in his protest about Jeff Greenfield’s behavior:
We find “malice aforethought” because we’ve seen the media (CNN included) trash Gore, then trash Kerry, based on absolutely ridiculous bull**. And we won’t let them get away with “jokes” comparing Democrats to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein. Not anymore.
We’re all too familiar with this type of behavior. Here’s a tip ‘o the hat to those people who are clueing others into the destructive “jokes” and memes perpetuated by the pundits and their “common wisdom”.
17 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
Excellent series of articles - thank you for posting. Truly, the mainstream media is the biggest enemy of the American Republic. Without the neverending spin of their distortions and half-truths, John Kerry would have won a resounding landslide. That I truly believe.
Our job is to make sure they are not allowed to do it again, so Mr. Kerry may receive the landslide victory he so richly deserves. There is simply no other man or woman so suited for the job of leading our nation out of this morass of lies and immorality than John Kerry.
Thanks again from a longtime lurker.
I’m glad to see there’s recognition out there about the farce the main stream media has become. I hope that John Kerry and the Democrats are willing to take on the FCC and get the centralized media decentralized again.
Consolidation of networks as if they’re only a business and not a arm of the public airwaves has been the worst thing to happen to democracy.
Posted by Paladin | December 16, 2006 4:05 PM
Paladin, thanks for your post. I’m with you 100%!
Very timely post and thread head. Out here in the vast Middle West, where people are supposedly able to think for themselves, I have witnessed a near complete victory for the propaganda machine. Frequently, in conversations with those I believed to be well informed voters (mostly Democrats), I am struck by their uncanny ability to repeat misinformation. Especially misinformation (or more bluntly - lies) that Senator Kerry does not deserve to consider running for President because he did not do what he promised to do, and that is make sure every vote was counted.
Now is the time for the “truth in media” sites to publish/post the facts regarding the 2004 election. Not until those of us in middle America can educate those who have fallen victim to those lies will John Kerry, if he should decide to run, have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
I would especially like to see this site provide the facts regarding this matter. As this is Senator Kerry’s web site, I have to admit that I am surprised that this issue isn’t discussed anywhere on this site. It should not be left to random postings on this blog for this question and distortions to be resolved for those who are hesitant to support Senator Kerry only because of this one issue.
Great stuff from Media Matters, Mark Barrett (always) and Markos.
It is absolutely infuriating to listen to all the crap about Obama’s name or his ears, about John Kerry dropping a pronoun, about the flavor of the month candidate for 2008, or about Brittany doing just about anything when there are issues out there that are important to the American people.
The spin is really bordering on the ridiculous.
For crying out loud, John Kerry probably said a zillion words this year and the only one the media really covered in depth is the one he didn’t? The man is in IRAQ today, and I haven’t heard a peep from the ‘mainstream’ media about it. Perhaps they’re still honing the spin in preparation for the Sunday shows.
I’ll take some facts, thank you, and form my own opinion. I don’t need a dozen reporters to tell me what I should be thinking, who my favorite candidate is or what John McCain thinks about anything, really.
And Giuliani? Ha! The only positive thing I can say about him is that he taught me the meaning of the word disingenuous, which has become quite handy. So, thanks for that, Rudy.
Beautiful post. I feel the same way a thousandfold. I have never seen such trashing of candidate like I did in 2004. The thing that annoyed me the most was the fact so many Democrats fell for the spin. Something must be done. Thank you once again.
I just posted a story at Liberal Values which relates to one of the narratives about John Kerry, and an example of the truth. One of the many false naratives is that Republicans support the troops while Democrats do not. Considering the amount of evidence to the contrary, the right wing noise machine has had to go to great lengths to distort Kerry’s position on the troops and veterans, from their distortions of his Vietnam era testimony to twisting his comments on Bush getting stuck in Iraq as a comment on the troops.
Kerry has done a lot over the years to show that this narrative is not true. Today’s action is relatively minor compared to everything else he has done to fight for veterans, but it is of interest.
Time Magazine asked people who have been featured in the magazine for their recommendations for Person of the Year. Kerry’s response:
As Kerry said, the troops are speaking. One example is the recent Appeal for Redress which I discussed in this post.
Just a reminder for those who might not have noticed—here on the John Kerry blog, previous threads usually stay live for a couple of days after new ones are posted, and comments can keep coming in to an earlier thread even after the current one has been put up.
It’s a good idea to check the tail end of the previous thread from time to time to see if anything new has been added to the conversations there. A case in point: late last night, a blogger from Australia added two powerful posts from a non-American—though hardly un-American—perspective to the A Middle East Tour thread. They’re well worth checking out and adding your two cents to, imho.
Excellent article by Foser, and great links to relevant articles, thank you!
It’s infuriating and frustrating how the media shapes public opinion with their shallow and ratings driven reporting about the candidates.
At first it appears as though the mocking of people’s appearances is only a result of our beauty-obsessed culture, but it goes deeper than that.
Why did we only hear about John Kerry’s tall and gangly looks, speculation about whether he had botox or not, or Dennis Kucinich looking like an evil elf?
Bush - no beauty contest winner he - was never subjected to such scrutiny, and if there were any remarks about his physique, they were uttered in awe by Chris Matthews, as the latter admired his president’s manliness (a not so subtle remark aimed at the size of the codpiece) during the landing on the aircraft carrier.
No, this is more than just silly talk. These are deliberate attempts at demonizing certain people (the Democrats) by appealing to the audience’s baser nature. Thankfully, progressives are getting wise to this vivious game and are hitting back.
This is a fitting subject to take on on a day when many of us watched An Inconvenient Truth - a film that had to be made because the popular press was persistent in “reporting” doubts about the science of global warming.
The elation that followed the election results has dissipated as the Democratic leadership has reverted back to its old habits: cautious timidity and misguided attempts to ingratiate themselves with their Republican tormentors.
Americans are greatly disappointed as the status quo takes hold once again. The good news is that the electorate is nevertheless still getting more and more angry with the prospect of the Republicans getting away scot free with running amok. Americans are also disgusted with the corporate media dancing to the GOP tune by attacking Dems by proxy.The Republicans will probably lose big again in 2008.
The Dems need to attack Mc Cain and expose him for what he has become. They also must stick together, coordinate with the netroots community and viciously counterattack when the noise machine targets Obama, Kerry, or Gore, who are all now in the crosshairs. The media outlets, too, need to be picketed and held accountable for being lackeys.
“The elation that followed the election results has dissipated as the Democratic leadership has reverted back to its old habits. . .”
Sounds a bit premature to write off the Democratic leadership. After all, they don’t actually take control of Congress until January. We need to judge them by what they actually do.
Ron, I agree that it’s a bit premature to write off the Dem. leadership, but I have to say that I’m disappointed in Harry Reid’s support for the proposed “surge”
The surge in troops was opportunistically proposed by Mc Cain and wholeheartedly embraced by a miffed and petulant George Bush only after the Baker-Hamilton report recommended a reduction in troop levels. Had their been no Baker-Hamilton report we would not be seeing the 82 ABN now being suddenly deployed to Iraq.
The “surge” is but the result of another Bush temper tantrum.
Reid and everyone else is fully aware of the child-like psychodynamics now in play. The American people want out of Iraq now, but Bush will not be swayed. He is the decider - not the people.
Reid essentially thumbed his nose at the American people as well, saying, “Too bad folks. I’m with Bush. You lose.”
I’m not sure why Reid is taking that position, when other prominent Democrats are migrating toward a definite timetable. Durbin is one of the 13 Senators who supported Senator Kerry’s resolution calling for a timetable. He disagrees with Senator Reid:
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says don’t send more troops to Iraq
http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=5826333
Though I was disappointed that Sen. Reid was in favor of increasing troops, it should be said that he only supported an increase if it was for 3 to 4 months. He doesn’t support increasing our troop presence if it is for a longer duration than 4 months. He would not support it if it was for 18-24 months. You can read the whole article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Posted by Probus | December 17, 2006 8:54 PM
The problem with Senator Reid agreeing even with 3-4 months is that it is another way to stall, and to not deal with the real problems in Iraq. He needs to take the staement from many that this cannot be solved militarily.
Even Colin Powell is against this:
Senator Reid needs to think more clearly on this matter and not speak for all Democrats.