A Few More Thoughts
Apr 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am by Susie
I do think many of the Obama supporters who are furious at ABC are rather recent converts to the cause of media criticism - but only because this time, it was their guy taking the shots. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on pointing out that the media is the real enemy, and we can’t take sides against fellow Democrats when it comes to media distortion.
And finally, I wonder why people are so much more passionate about this than they are about our current president and his senior advisers giving their approval to torture.
yeah right…
no one among your cadre of friends and associates that happen to disagree with you in this case ever criticized the media before.
and,
“people” wonder why you are so passionate about arguing that their choice in this particular election is just as dirty/rich/hypocritical/dishonest/cynical/etc. as your choice in this particular election rather than actually promoting/supporting the policy differences that you find important.
PS
Clinton started the rendition policy.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503120002
I guess we need to know what the words “generally” and “usually” mean…
I suspect that there is quite a bit of weasel room in there.
what are you talking about?
you think that people like booman tribune, dailykos, firedoglake, TPM, and on and on and on are “are rather recent converts to the cause of media criticism - but only because this time, it was their guy taking the shots.”? Fascinating, and flat out demonstrably untrue.
People are angry because the debates were a waste of time and didn’t touch on the issues facing pennsylvanians AT ALL. It was all puerile “gotcha” crap and that applied as well to Clinton.
or maybe there’s actual value in a question like “Does Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you” (question 2) that I’m missing.
“I wonder why people are so much more passionate about this than they are about our current president and his senior advisers giving their approval to torture.”
I don’t know, it’s not like that came up in the debates. But then I’m only a “rather recent converts to the cause of media criticism - but only because this time, it was Obama taking the shots.”
And dijda ever think that MAYBE people are so passionate about the bullshit at last night’s debate because all the petty gotcha stuff crowds out issues like “our current president and his senior advisers giving their approval to torture.”?
ya know, scrolling through today’s posts renders this one utterly incoherent Susie.
On the one hand, you’re asking “who wrote these questions, Rush Limbuagh?” and saying that the media is the enemy, while on the other saying that people are only outraged because it was “their guy” getting the brunt of it.
Um… it’s possible to be outraged by ABC’s behavior last night without being in the tank for Barack Obama. My parents voted of Clinton in the primary and they were angry too.
Your criticism seems consistent to me. The media, in debates and outside, has been playing gotcha on Clinton the entire campaign, but it’s only in this debate, where Obama got burned, that the wails of outrage have been raised from many quarters.
BTW, Brenda, some of those blogs you cited did call foul regarding attacks on all candidates. Then suddenly, about the time the Dem race narrowed to two, the objections started going one way. My greatest WTF moment was when Jane Hamsher stated that she couldn’t see what was wrong with David Shuster speaking of Chelsea Clinton being pimped out.
Okay. Sure. I wasn’t as mad about the media before. You were right. I get it.
That having been said, I think the particularly low tier of suckage achieved by last night’s broadcast was a pretty unprecedented abdication of ABC’s responsibility to talk about ANYTHING AT ALL THAT MATTERED. And - as has been noted elsewhere - they were just as bad with Clinton.
The difference in at least a couple of instances was the fact that Obama at least tried to shift the emphasis of the debate, even when it was Clinton who was under fire; when Obama’s associations were being questioned, Hillary mostly just jumped on top of the pigpile.
sister of ye,
first of all, it’s Brendan with an N.
As for “but it’s only in this debate, where Obama got burned, that the wails of outrage have been raised from many quarters”, I guess you must have missed the entire Wright story? the one about the pastor who said mean things?
Cus if you’d actually been paying attention, you’d have know that there was a lot of outrage over that whole incident, from many quarters.
Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. And remember, it’s Brendan with an N in the middle AND the end.
i’m with brendan. are you seriously claiming that obama supporters haven’t criticized the media until now? there is no obama leaning blog i read that hasn’t constantly criticized the media throughout this endless campaign. sure, not all of them have made the same criticism of the media that has been made on this site (though there also seems to be a lot more overlap than you’re giving them credit for), but most liberal blogs, whichever candidate they support pretty much exist on media criticism. it strikes me as incredibly strange to suggest they’re just discovering it in the last 12 hours.
People People get a grip - Dems and liberals have dominated and controllled the MSM for 30-40 years. The web has loosened your grip a little and these intramural DEM scrums will get ugly occasionally. But it won’t be long before you can all kiss and make up. Relax a bit- how about this great weather?
Susie: Pres. Clinton had suspects delivered to Egypt, a country long known to routinely use torture. I don’t believe for a minute he used rendition as freely or haphazardly as Bush, but he did use it and it is a vile practice which goes against all that this country supposedly stands for.
Dems and liberals have dominated and controllled the MSM for 30-40 years. The web has loosened your grip a little…
which 30-40 year period are we talking about exactly? does it include the period when the media basically perpetuated a bunch of baseless scandal allegations against bill clinton?
i’m just curious what you may mean. i mean, the “liberal media” has long been a charge by the right. but just because they’ve been saying it for 30-40 years doesn’t make it true.
Snuzy:
I’d say since Watergate at least which happened in what 1972? It led to many many lib college grads flocking to the MSM in a quest to be the next Woodwrd or Bernstein. The result was a ruined news industry IMO. The end of even a ruse of objectivity.
As to Clinton coverage, do you think that was a media storm when he assembles his Cabinet on the White House lawn, lies to them and as a result they lie for him? You thin that was a non-story?
Sometimes, even a biased media has no choice but to report a story? It becomes too big for them to ignore.
As to Clinton coverage, do you think that was a media storm when he assembles his Cabinet on the White House lawn, lies to them and as a result they lie for him? You thin that was a non-story?
you’re referring to the lewinski “scandal”, a non-scandal in any sane country and one that came after a dozen or so other “scandals” that, it turned out, had pretty much no merit at all (e.g. troopergate, filegate, tying the whitewater matter to clinton personally, etc). many of those scandals were kept alive solely because the rightwing media (e.g. the american spectator, weekly standard and drudge) was feeding the MSM and the MSM was willing to run with whatever garbage that was fed to them, all to avoid the dreaded charge that they were “liberal”
that’s what i mean.
Sometimes, even a biased media has no choice but to report a story? It becomes too big for them to ignore.
really? were the gaping holes in bush’s case to invade iraq “a big story” or was it little? was last week’s admission that bush and his cabinet personally authorized torture “a big story”?
if they’re not “big stories”, i don’t know what are. and yet they didn’t get even a fraction of the coverage that whitewater did. how did the liberal media manage to ignore them, but couldn’t ignore almost any crazy allegation made about president clinton?
wenddy whinner: “liberal media.”
I’m not sure which hurts more, the burning stupid of such a comment, or my sides, which are splitting from laughing?
Brendan:
Ever read the surveys that have been taken re the political contributions or the party registrations of the journalists in the MSM? Typicaly they show donations are 9-1 in favor of Dem candidates and the party affiliations is about 8-1. If you don’t believe me, ask Susie- she worked in the MSM - was there a true balanced representation of non-liberal writers?
Dems have the media rigged in their favor but it is not helping them win the game anymore. It is all about ideas my friend. Good ideas trump bad and no ideas trumps old ideas. Where are the ideas today? And don’t say universal health - that is not an idea that is a policy. Where is the idea that you can use to inspire your kids? I have not heard it from either party.
Ever read the surveys that have been taken re the political contributions or the party registrations of the journalists in the MSM? Typicaly they show donations are 9-1 in favor of Dem candidates and the party affiliations is about 8-1
and yet studies of media coverage show a clear bias towards conservative issues and conservative framing. so yes, if you’re talking about the political affiliation of journalists, there is a democratic majority. but if you’re talking about what they write, there is an equally clear rightwing slant. and i thought we were talking about what was in the media, not the people behind them.
Dems have the media rigged in their favor but it is not helping them win the game anymore.
as i noted above (and i further note that you did not bother responding), that’s simply one of those rightwing canards that isn’t borne out by the facts. saying “liberal media” over and over again doesn’t make it so, even if it does turn out to be good propoganda.
Good ideas trump bad and no ideas trumps old ideas. Where are the ideas today? And don’t say universal health - that is not an idea that is a policy.
you’re making a nonsensical distinction here. can you name a single policy that isn’t also an idea? JFK had the idea of getting an american to the moon, which also happened to be a policy of a space program. george bush had this idea of invading iraq, which also happened to involve the policy of invading iraq.
and yes, i can have the idea of universal medical coverage. just because it’s an idea doesn’t mean it’s not also a policy.
So your idea is “let the government pay for it” amd your policy is step right up and get your freebies.
And you think predominantly liberal voting and liberal donating MSM journalists just happen to tend to write right-leaning stuff? That requires a suspension of disbelief and logic (I plagiarized that from Joe Biden I think).
“Plagiarized” is much to intellectual a term, parrot or even puke is much more appropriate to the your liturgy. Let me know when the troll has finished spewing in the comments.
bye troll.
Wendy, Snuzy has already answered your arguments, and you have not addressed what’s been said. So you lose this debate, both because you haven’t countered the points raised against your stance, and because in addition to that you’re simply wrong on the facts.
This “liberal media” argument is not a new one, by any stretch, and Eric Alterman made mincemeat of the various conservative talking points on this years ago, in his excellent book, “What Liberal Media?” Give that a read if you have any curiousity about the nature of our media.
Alterman addresses the “most reporters are Democrats” argument very specifically in his book, among many other things, pointing out that the “studies” often cited as sources for this are in fact methodologically flawed, non- peer reviewed propaganda from right wing organizations like the Media Research Center (I believe that’s the name. though it’s been a while so I may not have it exactly right). Every study I’ve seen in this vein, including more recent ones, has been fatally flawed in methodology.
Beyond that, it’s not reporters who decide what makes the news, it’s editors. Editors who answer to their corporately owned newspapers and TV stations. General Electric owns NBC, for example … oh yeah, those G.E. guys are crazy librul, right? If you really want to get it, read Noam Chomsky: “Manufacturing Consent” tells it tlike it is.
(Susie, you want criticism of our corporate media, go back and re-read Mr. Chomsky. Why don’t we have better news? The answer’s rtight there, n’est pas?)
And you think predominantly liberal voting and liberal donating MSM journalists just happen to tend to write right-leaning stuff?
yes, because they are overly sensitive to the “liberal media” charge, they try hard to tact right to challenge it. to prove they are not biased they tend to be a lot harder on liberal politicians than conservative ones, call many many more conservatives as guests on news shows, etc. again, the rightwing bias in the party affiliation of guests and in scandal coverage is well documented, just as well documented as the study you cited above showing that most journalists identify as democrats. so why are you believing one study and not the others? as macjazz noted above, i highly recommend you reading the works of eric alterman on the topic.
there’s another reason for the rightwing bias too. it’s not so much rightwing as pro-corporate. since the republicans are more pro-business that often translates as a conservative bias. the pro-corporate bias is there because the news media is a business and reporters are, no matter what their party affiliation, employees. certain issues certainly aren’t covered by the media, and those ignored issues tend to be things that raise progressive critiques of corporate power.
the main stream media is a farce…
the main stream media was unfair to a Democrat
who knew?
Come on folks…don’t be silly.
You completely didn’t care until last night.
right, that’s why everyone knows the alterman book, why everyone knows arguments about a “liberal media” are a joke. that’s why there’s a media matters, why there is air america, etc.
you need to get a grip on reality.
Air America? Yeah…they do draw the line when their on-air personalities call a candidate fucking whores but that bar is awfully high and the fact that you feel Air America is a reasonable standard is evidence that you still don’t care about objectivity…only your candidate.
The point was obvious…It’s the old Niemoller quote…you were happy when it was Hillary that was getting pounded by the media and now you kind of got worked up because they took it to Obama for the first time. I’m sorry it ruined your night.
I have to hand it to you steveeboy…you manage to offend with every comment.
“…you were happy when it was Hillary that was getting pounded by the media and now you kind of got worked up because they took it to Obama for the first time.”
Bullshit. That’s just another bogus talking point. As I and others have already noted, these issues of media suck-age are FAR from new, and I know I’ve been railing about it for YEARS. The notion that it’s just a convenient and opportunistic anti-Hillary stance is silly on the face of it.
As I’ve said, Alterman, Chomsky, and others (Norman Solomon is another prominent voice on this) have been talking and writing about our broken corporate media for a very long time. It’s HARDLY an issue that’s just been discovered after this last Dem debate.
and were you writing letters and protesting when MSNBC was claiming that Hillary pimps out her daughter, only won in 2000 because her husband fooled around, the awful questioning in previous debates?
Yes, I recognize that Media Matters was onto this, Alterman to some extent but the vast majority of the so called ‘liberal’ blogosphere never minded until Wednesday night.
Yes, I recognize that Media Matters was onto this, Alterman to some extent but the vast majority of the so called ‘liberal’ blogosphere never minded until Wednesday night
i find it really interesting that this is your perception of what happened, white_n_az. i mean, obama-leaning sites like TPM coverd the “pimps out her daughter” comment. booman who is strongly pro-obama called the comment way out of line. and atrios, who hasn’t taken a side but who definitely is a big fish in the liberal blogosphere posted about it and so did digby. and all of those links took me a whole 5 seconds to google up. it’s simply not true that the liberal blogosphere beyond media matters and alterman have ignored these things up until now.
TPM was actually blistering Hillary for his unique assessment that she was calling for David Schuster’s dismissal. TPM has shown little to no concern over the treatment Hillary has received from MSNBC or others.
His ranting about the ‘debate’ on Wednesday night was motivated solely by the fact that his candidate was treated poorly and came off poorly.
TPM ? Are you really serious ? Josh Marshall’s credibility is completely shot.
Yes, Digby has been very concerned about the inequity.
TPM ? Are you really serious ? Josh Marshall’s credibility is completely shot.
i guess you didn’t read my link. the post wasn’t by josh marshall. but hey, since you mention it josh marshall wrote about the “pimped out” flap when it happened: “What Shuster said was tasteless and crude. And even the logic behind it, let alone the way he said it, didn’t really make sense to me. I don’t come close to defending it.” in the same post he refers to chris matthews’ “repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton.”
once again, it’s simply wrong to say that the bigwigs of the liberal blogosphere have not been protesting clinton’s treatment by the media in this race or that they suddenly discovered the problems with the MSM the other night.
snuzy…I had a very lengthy e-mail exchange with Josh Marshall that very night about that very topic…perhaps 10/12 e-mails
He is a sanctimonious jerk and I stopped going to his site.
He is completely in the tank for Obama which is fine by me and I wouldn’t stop going to his site for that but he completely denies it and reaches into his mailbag or quotes the hit piece of the day to make his points as if I am so stupid to notice. It’s insulting on every level. It has been the topic of conversation in many threads on TalkLeft.
I have no problem if you want to idolize him.
But you probably should remember that he is one of those who (like Obama) supported Lieberman over Lamont. Just sayin’
fwiw snuzy…here is the first reply from Josh Marshall to me on Feb 9, 2008…
This was his defense of Schuster…
He was erroneously parsing words in order to make it appear that Hillary was demanding Schuster’s firing. He was wrong, and like Obama, completely incapable of admitting he was wrong at the moment he was trying to admit he was wrong.
Sorry but Josh is all about Josh and has no credibility