Jonah Goldberg, still a God-awful media critic
July 07, 2009 11:44 am ET by Eric Boehlert
He's been throwing a pity party for Sarah Palin:
It certainly is true that nobody in public life in recent memory has been as shabbily treated as she has.
When some emailers were nice enough to remind Goldberg that he and his right-wing crew pretty much dragged Hillary (and Bill) Clinton through the mud by the collar for more than ten years, Goldberg responded [emphasis added]:
The gist of the complaints is that some right-wingers said mean things about Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno or some such. And it's true, some mean and unfair things were said about those folks. But I think a lot of these lefties seem oblivious to the fact that the New York Times, the news networks (minus Fox), David Letterman, et al aren't supposed to be scored as partisan outlets, but they are. And they've gone after Palin and her family in ways that I think are particularly egregious. Complaining about Richard Mellon Scaife's treatment of the Clintons is perfectly fair. But comparing it to the mainstream and "respectable" assaults on Palin is not persuasive.
Get me rewrite! According to Goldberg, all that `90's unpleasantness was because a few right-wingers said some "mean things about Hillary Clinton." Which, of course, is like saying Hurricane Katrina produced some rain showers in New Orleans.
But then did you see Goldberg's utterly feeble attempt at media criticism? He claimed, specifically, that the New York Times had "gone after" the Palin family in "particularly egregious" ways. Okay, but how? Meaning, what did the Times do that was so egregious and out of bounds?
Crickets.
Goldberg, following the conservative guide to media criticism, didn't even bother to provide evidence or point to proof of the mighty Times' "egregious" behavior. He simply informed his obedient readers that the Times did something nasty and unprofessional to poor Sarah Palin and her family, and nobody at NRO even expects facts or specifics to be entered into the equation.
Except, that these apologists, and the conservative posters on here never seem to provide any examples of the media being "mean" to Palin.
Never you mind the constant line of BS that has been coming out about Obama since he started running for President. I mean, the negative things said about him far outweigh anything ever said about Palin.
Your examples, please?
Toolbit out.
There's an interesting site called Media Matters that has extensive documentation on much of the right-wing BS -- perhaps you should check it out. Without belaboring the point, let's see -- just to enumerate a few: not born in the US, born in Kenya, no birth certificate, he's a Muslim, he's a Communist, he's a Fascist, he's a Marxist, he's all about the New World Order (cue the black helicopters), oh, yeah, his wife's a Stokely Carmichael in a dress... and so forth. As I said, check out Media Matters -- they've got a lot of stuff that might interest you if you bother to look. Don't ask other folks to do the basic research for you.
Interesting that this is all TRUE!
The examples you gave are pretty tame. Not being born in America is not BS -- it's vetting a candidate. It's one of the few qualifications you have to meet to be President. Only if you consider the Constitution BS is Obama's place of birth an unimportant question.
Communist, Marxist, Fascist: all of these are political distinctions. They are used a cudgels, but they are all political ideologies. Calling someone a Marxist isn't an insult if a person is in fact a Marxist. It's not, in fact, the same thing as calling someone a "warmonger." <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mccain1.html>
Stokely Carmichael in a dress. That's all? Do you realy want to compare that with what was said about Palin?
I don't ask other people to do my research unless they have made a point they have to defend. I can't read minds and the burden of proof is ON YOU when you make allegations or statements. When I make a statement and someone asks me to say where I got my opinion or impression, it's MY JOB to provide that information. I don't get to say "Obama is a racist" and then tell other people to do their research: I have to provide evidence. You don't get to say unfounded, speculative, and opinionated things and blame someone else for them not seeing things your way. If you state an opinion, you have to provide proof.
Toolbit out.
My apologies for getting your name wrong, Salamandadstron. Due to the nature of the forum, I thought I was replying to Magnolialover.
Cordially,
Toolbit
Again, what kinds of examples can you give?
She's got as good a shot with that as anything else she's threatening to do.
After all, the loon did quit on the people of Alaska in the process of trashing quitters and bailing on the people of Alaska.
Then again, she did manage to make sanford sound almost lucid by comparison.
No, dear, it wasn't some right-wingers. It was the New York Times making up Whitewater from whole cloth. It was MSNBC, e.g. Hardball having Gennifer Flowers accuse a sitting President of being a murderer, along, of course, with his wife.
Let's not forget it was the entire press corps, left, right and center which spent 2 years going after Al Gore. The Swift Boat debacle when the entire press corps stood by and watched and let Jerome Corsi lie about John Kerry.
Goldberg simply isn't this oblivious but Palin isn't a victim if big Dems were treated worse. He's just a hack who doesn't even know his father's definition of National Socialism. (Hint: it wasn't liberal)
Somebody went to jail over the "Whitewater" nothing. So far, at least, no one in Gov. Palin's extended family has been hounded into jail.
The original Clinton "troopergate" was proven to be made-up when the primary witnesses confessed to lieing about it.
If Gov. Palin is upset about her treatment in the media, here are a few free tips: (1.) Tell the truth from the start; (2.) Learn the issues; and (3.) Do more interviews than Faux Noise's softball questionning sessions (did Sheer "Hot Air" inSannity ask any question tougher than "what's our favorite color?").
You make much of the Times, which I cannot comment on. But he also mentioned Letterman and other media outlets. How much work do any of us need to do to find scathing remarks from them?
I'll help: <http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/blatant-anti-palin-bias-in-the-liberal-media-a-collection/>
Bill Maher still tells shockingly unfunny jokes about Palin and Bush and the audience has their behavioral lapdog response. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA>
Unless someone can show me otherwise, wasn't Chelsea Clinton pretty much left alone? I've heard Maher make statements about the Palin girls' vaginas. Letterman made a joke about Sarah's daughter getting impregnated by A-Rod and apparently it is okay to make that joke if it's about an 18-year-old.
If you want to argue that she wasn't ready for the Vice-Presidency, that's fine (that's my position) and argue from that perspective. You know, like, her ideas and knowledge on the issues. But Jonah Goldberg was right: the things said about her and her family were brutal. The media went over the line and it's sad people don't see it. Even if what was said about Clinton and Obama were as bad (they weren't) or worse, two wrongs in fact don't make a right. There is such a thing as class, and the media didn't have it this last election cycle.
Is that enough evidence for everyone?
Toolbit out.
Funny, the same people who decry everything as becoming too politically correct because of "the left" go full-throttle PC when one of their heroes is criticized by comedians.
http://www.rtis.com/nat/pol/rush/fair.htm
BTW, his response to FAIR pointing out his statement about there being more forests in America today than when the Constitution was written is hilarious. Does he honestly think the Constitution was written in the 1950's?
But if you're going to say that about Maher, you have to say the same about Rush (whom I don't like or defend). To me, they are both on the same level as far as their place in media. Rush is hateful and simply wants to be shocking. If you're saying that Maher is "just a comedian," in my opinion, you have to give Limbaugh the same latitude. Stewart, Colbert and Maher blur the lines of media and comfortably take both side of the fence. And that's fine with me. But to say Maher is "just a comedian" vastly understates his influence and thoughtfulness.
Kid gloves? Did you actually read the link I posted?
Toolbit out.
I think you missed the point. Goldberg claimed BOTH the NYT AND Letterman were perceived as neutral media outlets, but that they went after Palin and her family eggregiously. Goldberg never provided any examples to back up his claim about the NYT. It looks to me that Goldberg is taking a baseless swipe at the old Gray Lady.
Secondly, Letterman jokes every night about politicians on both sides. While I think he was over the line on one joke, I do not think that is enough to make a general complaint about Letterman the way Goldberg did.
Of course, none of this compares to the way Gore, Hillary, Kerry have been treated by the mainstream media over the last decade.
I don't think that was the point. I think the point to Goldberg is that media has been egregiously unfair to Palin. If you want to split hairs over who did so, you can and that's fine, but I think that misses the greater point. We can agree to disagree on that if you'd like.
As for Gore, Kerry, etc., notice how much time we're talking about. Palin was announced in the last days of August 08. That meant that everything that was said about her was in a period of a little over 2 months, or came after the election. Gore served in the second-highest office in the U.S.; Hillary, wife of a president, NY senator, and presumed head of the Democratic ticket for 8 years; Kerry, again, a long, distinguished career who was running for President. Running for higher offices, more high profile, more time. I don't consider what was said about these 3 as scathing, but even if it was, it was spread across 3 people, running for a higher position, over a much greater amount of time.
I will agree that it can be seen that the media were quite harsh to Palin, but that is only if you disagree somehow with the criticism she received. That is why it would be nice to see some actual examples - especially when he names a prestigious newspaper like the NY Times. I have had my own issues with the Times over the years, but each time I was specific on my examples. I think that is only fair.
I disagree that timespan or which high office one is running for makes a difference - at least in Palin's favor. Kerry had to put up with it for about the same time as Palin. Clinton and Gore have had to endure a pretty intense and focused barrage of complete bs for over a decade. If anything, Palin's experience pales when compared to that.
I am not sure why Palin really quit. If it was really for the reasons she stated, she should have been made of sterner stuff.
I can't speak for Jonah, so I can only guess at what he finds offensive about what the NY Times said.
Kerry campaigned, as does every presidential nominee, through the primary system. That means that all criticism took place over the better part of a year, depending on how you slice it. Plus, a lot of the criticism was political, not personal, in nature. Maybe I've come to the wrong place to make my case, but I found the Palin critique very ad hominem. If you take out the personal, Clinton and Gore SHOULD have a lot of criticism: if you want to rule the world, you better be ready to take a few knocks. (The difference between Palin and the examples you gave is that they DID rule the world, Palin just wanted to.) I feel that way across the board and my criticism is the same of Bush. His domestic policy, in my opinion, was a disaster. The "Bush is stupid" joke got old in 2002, but he, like every other politician before him, deserves a demanding standard.
In short, I thought calling Gore unintelligent (which wasn't true) and Kerry uncharismatic (which was) was an unproductive exercise. But to me, that's politics. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's the spotlight. Again, if you want to rule the world.... I felt with Palin, it went a step beyond. I guess if in the period of 9 months and you can find 183 points of cruelty (with varying degrees of offensiveness), then what more can I say? To bring up another Goldberg, Michelle Goldberg tries to describe her feelings towards Sarah Palin, and she comes across as a bit unhinged. To me, it's not a balanced, fair critique.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20965
--
My guess is, we haven't seen the end of her. I think she made a calculated move and it wasn't for the reasons she stated. If that is the case, she's not made for that level of politics and isn't made of "sterner stuff." I guess we'll see.
Really? Impeachment? Investigated? Called a murderer? Drug involvement? Fraud, theft, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, trashed the White House? Vince Foster?
Are you kidding me? Nobody in public life? Are you and Jonah both so pathetic? Or is it a congenital inability to admit that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about?
Sarah Palin treated as shabbily as Al Gore? The entire press corps spent 2 solid years making up stories about him, which were all fabrications, and put George Bush in the White House.
And you think Palin had it worse?
Toolbit out-to lunch. There, fixed it for you.
That he made fundraising calls from the White House? He admitted that and caimed in a WH news conference that he broke no law because no 'controlling' legal authority' existed that would make his actions illegal. And this wasn't even made an issue for the months leading up to the election.
Did they make up that he had the personality of a brick wall? That was pretty much on display whenever he spoke and when we saw the 3 incarnations of Al Gore in 3 separate debates.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Those are "shabby treatments?" When politicians are accused of breaking the law, and it's reported on, that's shabby treatment?
I do, for the same reason you put. He had a LOT more time and exposure. I'm also not quite sure what people said about him that you find so shameful.
Toolbit out.
Final analysis: Are you frakkin' KIDDING me about Palin? The press fell all over themselves slobbering over her!!! It was only when she opened her mouth did the love affair wane.
As for Letterman and Maher, I gave my perspective on them to open_mind, I think.
Toolbit out.