Washington Post actively sought out "liberals are condescending" piece
February 08, 2010 1:11 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Well, this is interesting. Remember that "Why are liberals so condescending" piece by Gerard Alexander the Washington Post published last week? Turns out, the author didn't submit the piece the the Post -- the Post sought him out:
Bethesda, Md.: I thought that "Why are Liberals So Condescending" was the most intelligent article I've read in the Post in some time.
Do you think that this is the result of a decision by your editors to be more fair and balanced?
Also, I would appreciate your comments on the "All serious scientists agree that Global Warming is an enormous problem." school of thought. This matter has been positioned in exactly the same condescending manner.
Gerard Alexander: I can only tell you that the Post editor I dealt with searched me out, and were as encouraging as any editor could conceivably be.
I wonder when we'll find out that a Washington Post staffer is actively seeking out a similarly disparaging column about conservatives? After all, Howard Kurtz keeps telling us how liberal the Post's opinion operation is.
Meanwhile, Alexander spent the bulk of today's Washington Post online Q&A acknowledging that some conservatives are plenty condescending to liberals, but claiming that it just isn't very common. Or something. Alexander, for example, contends that "conservative magazines, elected officials, etc" don't accuse coastal liberals of being out of touch with heartland values -- and that if they did so, they'd be "run out of town."
In reality, of course, such accusations are not limited to conservatives; they are pervasive in the media. And those making such accusations are not "run out of town," they are given television shows on CNN.
Media Matters: Will Glenn Beck's The Blaze follow Breitbart's trail?
Media Matters: On the brink of Glenn Beck's salvation
In my brief visit to RedState, I was blocked from the site after a couple of comments, and after it was made clear that I was gone, I was called a "condescending troll".
What did I do to earn this description ? I mentioned some factual errors in an article posted there. I guess that was too elitist for the RSers who preferred the silly opinions presented as facts that make up that site.
Any time Person A and Person B have a disagreement, obviously both are going to assume their position is superior. Otherwise, they wouldn't hold that position.
If their disagreement is just a matter of opinion, then I guess it could be called "condescending" for one to completely dismiss the others position. If it's a matter of facts that are being disputed, then it's perfectly reasonable for the person with the facts supporting their position to call out the one relying on fiction, and note that their position doesn't hold water.
Note the example about Global Warming above. It's put into absolute terms ( All scientists, serious problem), so it's a bit of a strawman, but it's also a basic wingnut technique to paint as "elitist" anybody who agrees with the overwhelming evidence of science, and doesn't give the same weight to the Denier Cult.
I see this in real life, as well as at comment forums. The right wingers repeat some easily - debunked nonsense, then whine that they're being abused by the condescending libruls when their lies are pointed out.
And if they stick to the lie, repeating it in spite of the evidence provided proving them wrong, they will eventually be called an idiot by somebody else. At that point, they can add " vitriol" and "name-calling" to "condescending". This way, they never have to take any responsibility for their failure. It's those mean old patronizing libs making them look like fools.
(bolding mine)
-facepalm-
Of course, I live in a very conservative county, but I stay here because I find republicans amusing. I also like doing business with them. They're mostly cheapskates, but once I figured out how to focus on their emotions, and not spend so much time on the facts, I realized it's very easy to separate the wingnuts from their money.
But for some reason, Foser won't tell you that Somerby believes that liberal analysts are traditionally been condescending towards Southerners and the average Conservative.
Here's Somerby in 2008:,
Its not in Foser's writ to condense Somerby's multidecade output. More wingnuts should read him. Give them some real ammo for a change. Course along the way there's a chance he might shed a little light on neocon media malfeance.
But Mr. A won't tell you that he and Source B aren't in complete lock-step on everything in the world.
I think this perceived gotcha comes with the black-and-white thinking where the Universe is conveniently divided up into Good and Bad.
Why does every standard have to be held to the ridiculous fair and balanced moniker that Fox News pretends to use? So, now, because Fox is fair and balanced, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and every column in the newspapers in this country have to be the same exact thing. How narrow-minded do you have to be to want to do something like that? As if we all have to be the same as Fox?