"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Someone's got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press
America's political reporters don't like John Edwards, and have tried to destroy him.
But don't take my word for it.
Marc Ambinder was one of the founders of ABC's The Note and is a contributing editor to the National Journal's Hotline newsletter. The Note and the Hotline consist largely of links to and excerpts of political news and commentary by other reporters with ample doses of snark and Rove-worship thrown in. Whatever they may lack in insight and judgment, The Note and the Hotline are at the center of the D.C. political media establishment.
Ambinder, in other words, is a political reporter whose job has largely been to understand the political media.
This week, Marc Ambinder explained why the media has covered John Edwards' grooming regimen so much and Mitt Romney's so little:
There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.
Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.
Now, if reporters dislike a candidate, that's their business. But when they wage a relentless and petty campaign to "bury" that candidate, that's our business. All of us.
And we've been through this before.
The 2000 election was close enough that any number of things can fairly be described as having made the difference. But what Bob Somerby describes as the media's "War Against Gore" was undoubtedly one of the biggest factors in Bush's "victory." The contempt many political reporters felt for Gore is clear, as is the inaccurate, unfair, and grossly distorted coverage of Gore that decided the campaign. And, again, you needn't take my word for it: Bob Somerby, Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert, and others have chronicled the acknowledgements by working journalists of their colleagues' hate for Gore. Jake Tapper described reporters "hissing" -- actually hissing -- Gore. Time's Eric Pooley described an incident in which a roomful of reporters "erupted in a collective jeer" of Gore "like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd."
And Joe Scarborough -- conservative television host Joe Scarborough; former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough -- has said that during the 2000 election, the media "were fairly brutal to Al Gore. ... [I]f they had done that to a Republican candidate, I'd be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased."
Somerby has long argued that one of the reasons the media's hatred for Gore was able to define the 2000 campaign so completely is that too few people talked about it -- and demanded that it stop -- at the time. Indeed, as he writes today, too many of those who should be combating these nonsensical but damaging storylines repeat them instead:
But then, inside Washington, establishment liberals and Democrats often seem congenitally unable to understand the shape of the past fifteen years. Haircuts -- and earth tones -- have destroyed the known world! But so what? Dems and libs keep reciting these trivia! We keep inviting the public to draw conclusions from these idiot tales.
One recent example occurred during Wednesday's Lou Dobbs Tonight, when Air America Radio host Laura Flanders said that Barack Obama has "kind of become the female on this race. ... He's seen as the weaker -- cute, attractive. ... Hillary is the one with the balls." In just a few moments, Flanders managed to suggest that a male progressive is feminine and that a female is masculine -- one of the conservatives' favorite tactics for marginalizing progressives -- and to equate being "female" with being "weak." With progressives like Laura Flanders, who needs Ann Coulter?
For anyone who would rather fight these absurd media storylines than repeat them, coverage of Edwards' haircut presents a valuable opportunity to do so.
Last week, we noted that NBC senior correspondent Jim Miklaszewski took $30,000 from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce for a speech in which he reportedly called John Edwards a "loser" for defending his haircut. (Not that it really matters, but Edwards hasn't defended the haircut.)
This is a grossly unethical act on Miklaszewski's part -- taking tens of thousands of dollars from a special interest group for a speech, then attacking a candidate in that speech. Last year, NBC president Rick Kaplan said that company policy prevented anchors from taking speaking fees, and that anyone who violates that policy "would risk being fired."
But this is worse than simply taking speaking fees: this is taking a speaking fee from a special interest group that has supported tax cuts for the wealthy -- and attacking a candidate who has proposed eliminating a tax break for the wealthy in order to pay for health care.
If Miklaszewski took $30,000 from, say, the Children's Defense Fund to give a speech in which he attacked President Bush for announcing that he would veto a children's health program, you can bet the Right would be up in arms and calling for his head. They'd claim it proves that the media is biased against them. And their criticisms would promptly be amplified by that same media. Howard Kurtz would waste no time at all in telling you what Rich Lowry and Glenn Reynolds thought of the matter.
Well, Miklaszewski didn't take $30,000 from the Children's Defense Fund, and he didn't blast George Bush for threatening to veto health care for kids. He took $30,000 from the business lobby, and in exchange for it, he attacked John Edwards.
If you care about stopping misinformation in the media -- if you care about the media at all, really -- it doesn't get much clearer than this. Contact NBC. Tell them Miklaszewski's actions are unacceptable. Ask them if he violated NBC policy -- and if he hasn't, ask NBC to change their policies to prevent such behavior.
This isn't going to stop unless you make it stop.
After you contact NBC, contact Howard Kurtz. As the media beat reporter for The Washington Post and the host of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz may be the nation's highest-profile media critic. Yet a Nexis search shows that Kurtz hasn't written a word about media coverage of Edwards' haircut for the print edition of the Post. And it has come up only in passing on his television show. (In a "Media Backtalk" online discussion with Washington Post readers, Kurtz acknowledged that "[t]he haircut thing has been overdone." Then -- in the next sentence -- he defended Post reporter John Solomon's much-maligned effort to count Edwards' haircuts.) So: contact Howard Kurtz. Ask him to cover Miklaszewski's unethical attacks on Edwards.
This isn't going to stop unless you make it stop.
How can we be so sure? Well, the 2000 campaign should be all the proof anyone needs. But here's another indication of how relentless the media will continue to be in harassing John Edwards about his haircut: So far this week alone, there are nine Washington Post articles available in Lexis-Nexis that mention John Edwards. Four of the nine mention his haircuts. Three mention his haircuts or his wealth in either the first or second sentence. Another doesn't mention either until the fifth paragraph -- but then makes up for lost time with three paragraphs about "controversies" including the haircut, Edwards' big house, and his work at a hedge fund before finally focusing on the ostensible topic of the article: Edwards' poverty tour.
And that doesn't even include an online-only article by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza about an interview Edwards gave to the washingtonpost.com "PostTalk" program. The article began: "Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards defended himself against criticism that his expensive haircuts and lucrative income from a hedge fund undercut his campaign's effort to highlight the issue of poverty in America."
Keep in mind that it has been more than three months since the haircut story first appeared. But the media continue cover it as though it is both new and important. It is not. It is old and utterly insignificant.
There's another lesson to be drawn from 2000. Too often, those who weren't actively participating in the media's War Against Gore were enabling it by suggesting he brought it on himself. Sure, the media was unduly harsh toward Gore -- but he gave them ammunition. We hear the same thing said about John Edwards today: The Washington Post's decision to assign its star investigative reporter to count Edwards' haircuts may be absurd, but Edwards opened himself up to the attack by getting the pricey cut in the first place. It showed poor judgment; he should have known it would provide fodder for the media.
This is blame-the-victim nonsense.
If you think it is foolish to suggest that John Edwards' haircut makes him a hypocrite, it is foolish to hold him responsible for such suggestions. If there is nothing inherently wrong with a haircut, it's unfair to hold it against a candidate just because some reporters decide to pretend there is.
But shouldn't the candidate have known it would be unfairly held against him? No. If reporters don't like a candidate and decide to "bury" him, they're going to do so. If they can't do it by pointing to his "ostentatious" displays of wealth, they'll do it by claiming he is hiding his wealth. It isn't hard to imagine the media reaction if John Edwards, like Fred Thompson, rented a red pickup truck to campaign for office: he's a phony, they'd say; a rich man pretending to be otherwise. Or they'd find out he gets the Biggie Fries during his anniversary dinners at Wendy's. The key details here are that reporters don't like him, and they're willing to be unfair in order to bury him.
John Edwards could not have avoided making a "mistake" that the media would trash him for, because they were willing to trash him for any dumb thing they could think of. And if they couldn't have found something dumb-but-real, they'd have used something dumb-but-made-up, like they did in falsely claiming Al Gore had taken credit for discovering Love Canal. If it is impossible for a candidate to avoid unfair, absurd coverage like this, then it is unfair to hold that candidate responsible for a meaningless "mistake" that is only a "mistake" in that it plays into that coverage.
Earlier this year, Ambinder inadvertently illustrated the circularity of the blame-the-victim approach to these bogus media stories.
The truth is that the media seems to be confusing "hypocrisy" -- doing what one says one must not do -- with bad optics and a few cases of ill-considered judgment.
The fact is, if you're in politics and you talk about poverty, extra attention will be paid to the manner in which you display your personal wealth -- whether, by dint of expensive haircuts and mammoth homes, you spend the money you earn and don't care about "what it looks like."
Edwards has been uncautiously ostentatious. That's the basic mistake. He's set himself up for questions about the work his poverty center did, the Cayman Islands, why he joined Fortress, Sudan holdings, etc, not because he held himself to a different moral standard, but because he didn't hold himself to a high enough political standard. The press reads this as arrogance.
Knowing he was going to focus on poverty, he probably should have dialed back his displays of wealth. The optics would look better. Roger Simon wrote that the problem with Edwards's $400 haircut was not the haircut itself; it was the fact that it slipped into his campaign finance report. Wrong. The problem was the haircut -- or, more precisely, the shrug of the shoulders that accompanied his decision to get it. The press pays attention to these things. It -- we -- have a fetish for the discrepant, the unseemly, the showy. You just don't get a $400 haircut during a campaign to eradicate poverty. Your credibility as a messenger suffers.
It may seem at first like Ambinder's explanation makes sense. But if -- as Ambinder stipulates -- there is nothing hypocritical about a rich man talking about poverty, or about a haircut, what are we left with? Precious little.
Ambinder tells us: "If you're in politics and you talk about poverty, extra attention will be paid to the manner in which you display your personal wealth" But why? Why will extra attention be paid to the wealth of the candidate who talks about poverty rather than to the wealth of the candidate who wants to lower taxes for the wealthy? There is no logical reason; nor is there a legitimate emotional reason. Ambinder has already acknowledged there is no hypocrisy at play in the former case. In the latter, there is arguably self-serving greed. So why will "extra attention" be paid? Ambinder doesn't tell us -- he doesn't even seem to think the question needs an answer. Extra attention will be paid because it will be paid.
The haircut is bad "optics," Ambinder tells us. But why? Candidates (all humans, really) do a dozen things a day that could look bad if they were endlessly repeated and mocked. Why is this one bad "optics"? What makes it different from, say, lobbyist Fred Thompson renting a red pickup, or Mitt Romney spending a lot of money on makeup (or strapping his poor dog to the roof of the Family Truckster)? Why are those not optically bad? All we're left with is that the optics of the haircut are bad because the press covers it so much, and the press covers it so much because the optics are bad.
These aren't reasons, they are excuses.
Grasping, Ambinder announced that the media "have a fetish for the discrepant, the unseemly, the showy."
Bunk. "Discrepant" doesn't apply, as there is nothing inconsistent with being rich and talking about poverty, as Ambinder himself already acknowledged. So, we're left with "unseemly" and "showy." But that cannot explain the media's focus on Edwards. Mitt Romney has a big house -- in fact, he has three. President Bush hand-picks the cloth for his custom-made suits, each of which costs thousands of dollars. That's awfully "showy," and coming from people who support tax policies that benefit ... themselves. No, the media's "fetish" for the "showy" can't explain the abuse Edwards has taken, because other "showy" behavior isn't treated similarly.
"You just don't get a $400 haircut during a campaign to eradicate poverty," Ambinder finally announces. But ... why not? You "just don't." That's the best Ambinder can come up with: you just don't. And that is perhaps the best indication that there is no real reason; that there is no actual problem with the haircut.
If the media is going to spend three months -- and counting -- relentlessly covering a damn haircut, is it too much to ask that they have a better explanation for it than that "you just don't" get such a haircut? These are professional journalists, who hold enormous power over our political process, and they can't come up with a better reason than a parent gives for not letting a teenager stay out 15 minutes later? "You just can't."
This kind of media coverage, as Bob Somerby says, is what gave us President Bush. It is why we are in Iraq today. It isn't going to go away on its own, and it isn't going to go away if John Edwards is no longer a candidate. There is an endless supply of nonsense for reporters to say about progressives, whether it is Hillary Clinton's alleged display of cleavage (the horror!) or bogus attacks on Barack Obama's comments about teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching."
This isn't going to stop unless you make it stop.
"Knowing he was going to focus on poverty, he probably should have dialed back his displays of wealth. "
Check. Got it. He should act like the kind of phony pr)ck you beltway sl^ts love fellate.
UUUgghhh.
....love to fellate.
"UUUgghhh.....love to fellate."- roundhouse
Excellent! saving for future out-of-context blackmail.
Yeah, why didn't he just run as a total phony, someone he's not? That's what the GOP candidates do, and look how much positive coverage they get! McCain is a Maverick, Giuliani is Tough on Terror (evidence? His city was attacked!), Romney is Manly, etc. If Edwards would stop all this running on the issues nonsense and develop a made-for-tv persona which has no basis in reality, maybe he'd be getting somewhere!
Did the dart land on his picture?
In 2004, the teleprompter-readers and the rest of the MSM decided to destroy Howard Dean. I don't know if it was done at the direction of the corporate owners, if it was journalistic sloth or both.
As for Edwards, maybe the MSM's owners got together and blindfolded, threw a dart at the candidates' pictures.
Or, maybe the MSM is just practicing on Edwards because it's a long time before the primaries and he's so far back in third place.
I wonder who their actual '08 target will be?
I think she knows.
I'm afraid it's simpler than that.
The minute I saw Dean tell an interviewer (Russert? Tweety? Don't remember, now) that yes, he would probably look into the issue of media consolidation, I knew he was doomed.
Edwards is talking about poverty. As far as the media is concerned, that makes him the devil. The only approach you're allowed to take to poverty is to say that the poor are just a bunch of losers who deserve their misery and are leeches on society who want to drive welfare Cadillacs and buy vodka with food stamps.
Edwards was leading in the polls for a while, so that meant he was an actual threat, of course.
But the main thing is that if you're not a pro-corporate shill, they are going to hate you, and they will try to destroy you.
With a little urging, And a few vain threats. I finally managed to get a e-mail to MSNBC. There's a lot of unused conservative money out there. I'm not looking forward to its use in the next year plus. My TV may kill itself.
All right pilgrim its time to tighten yer shorts and sing like the Duke.
Follow the yellow brick road.
Follow the yellow brick road (comon sing along).
Follow follow follow, follow the yellow brick road.
Huzzah, ugh!
Dam fine Mr. Foser, agin.
I would love to make it stop. MMFA is great, but come on...you can't shame someone that has no shame. These bastards aren't going to get fired for lying and making stuff up or just being irresponsible journalist....they get rewarded for it.
So there is no way to punish the liars or even hold them responsible.
They know what they are doing. So they would probably laugh at this article because it is so dead on. "Yep...that's what we do...hahaha"
At what point does misinformation or the delibarate effort to mislead become a kind of assault on one's person deserving of REAL punishment? If the news outlets and the government won't punish these bastards...maybe we should...and I don't mean writing e-mails.
Something hundreds of people could take them to small claims court over and over, would be my favorite fantasy. Something cheap enough to get a couple hundred bucks over.
Misinforming the public isn't small time stuff though. I'd be interested in how you'll proceed
Sometimes I wish there were two Americas (with different presidents), and the mainstream press would be in the one I'm not in.
I'll take Edwards; they can have the pseudo-manly guys they seem to admire.
Nice one, Foser, Pinned down the circular blame-the-victim tendencies of the media more concisely than I've been able to, not for lack of trying.
And don't worry, with the whole weekend ahead, at least one conservative poster will read this factual account of media bias and bust out a "victim mentality" lecture.
"This is a grossly unethical act on Miklaszewski's part -- taking tens of thousands of dollars from a special interest group for a speech, then attacking a candidate in that speech. "
The problem is that Bill Clinton speaks in front of the same sort of groups. He raised $41 million doing so, in fact. The same ethics issue existed for Chris Matthews, until it turned out that Bill had made a total of $550,000 speaking to three of the same groups that Chris had spoken to. These were the Mortgage Banker's association, The Society of Association Executives, and International Health, Racquet.
Bill made $125,000 speaking to the "America Israel chamber of Commerce", $250,000 speaking to the "American chamber of commerce in Spain" and $150,000 speaking to the "Lancaster Chamber of Commerce." Now to deny journalists the right to speak to chambers of commerce when the husband of a sitting Senator can pull in that kind of money seems unfair.
I agree that there is a conflict of interest when journalists don't disclose the corporate ties to their stories -- just like there is a conflict when CNN does not report that their polling company (Opinion Research) is owned by Vinod Gupta's Info USA. Gupta is one of Clinton's biggest financial backers, but even worse Bill Clinton is a paid consultant to Info USA -- and has even given speeches to that company.
It does irk me that the media hardly covers this story. The Washington post ran an article (Clinton's golden voice) that lists his speeches through 2005 but never bothered to explain who the companies and PACs that he spoke before were.
To me, Hillary has the more serious conflict of interest -- it is quite easy to find interest groups that Bill spoke before (Like the National Association of Realtors) that would be very concerned with the contents of Hillary's bills (like the "21st century housing act.")
Part of being a progressive is to apply the same standards to those who claim to be on your side as to those on the other.
It's really creepy when the movie villain confronts his victim just before the torture and mayhem begins. "Why are you MAKING me do this?" the sociopathic sadist asks in a voice syrupy with false empathy.
It's the VICTIM's fault. The psychopath bears no blame. He is FORCED to act as he does. And so it is with these "reporters", collecting their wages from deep-pocketed moguls with a rightwing agenda. They don't WANNA focus on all this nonsense and distracting irrelevancies, but their victims FORCE them to repeat ad nauseum these stories which are manufactured to fit the rightwing narrative.
Oh, yeah. It's always folks on the LEFT these "reporters" decide to go after. Gore, Hillary, Hart, Dukakis, Kerry ... whoever is the threat of the day to the rightwing power brokers, THEY get the nod to have their coverage blanketed with "stories that fit the narrative". And, yup, these Rightwing Media dolts are PROUD that they can actually be the destroyers of other human beings, based on little or nothing at all, with enough repetition, with the BIAS of choosing which stories to cover, and which to ignore, with the BIAS of simply accepting the FRAMES provided by their rightwing masters.
What will END it? Any attempt to attain some semblance of "balance" meets with howls of censorship and "first amendment rights." But that's not the real answer. The REAL answer for how to STOP this practice is for it to become crystal clear that it DOESn'T WORK. If the candidates they smear get elected, if the candidates they promote get defeated, they will slowly learn that their SMEAR tactics aren't having the desired result.
Only THEN will it change.
Well said, Tex. in the spirit of the "Pap attack" on Ring of Fire.
Mary, I love the Pap attack. That guy is one righteous dude!
What we have in the MSM vs Edwards (or any remotely populist candidate) is corporate fascists responding to a clearly perceived threat.
If Miklazewski worked for an outfit with actual journalistic standards, principles and integrity, his job would be in grave danger. This is GE - one of the most right-wing corporations in the country.
The fascists have had it almost entirely their way for the last 25 years - they aren't going down without a fight.
I totally agree however, that Mr Foser framed the issue better than I have seen elsewhere - by far.
With progressives like Laura Flanders, who needs Ann Coulter?
Laura and Lionel. Thank you, Air America.
Yep, the dumbing-down of Air America is one of the saddest episodes in radio in the past year. I had such high hopes for AA, when they started with Al Franken, Garafalo and Seder, etc.-- then they gave Jerry Springer a show. Then the smarmy, nonstop "we're so witty" act of the Young Turks. Now squeaky, "let me impress you with my vocabulary, I don't see what's so bad about dog-fighting, the Left needs it's own Ann Coulter" Lionel. What a waste.
The problem is that we can't make it stop.
All of our emails have already been dismissed because someone somewhere used bad language in theirs. Or if they didn't, the media would say that they did.
Liberal spokespeople who go on those shows and take the media to task will be replaced by liberal spokespeople who play nicer.
Our disgust at the media doesn't make any difference to them as they're already pandering to 30% of the country for "ratings".
The only thing to do is not watch and pray that someday nobody else will either. When that happens, the news won't change to become honest and useful. It'll just continue to broadcast into a vacuum and wonder why the voters aren't picking the "good guy" anymore.
I really can't see what is so wrong with a $400 haircut. Giving money to someone poorer than yourself and putting money into the local economy. Bush doesn't even pay for his haircuts. Maybe he shold.
The "topic" ... the "haircut" ... is completely irrelevant. What matters is that the media has identified their TARGET, and it doesn't matter one whit what he does or doesn't do, he's in for a smearing.
He gets a $400 haircut? They're off and running about how this looks bad, shows his lack of character, etc. If he had gotten a $10 haircut, it would be the same song, different verse. It shows he's trying to pander, it shows he wants to distance himself from his own wealth in an attempt to fool the voters, etc.
The TOPIC doesn't matter. Once in "attack mode", the media can demonize any event, any time, any place. The bright side or the ugly side of ANY event can be emphasized, at the discretion and whim of these "pundits" and "reporters".
The Godfather told Michael that he would know who the traitor was, because it would be whoever came to him with a suggestion for a meeting with Sollozzo. We news consumers have the same warning system: we will know who the corporate pimps in media are by who brings us these stories of irrelevent and "can be played either way" stories which seek only to smear and belittle a particular progressive candidate. The enemies of TRUTH reveal themselves every day; they are known by their choice of material.
It would be nice to think that some emails or phone calls or letters to NBC or other media outlets might change the tone of the coverage. It won't. I'd have to imagine more than a few letters were written during the 2000 campaign, and again in 2004 when Kerry was getting swiftboated.
I'm not going to suggest there's just one dynamic at play here...e.g., simply that the media is corporate, or that reporters are careerists who want the cable exposure and know the rules for getting it. It's a million different things. Part of it is also an almost certain realization, though perhaps just subliminal because they could never admit it, that the MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Thus, a loss of credibility really isn't the issue. The MSM exists largely as an ad vehicle, nothing more. The message is meaningless.
We need a Saul Alinsky type of activism that will strike fear into the pocketbooks of corporate America. Alinsky was great at the small scale type of events that got corporate attention...like sending busloads of blacks into a downtown department store to clog the aisles, create long lines, buy absolutely nothing, and by dint of their skin color, chase away the racist whites...in order to ironically gain more rights for black employees and more respect for black customers.
In the wake of jet blue's craven caving in to bill o'reilly, I suggest phone trees clogging jet blue's phone lines, and people from the net roots by the thousands bearing down on jet blue's websites. Buy nothing, but waste the operators's time with near purchases, and take up as much server time as you can. Then, by the way, tell the operator or send an email telling jet blue that you almost bought but you just heard hwo they screwed over Kos.
Perhaps a similar approach can work with the MSM. Attack them at their advertisers, and let the advertisers know that, after you've cost them beaucoup money onthe phone and online, without buying a single thing, that you are not pleased with their support for the MSM's treatment of the progressive majority in this country.
But, simply writing to the network, or newspaper, or ombudsman won't do a thing (remember how idiotically Danny whatshisname, the NYT "public editor", and lil debbie howell at the post responded to reader complaints).
On the tombstone of the Republic will be the words 'Died of a Story Arc.'
JF is absolutely right--making it stop is the people's (our) responsibility.
It is like working the ref in sports. It seems unfair, but every good coach and player must do it.
Progressives find it distasteful--like it is cheating because you are not accepting what the presumably independent arbiter is saying. But when it is done relentlessly, and successfully, by the other side it, is the only way.
In the cases described, the "ref" is clearly missing the call, you can't just mumble about it to your teammates. Unfortunately, you have to jump up and down and throw chairs on the court and sometimes get thrown out of the game.
One telltale of the bogus intent behind the 'haircut story' is that it is so fact-challenged.
How did the bill break down? Was if 400 for the stylist, or did he get other treatments? Was it at the salon or somewhere requiring a travel charge? How does that compare to what other people who appear regularly on TV pay? What does Chris Matthews, or MSNBC on Chris Matthews behalf, pay? What is the going rate in the place he was at the time, for what he got? Was this a one-time only, 'oops, I won't go to THAT place again' accident, or does the guy who cuts his hair when he's home in NC get that $400 regularly?
All the actual fact-based questions raised by the $400 event, questions that might allow a reader to understand it, have not been asked or answered. None of the people who have been repeating it have approached them either. That's not actual reporting, not news. Just gossip.
I guess pretending to be a West Texas rancher when you are an idiot son of a wealthy and powerful family is not hypocrisy.
It is true that this will not stop until we make it stop. But I am not convinced that sending letters and e-mails will make it stop. One right-wing call of condemnation trumps thousands of progressive voices. See., e.g., JetBlue and YearlyKos for a recent example.
I think that the Edwards campaign, and probably Edwards himself, must take it on directly. Make "the corporate powers are out to destroy me because I am working for you" one of his consistent campaign themes.
Good job with the Miklacszewski piece, MMFA!! I wonder if you read the article linked under a related post on this topic. The reporter (on scene) barely mentioned the Edwards "attack" along with an "attack" on Clinton. Did Mik spend his whole speech elaborating on the $400 haircut, or was it an aside, perhaps to draw a chuckle? Inquiring minds want to know!!!! The speech fee is another matter and is up to NBC to address, but in reading the reporter's review, the "attack" seems to be a relative blip on the radar. Hey, but you fired up your base, and, above all, that is the purpose of MMFA.
And another oscar for you, grouchie, for your performance as supporting actor in "this theme is unworthy" theator.
Thanks for the praise, Mary (as faint as it may be). Didn't say the post by MMFA was unworthy, but I felt, in reading the link left on the previous post regarding Mr. Mik_______ (darn Polish names), the word "attack" was way to strong for what was said. According to that reporter, it seemed to be more of an off hand remark than an out and out attack. In fact, there seemed to be more of an attack on Rumsfeld, Tenet, Bush, etal than Edwards. But MMFA's mission is to show conservative bias and they do quite well at that, even though this particular instance seems to be rather weak. Thanks again for the praise!!!!!
OSCAR:
The greatest wish of the rightwing controllers of language is for the casual smear of liberal candidates to be "offhand" and peppered throughout American discourse on any subject.
The idea is for derogatory characterizations of Democrats to become "conventional wisdom", to be accepted without question as a valid premise, to be injected into political discussions as if a "truth" known and believed by all.
To say in this instance, the comment was "offhand" is to admit that this is a smear used at its most damaging level: Casually.
Yeah, MMFA had to stretch to make its point about the haircuts because the haircuts are so seldom mentioned in the media. Sarcasm off.
"Idiot Wind", how appropriate.
The amazing thing about all this is that the American ruling elite has managed to create a "mainstream" political press corps that now has roughly the same intellectual credibility and diversity as the old Soviet Pravda -- but without the gulags, secret police and one-party state.
I have to admit: It's a hell of a trick. Totalitarian results from an ostensibly democratic process.
Herbert Marcuse claimed to understand how it works. But I don't.
Let the "Goreing" of the Democratics begin. Hey you, Edwards, you go first.
Mr. Foser you did an excellent job with this piece. Yes we can stop this type of misinformation and it's really simple. This is what I did a few months back. This was the day after Anna Nicole Smith died and to me the most important news of the day was L. Paul Bremer saying essentially that "so what we lost 8 million dollars in Iraq and no we're not going to look for it." That morning as I was getting ready to take my son out to wait for the school bus the Today show's lead story on the hour was the death of ANS. I was totally amazed and angered that they led with that story instead of the one about Bremer. When I came back inside after about 15 minutes they were still talking about ANS. I then switched to C Span and have never returned to the Today show. The only nat'l news I watch is in the evening along with the local news. If we change the channel or just flat turn it off they will get the message until then we will be saturated with infotainment instead of real news. Eveyrbody change the channel and tell your friends that think for themselves to do the same and it will make an impact.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ1REGsexhc Bush Threats and Actions Risk Accidental War with Iran "They're certainly issuing threats very publicly and openly. Not only the words but even the actions. So, for example, the last couple of years, the United States has provided to Israel over a hundred advanced jet bombers openly advertised as capable of bombing Iran and returning. I don't think a word about that has been published in the United States but it's public information. You can read it in the Israeli press, you can read it in military journals. Certainly Iranian intelligence knows it. ..." [link to www.youtube.com] see more
"If reporters dislike a candidate, that's their business. But when they wage a relentless and petty campaign to "bury" that candidate, that's our business. All of us."
Except if that candidate is conservative or right wing--then it's none of our business. But then again the mainstream media has NEVER in history attempted to portray conservative or right wing candidates in a negative way--they have ONLY done this to liberal or progressive candidates so my point is moot.
I would just like to note that the MSM has gone after a Repub once -- they pretty much locked down McCain when it looked like he would make a serious challenge to Bush. In 2000, Bush was going to be their man no matter what.
If GW Bush had been honest when campaigning in 2000, he would have worn a NASCAR-style jacket, adorned with the logos of the corporations he was locked into and beholden to.
Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Pfiser, etc. could have advertised that this was THEIR man, bought and paid for, and that theirs was a "market driven" support ... i.e., they guaranteed the cash, and expected performance.
There is no denying Bush delivered for his sponsors, billions in return for their mere millions in support ,,, the best deal going.
Too bad the sponsors chose to keep their direct sponsorship as SECRET as possible ... that would've been a helluva jacket!
And for you naysayers out there I actually know as a fact that no reporter nor anyone even remotely affiliated with the mainstream media in history has EVER harbored a bias against a right wing or conservative candidate nor has displayed even the most remote disdain towards such a candidate in writing EVER IN HISTORY. MMFA's mission as being a "progressive watchdog group" is therefore so wonderfully harmonious with reality since they do not need to ever have to deal with objections such as "well you are simply a partisan attack group that ignores instances of left wing bias when it occurs" because, after all, left wing bias has never occurred in any mainstream media outlet ever in history!
Isn't it wonderful how things just work out so well sometimes.
Your argument is a non sequitur. MMFA is not obligated to be all things to all people. Do you hold this same standard for MRC or AIM that only cover liberal bias or do you expect liberals to unilaterally disarm by being balanced while sites on the other side make no attempt to be so?
I have no problems with MMFA only covering instances of what they consider to be conservative bias. I just have a problem when they try to couch their intentions in neutral language such as "when they wage a petty campaign to bury a candidate, that's all of our businesses." Why not just be more open about what your intentions are all the time and write "when they wage a petty campaign to bury a progressive or liberal candidate, that's all of our businesses"? That would be more honest, Solon, don't you think?
What I think is that is inherent. We all know this and MMFA is not trying to hide the fact they do CONSERVATIVE media misinformation. It is in their mission statement. There isnt any need to beat a dead horse. I dont see any dihonesty in the way they phrased it and I expect the conservative sites do it pretty much the same way which I dont have a problem with.
there is a cartoonist named wayne stayskal who is distributed by tribune media services [owner of the chicago tribune and several large florida newspapers including the orlando sentinel and south florida sun sentinel]. mr. stayskal, a constant critic of al gore, had a cartoon last month that headlined: "reporters give money to dems over republicans 9 to 1". this of course refers to the msnbc "study" that found a tiny percentage of those surveyed, actually 2/10 of 1%, gave money to anyone. mr. stayskal falsely asserted that most of those were "reporters" and he gave the false impression that a significant percentage of reporters do. they do not.
to be precise, tribune media is a unit of the tribune company, which owns the newspapers.
I still say the haircut was smart, getting filmed getting it was not. Edwards wants the Robert Kennedy look and is willing to pay to get it. He knows appearance draws as many votes as what he has to say, and that he has to use the tools he's given, including his looks. The media movers certainly know the importance of appearance better than anyone else -what do you think the annual makeup artist bill would be for television hosts and "reporters?"