The Cackle joins The Haircut and The Sigh
The media's comical obsession earlier this month with the tone and frequency of Sen. Hillary Clinton's laugh didn't just represent another head-smacking moment in the annals of awful campaign journalism. It also served as a preview of what's likely to come in 2008.
Anybody who thinks that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that the Cackle narrative won't be revived has not been paying attention in recent years. That's why it's so important to take a moment to understand the press dynamics that allow a story like The Cackle to flourish, and why pointless stories like that -- and John Edwards' Haircut or Al Gore's Sighs during a 2000 presidential debate -- only affect Democrats.
You simply cannot find examples in recent years of Republican presidential candidates' physical tics or trivial personal foibles that the press has pounced on and announced to be wildly important and deeply revealing. That's just not a distraction Republican candidates have to deal with. The media phenomenon only applies to Democrats and the phenomenon only exists because journalists manufacture it.
Meaning, there's zero proof that voters actually care about Sighs or Haircuts or Cackles, stories that consume so much of the press corps' time, energy, and interest. For instance, throughout the extensive Cackle coverage, I don't remember reading or hearing a single quote from an actual voter who expressed interest, let alone concern, about Clinton's laugh.
That was confirmed by the polling data released after the cascade of negative Clinton coverage. One prominent poll showed she had opened up a gaping 33-point lead over her closest rival. The press manufactured an accusatory storyline about Clinton's calculated laughs, and voters couldn't have cared less.
The reason the Cackle story had such legs is that the campaign press corps resents Clinton (and the large lead she's opened up in the polls), and that disdain anchored much of the coverage. Just like pundits and reporters do not like Edwards and his populist streak, and just like they didn't like Gore when he ran for the White House in 2000, which led to the Sigh news coverage.
You remember The Sigh don't you? During the crucial final stretch of the 2000 campaign, pundits and reporters announced that Gore's ill-timed sighs during a debate against candidate George Bush were not only rude and condescending, but they might cost him the election. The New York Times' Bob Herbert wrote, "If he can somehow force himself to stop sighing and interrupting and behaving condescendingly in front of the television cameras, Al Gore may yet get elected president."
It's true, as the Daily Howler noted, that every instant poll taken after the debate indicated that Americans thought Gore had won the debate, and won it easily. So where was the proof that viewers detested Gore's allegedly smug style? Journalists didn't need actual proof. They just knew Gore was disliked. By whom? By journalists, of course.
Edwards this year battled the same press bias with the never-ending Haircut coverage, which has also been barren of quotes from voters who claimed to care about the coiffure kerfuffle. But the press was certain that The Haircut told us a lot about Edwards the candidate (that he's a phony and a hypocrite), which justified the swarming media attention.
A quick check of Nexis shows The Haircut was mentioned 120 times in mainstream media news reports about Edwards ... within the last 30 days. For the year, the Haircut tally is north of 700 news mentions.
That brings us to The Cackle, which was covered earnestly by the best and brightest gathered inside elite newsrooms at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Cincinnati Post, National Public Radio, Time.com, Reuters, Associated Press, Politico, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others.
Why did The Cackle matter? Because, we were instructed, it showed how calculating and inauthentic Clinton really is; how unlikable she has become. Just like The Sigh proved Gore was a jerk and how The Haircut proves Edwards is a fake. And because anecdotes are so much more fun to cover than actual campaign issues.
Our pundits don't do policy. They do personality. And it's not just the much-maligned cable talkers who bypass substance in favor of fluff. Here's the number of New York Times columns, written by staff columnists, that have examined, in detail, Clinton's recently unveiled "American Health Choices Plan": 2. Washington Post: 1. USA Today: 0. Chicago Tribune: 0. Los Angeles Times: 1. Dallas Morning News: 0. San Francisco Chronicle: 0. New York Daily News: 0. Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 1. Washington Times: 0. Boston Globe: 0
You get the idea.
In fact, when Clinton did talk about policy during her recent Sunday morning talk show swing in late September, The Washington Post mocked her for talking too much. It was reminiscent of the 2000 campaign when Gore met with columnists and editorial page writers at The New York Times. Afterward, Maureen Dowd complained in print that Gore had been so boring, droning on and on about heath care and the environment. Dowd had no patience for such banalities.
What else did The Cackle, The Haircut, and The Sigh have in common? They were all typed right off Republican talking points, which hammer the notion that Democratic presidential contenders are phonies. Yet during the Cackle coverage Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz kept trying to push the idea that it was liberal Comedy Central host Jon Stewart who hatched the laugh storyline (who "kicked things off") by airing a clip featuring Clinton's chuckles and suggesting they were pre-programmed. During a Washingtonpost.com online chat, Kurtz specifically pointed to Stewart's role to deflect the suggestion that the press had adopted yet another negative, right-wing talking point about a Democratic candidate. Kurtz's claim though, was false.
Yes, Stewart's show poked fun at Clinton, albeit in a very mild way. Even Stewart conceded on-air that the idea of a Fox News host asking Clinton why she's so partisan was funny, which accounted for Clinton's uproarious response on Fox News, one of the most authentic belly laughs I've ever heard a politician uncork on national television. (No matter, the pundits huddled and determined the outburst had been phony.)
But days before The Daily Show chimed in, right-wing talker Sean Hannity had already been making fun of the "frightening" Clinton laugh, and so had Rush Limbaugh. Fox News' O'Reilly Factor had tagged the laugh "evil," right-wing news website the Drudge Report had hyped the laugh (complete with an audio clip), and the Republican National Committee had started the whole news cycle off by admonishing the Clinton laugh via a press release, which was sent out within an hour of her concluding her final Sunday morning interview on September 23.
The truth is that just like the Gore-invented-the-Internet attack from the 2000 campaign -- which began as an RNC press release, was picked up by the right-wing media, and then embraced by the mainstream press -- the Clinton Cackle story was written and produced at Republican headquarters. It's curious that Kurtz tried so hard to pretend otherwise.
The New York Times and its dreadful Cackle reporting
Back to The Cackle. It was the Times that led the charge among the serious press into the utterly trivial pursuits of Clinton's laugh, and specifically the use of the sexist term "cackle." The Times also forcefully assigned motivation to the wayward chortles.
Let's take a look at the lede of the Times' atrocious September 30 article, written by Patrick Healy:
It was January 2005, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had just finished a solemn speech about abortion rights -- urging all sides to find "common ground" on the issue and referring to abortion as "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
Healy goes on to tell about how Clinton, once off-stage, laughed inappropriately "for a few seconds" to a reporter's question about abortion. (FYI, the story was re-told exclusively through the eyes of Healy; nobody independently confirmed the tale.) But note the date of the anecdote: January 2005.
If I were a news editor at the Times and for some reason OKed an article about candidate Clinton's use of a loud laughter in public forums and what it meant to her presidential chances, and a reporter filed a story that opened with an anecdote that took place 33 months ago, before Clinton was even a candidate for president, I'd send the article back for a re-write.
But that's just me.
Then there was this paragraph, in which Healy was busy reading Clinton's mind:
So, instead of alienating Iowans who might not vote for edginess, Mrs. Clinton goes for the lowest-common-denominator display of her funny bone: She shows that she can laugh, and that her laugh has a fullness and depth.
First off, Healy's reference to "Iowans" made no sense since most of Clinton's identified laughs took place on national television, which meant voters in every early-caucus and primary state were likely exposed to them. (i.e. Why would she be afraid of alienating just Iowa voters?) Also, that Hawkeye state reference came out of the blue; it was the first Iowa reference in the article. I assume its inclusion there was simply due to sloppy editing.
Secondly, notice how Healy, based on nothing more than his own keen powers of observation, concluded that Clinton's laughs represented a "lowest-common-denominator" attempt to win over voters. What was his proof? He had none.
Healy quickly adopted the unproven theory that Clinton unleashes her laugh when faced with difficult, probing questions as a way to divert attention and defuse the situation. It's the same presumption John Dickerson used at Slate, claiming the laughs constituted an obvious ploy, a "strategy" to distract attention away from tough questions that she's going to "dodge." Soon the Politico's Mike Allen chimed in, agreeing the laughs were "a way for the senator to deflect questions that either are tough or ... could be trouble." And days later The Washington Post's Kurtz reported, categorically, that the laugh represented "a calculated tactic to deflect tough questions and perhaps soften her image in the process."
To prove the point about the laugh being a pre-planned tactic, here's what Healy wrote about Clinton's appearance on CBS' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer:
The Schieffer moment seemed particularly calculated because Mrs. Clinton has most certainly not laughed in other settings when she has been accused of pursuing socialized medicine.
Try to follow the logic at work here: Clinton laughed when she was asked by Schieffer about her health-care plan. To prove that The Cackle was designed to defuse difficult questions, Healy noted that on previous occasions Clinton had been asked the exact same question about her health-care plan and she had not laughed. But doesn't that in fact prove the opposite? Meaning, if the laugh was "calculated" wouldn't it occur every time Clinton was asked about whether her health-care plan was an attempt to socialize medicine?
And do journalists really think that Hillary Clinton, who has been campaigning for universal health care for the last 15 years and has become a leading expert on the issue, is so nervous about the topic and unsure of the facts that when she's asked about it on national television she deliberately hides behind a giggle in order to camouflage her response?
Also, recall that the interest in Clinton's laugh came after she spent the morning of September 23 appearing via satellite on all five Sunday morning talk shows, during which time she spoke for nearly an hour and answered approximately 60 questions. As best I can tell, within that marathon session of interviews Clinton laughed just a handful of times, and the laughs lasted, combined, maybe 30 seconds. But if the Healy/Dickerson/Allen/Kurtz theory were true, and Clinton laughed whenever she faced a probing questions -- and she faced them for nearly an hour that Sunday morning -- then Clinton would have uncorked laugh after laugh after laugh. Instead, just a handful were audible.
In other words, the media's lazy, contemptuous theory about Clinton's chuckle, that it's manipulative and calculated, makes no sense. And am I the only one who chuckled that Clinton, previously depicted by the press as aloof, was suddenly being ridiculed for laughing too much?
Meanwhile, did you notice what was missing from the Times piece and the Slate piece and the Post piece and every other article and television discussion that took place about The Cackle? What was missing was any reporting, or even second-hand speculation, that Clinton's Democratic rivals were using the laugh against her, or that they were even discussing it.
Truth is, nobody from the other campaigns was talking about the laugh -- they couldn't have cared less -- just like none of Edwards' Democratic rivals ever brought up The Haircut. Both stories were driven exclusively by pundits and reporters who stressed that the trivial pursuits were politically important even though they could not produce any evidence to support it. Neither voters nor opponents cared. Only journalists were intrigued.
Where you been? Hasn't President Bush been attacked for his malapropisms since coming on the scene? Whole careers have been made from that alone.
What about Cheney's use of the f word? Kerry can give an interview in Playboy, pandering to the four letter set, by repeatedly using the f-word and having it in print but did the media treat him the same way they treated Cheney?
The media's obsession with George Allen's 'Macaca' comment cost him the election.
Going back, Gerald Ford was repeatedly skewered for his supposed clumsiness.
It happens on both sides.
Considering that true character assasination like we see today pretty much started ramping up during the Carter administration, I can see how you are quite willing to settle for the "both sides do it" argument. I'd prefer that it gets dropped altogether, but as long as we have people running around thinking that "This is a significant story in that it truly reveals something of the character of HRC. ", then I say liberals are in the clear for launching counterattacks.
The fact the English language is too complex for Bush has been mentioned but the average overpriced haircut by Edwards gets more ink. I will give you the overplay of Fords few stumbles. The man was actually very athletic and it made it seem like he was Peter Sellers. That lazy storyline thing the press gets into.
Nobody - certainly not the media - has EVER acted as if Bush's mangling of the English language hurts his image or his chance to be President. Quite the contrary. The media and talking heads acted as if it was endearing and proof of his "realness".
Second, there is a HUGE difference between somebody swearing during a conversation and a public official telling another public official (on the floor no less) to go F himself. Completely unprovoked and disrespectful.
"The media's obsession with George Allen's 'Macaca' comment cost him the election."
Allen called the guy a monkey. If that's not a valid reason to call his character into serious question, I'd like to know what is.
So what if it did cost him the election? Why would that be unfair?
was mixing things up. he must have thought george allen was "cackling" like a "macaca".
AA, you're equating using the f word in Playboy magazine to blurting Go f yourself on the floor of the Senate? I guess that fits the bill for what you're used to as Fair and Balanced.
And poor President Bush hasn't been misrepresented in terms of his speach. It's hardly wild character assasination to point out the fact that the President of the United States talks as though he's a little bit retarded. That's not hyperbole. He really sounds like he's brain damaged. I actually think it's downright unpatriotic to support someone who is obviously unintelligent for the position of President. It creates all kinds of risks for citizens as we have so bloodily found out. Laughing at the goofy things he says is practically too generous.
Poor Democrats. The reason they have this problem is their own. If they weren't so intent on constantly trying to reinvent themselves or "act" a certain way in order to overcome some image flaw within themselves - Clinton's "cackle" to become more likeable - Gore's "sigh" because he felt Bush was a lightweight - and Edward's "haircut" because it's all about his phony image........then the media would have no reason to pounce on these foibles.
Besides, the people could care less, as Boehlert points out......so get over it and concentrate on your Democratic message, which if so powerful will trump all the rest of this silliness.
with your assurance resides currently in the White House; and was supported for six years by yet another aspect of this problem. If there were any person who should never have been electable, Bungle is that person. Compared to him, Gore is smarter, more accomplished, and probably better looking - so between the press lies about Gore and the Dems, to deflect attention from the massive theft of votes statistically certainly stolen by the GOP in 2000 (and again in 2004) , and the refusal of the press to "press" the discrepant exit polls versus the "reported" votes in over a dozen states in 2000 (27, in 2004), I take little comfort in the assurance that if the Dems are correct, their message will be published and heard.
Otherwise, we would still be hearing over 20 daily reports on the election issues (average less than one per day in the Corporate Media, currently), two dozen per day on the lies used to invade Iraq (less than one per day, nationally), a dozen or more on Bungle's failures to pursue, let alone capture, Bin Laden (not quite one per week) - and NONE on the cost of Edwards' haircuts, nor on Hillary's "cackle".
I can't add anything to it...You covered it all from A to Z.
Right out of the Rush Limbaugh A to Z for dittoheads primer! Word for word...
"Poor Democrats. The reason they have this problem is their own. If they weren't so intent on constantly trying to reinvent themselves or "act" a certain way in order to overcome some image flaw within themselves - Clinton's "cackle" to become more likeable"
Nah. The media just needs to find a new hobby. I think I've got it - they should start reporting the news.
Tommy: "Poor Democrats. The reason they have this problem is their own. If they weren't so intent on constantly trying to reinvent themselves or "act" a certain way in order to overcome some image flaw within themselves - Clinton's "cackle" to become more likeable - Gore's "sigh" because he felt Bush was a lightweight - and Edward's "haircut" because it's all about his phony image........then the media would have no reason to pounce on these foibles."
Oh my, Tommy, where to begin? First of all, are you perfectly willing to exhonerate the media for trumpeting all of this trivia? Apparently so, since you point the accusing finger at the Democrats who are being victimized by it. Second, Clinton laughed because she saw the incredible irony in the question that Chris Wallace asked. Do you really think she planned that laugh to make it so people wouldn't think she was aloof? Your other examples are similarly burdened by illogic. Gore sighed because Bush was a lightweight, and still is, but not because this was any mode of "reinventing" himself. Finally, you've accused Edwards of being a phony (ad nauseum--and it would be nice to know what the all-exalted Tommy standard for "realism" is, but I won't hold my breath), and you said above that that was the reason for his haircut, yet at the same time you say it was a way of overcoming an image flaw. It can't be both. Surely you can see that?
Frankly, Tommy, you seem to be extra grouchy of late, and it doesn't surprise me to see such flawed reasoning from you. What's really disappointing is seeing Jeter, normally fully independent and level-headed, come in so often of late just to pat you on the back. Here he said he couldn't see anything wrong in your post. Very sad.
is really just a joke. Yeah, we need to laugh at ourselves, cause this type of "joke" has no bearing whatsoever on the elections!
On a side note, nice to see so many republicans quitting because they have to work 5 days a week to earn that $160,000 annual salary with all the free flying and meal perks, + socialized health insurance for the rest of their lives. Poor little whiney babies. (that was just a joke too!)
[link to thinkprogress.org]
What is really "comical" is that it was the ultra-liberal NY Times and the ultra-liberal columnists at the NY Times and other leftwing news sites that first brought up this whole story about HRC.
Now we all know that MMFA has to coordinate all its activities with the HRC campaign, but it must be tough when even their allies in the liberal media are forced to report on the inappropriate and bizarre cackling of HRC.
This is a significant story in that it truly reveals something of the character of HRC. And the Democrat Party is probably worried that they are going to be stuck with another weird AlGore personality that cannot be sold to the majority of the American people.
BBJ, I don't think those Democrats are worried. Unless you have developed those secret-super powers that all Cons acquire whenever a keyboard or microphone is in front of them
I think Giuliani abandoning his horrific combover and finally showing off the bald pate that's been there a couple of decades says something about his character.
Why aren't we seeing stories about that?
I didn't notice that. Apparently, I wasn't looking.
because Giuliani wasn't your mayor for eight long years.
Billy Bob, how do I know if I am merely liberal or if I have achieved "ultra-liberal" status?
Don't you understand that ALL libruls are ULTRA-LIBRUL? : )
Delusions that your Limborg talking points will ever be taken seriously, Ultra liberal NYTimes columnists like Cal Thomas, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman? In the Ultra liberal NYTimes that led the cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq? Like I keep telling you. Just because you hiveminders have been TOLD to believe it doesnt mean it has any connection to reality
it's the mainstream media who are driving this non-story story with the NY Times leading the way.
There is no liberal bias in traditional media outlets.
That's just a myth perpetrated by the far right trying to rationalize the need for talk radio and Fox News.
Is most certainly liberal. Not liberal as in Political, but liberal in what they want to write. That is how I look at it.
and that's the opinion pages.
Bush's pretzel incident........his "nuculer" mispronounciation.......Reagan's "nap" times, his wife's "astrology" moments and her "china" obsession.
The fact is the pundits jump on all of them....to whine it's only the Democrats is ridiculous.
as the far right whining about a liberal bias in the media.
Right?
Why do the news channels rarely if ever use the term Illegal Immigration? Why do they NEVER expose the downside to Illegal Immigration? IMO, that is a fair example of Liberal Bias.
Results 1 - 10 of about 253,000 for "illegal immigration" +NBC -MSNBC
Results 1 - 10 of about 838,000 for "illegal immigration" +CBS
Results 1 - 10 of about 579,000 for "illegal immigration" +ABC
Hmmm, not a very strong argument, Noro!
Now where did somebody ever get the idea its NEVER called illegal immigration?
One more Limborg talking point bites the dust
Good job snoopy
snoop,
Unless you are pointing out all the times the words, "illegal immigration are used on the networks, I don't see how that proves your point.
The critique above by notoro didn't center around internet use of the Networks plus the words "illegal immigration" but actual use of the words "illegal immigration" by the networks.
It has nothing to do with corporations and private business's that support the right being in LOVE with a pool of under-the-table labour to prop up their bottom line.
Republicans need illegal immigrants to help out their wealthy supporters businesses. It also fits into the Republican agenda to keep minimum wages as low as possible.
Renaming "illegal immigration" so it sounds legal benefits the right more than the left, specifically for the reasons above. Not to mention, if the name has changed within the last 6 years, during the Republican majority...why would you blame "liberal bias" and not repulican PR shill Frank Luntz who has renamed many policies that make the right look bad if factually named for what they are.
I don't remember Bush getting much criticism in the MSM until after his election. If he did, it was miniscule compared to the avalanche of nitpicky little stories about Al Gore during the campaign. Remember the "earth tones" flap? Gore was questioned repeatedly about his "exaggerations", while Bush's lies went largely unchallenged. Sorry, the treatment was not equal.
They are just as hard on the GOP that is why we heard so much about Bush's LIES during the campaign. They were just harped on all the time, and thats why the Downing street memo was thundered across all the media as if it was part of the Swift Boat liars repetoire. WAIT, no we didnt. It is amusing to read your WWWWAAAAHHHHH stop pointing out the discrepencies of the media WAAAAHHHHH you guys are whining. You really dont get the irony thing do you?
When will these "journalists" and "commentators" understand that this type of politicing is a Rovian blur of the past. I truly believe that this continuous personal assualt will be used by whichever party as a driving force for either parties own candidate. The denegration of my selected candidate will push me harder to get them elected. Why, because I will be pissed off that the other side expects me to avoid the issues and vote on their sixth grade games. That goes for both sides.
Maybe she was cackling at Chris Wallace because Bill was there off camera. He probably grinned when the "lipless one" asked a stupid question and then she started laughing her head off.
Rovian or not, if we get a Clinton-Giuliani race it will be the nastiest, most mudslinging campaign we have ever seen, I think.
Which is why Obama looks more attractive every day, he isn't yet a "politician" in the cutthroat sense and I don't think he would stoop to the "Clintonian" levels of politicking......not yet anyway.
But if I had to chose between Rovian or Clintonian...I want the Prince Of Black Rovember on my side.
we wouldn't be seeing madrassa stories, we wouldn't be seeing Obama Hussein stories and we wouldn't be seeing stories about his minister being a black separatist.
Don't be silly.
Mud slinging has been the modus operandi of the Republican Party since the days of Lee Atwater.
Karl Rove just took it to new heights.
And we'll be hearing all about clinton's cackles and phony religious piety and get round 3 of Clinton's BJ as we talk about Gulliani looking presidential, and how he's the poster boy for 9-11 and america's mayor. All courtesy of that liberal media.
Also, the Clintonians will probably breakout pictures of Rudy in a dress and call him "Mayor Julianna." When will it stop, probably never. When will voters get tired of it. Probably never. When will someone come along and try to stop it...whenever a Statesman/woman, appears on the horizen.
but it will cost them several million in advertising to get the 30 second spot on TV. In the meantime, the swiftboat veterans for smear will create another $50,ooo slime job that will be aired over and over again for free on every network across the country followed by the loyal dittobots who will take turns drawing it out for several more days as each one takes turns discussing it on their programs, bringing right wing pundit after pundit on to pound home the message, and only one or two token "liberals" who they got out of a McDonalds fast food line to try to refute the claim.
Thanks for the laugh. By your estimation it looks like the Democrats don't have a chance.
On a related note, I love all the conspiracy theories about Rove, and the "right wing" media bias. As long as people believe that, they'll never understand why they keep getting beat in the Presidential elections.
Are we so shallow when it comes to our politicians that we, the general public will be influenced by these trivial passings? Macaca and the likes are serious and do offer a glimpse into the candidates personality but haircuts, laughs and clumsiness should not be the criteria for we vote for. Whats next, Hannity saying that Hillary's mother dressed her funny?
Unfortunately they do!
Well, first off, they themselves are this shallow. And since they get to sit in front of the cameras stroking their massive egos and thinking everyone should be just like them, that's all we get. Second, their corporate masters don't want coverage based on issues, cause that would just alert the public that the policies of the two major parties are exactly the same...pro-corporate, pro-empire, pro-war. Can't have the sheeps thinking for themselves, ya know...they might start standing on two legs and fighting off the wolves.
No mention of the Dean Scream? Howard Dean lost one single primary vote, despite a high leverl of grass roots support and popularity (and his views now know to be true)...and the media's endless focus on his scream killed his candidacy.
I have no doubt that if the American public was left to their own resources, Democrats would control government year after year after year. There are two problems that obstruct the people's right to have a well informed democracy, (1) the media and (2) corporations.
1) Clearly the media is jus as corporate these days as any big business. HOwever, the media doesn't get ratings if there is a major polling blow-out. No. People only watch the news if there is a neck and neck horse race. This is why the media is always so eagre to tear apart Democrats...they are more likeable, more reasonable, and more in tune with what the majority of Americans want. If the media only reported facts, then there would be no horse race...Dems would be clear winners every election (unless Republicans changed their ways).
The media profits when there is a horse race and so they have a motive to CREATE the horse race. Even if it means letting distasteful Republican candidates slide through while nitpicking dem candidates. Even if it means creating false narratives for the candidates to make them seem even. Not to mention the fact that election coverage is the new celebrity coverage. It requires little to no money on the part of the broadcaster and little to no research of journalism. In short, its cheap. This is why we see election coverage starting YEARS earlier than it really needs to. It save money. And if the media can create the horse race in the primary season, then all the better.
2) Corporations. Most corporations favour and donate to Republicans. Republicans also spend far more money on(and have more support from) PR. Thanks to the billions in PR spending, the Republicans are MUCH more guaranteed to get any story they want into the media. This doesn't even take into account the right-wing dominated media such as Fox or talk radio which will do the Republican bidding for free.
However, as mentioned, the media is just as corporate as anything else. Therefore they rarely do real reporting when they can just pull a press release off the FAX, or play a Video News Release without proper warning. We KNOW this is happening. So putting two and two together, who is to say that the media isn't just reporting these narratives, or nitpicking, because they see a story come in on the FAX from a PR firm claiming to represent real people. Or, there is the Drudge factor, where the media for some reason trusts everything FOX, Limbaugh and Drudge posts is true and representative of the majority of citizens and just repeats it without question or analysis.
Basically, our society is so aligned and controlled by Republican interests right now, it is practically impossible for the Dems to get a fair shake.
The top four donors in 2004 were all to leftist groups and totaled over $70 million.
Looking at the amount given by business it is split 55% to 45% GOP over Dems. While that is a lot, it does not look to me that it supports your argument.
[link to www.opensecrets.org]
They have abandoned their Constitutionally protected role and shoved their heads up the butt of Corporate America.
The Liberal Media Myth has been repeatedly debunked, yet it persists, because the Jingofascist Propaganda machine can't afford to let it die. Isn't it probable that the corporations that own the media benefit more from Republican rule? The simple fact that the MSM has taken a don't-ask-don't-tell approach to how we got into Iraq is all the proof I need.
According to an article at Forbes.com, journalism is one of the professions to avoid in years to come. Seems that there won't be much demand for real "reporting". I guess they mostly want pretty faces to read the corporate script. If not for the internet, there would be almost zero rebuttal to the Sh*tstorm coming from the Right...unless you count Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher. Well, there are a few "liberal" newspapers still hanging in there, but who reads those anymore?
Along the line Rosencrantz was on, the GOP itself is much like a PR firm. They do the bidding of the lobbyists with very little nuance added. The Congress is just a stepping stone to getting a high paying job for one of the companies they lobbyed for or as a lobbyist themselves.
Another reason for the continual bashing of the media as unfair in the accusation of liberality, is to shame them into being less biased and thereby less liberal. It's not a matter of changing them into non-liberals in their minds, but to cause them to be less liberal. It will go on as long as they are less non-liberal than Fox, etc. So it will go on ad infinitum.
Even if it were true that there is an equal obsession on all candidates with the stupid and trivial factors in the presidential race by the media, that wouldn't make it okay. This stuff is garbage. If this is really the sort of criteria we as a nation use to elect our leaders why not just do the whole thing on "American Idol?"
But it isn't true in magnitude anyway. Taking two very recent campaign events for example, show me anywhere that as much time, ink and hot air was wasted on Giuliani's bizarre staged phone call from his wife as there was on "The Cackle." Equally stupid and unimportant events and yet one is getting far more time than the other.
Was America at war when Regan was President Tommy?. We have young men and women risking their lives daily and seeing this war will be handed to the next President shouldn't we be more concerned with their abilities than their laugh or how much they pay for a haircut? Don't make this simply 'Democrat's' whining. We should all demand that our media cover a lot more than laughs and haircuts. Our next President could take us to war with Iran (if Junior doesn't beat him or her to the punch) which will effect all of us. How that person laughs should be pretty trivial to all of us and we should let the press know it.
We were at "war" when Reagan was president. He conducted war-criminal military operations in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras, financing and training death squads with the US military. When the US Navy mined Nicaraguan harbors, the UN even declared him a terrorist. Then there was his illegal invasion of Grenada, attacking them just to keep their airport runway at a length unsuitable for large passenger jets. May he rot in Hel for what he did to Central America.
That our Central American policies in the 80's were indeed a dark chapter in American history
for Ronnie RayGun' descent!
are active in the Bush Administration.
Why don't they babble on about that godd*mn smirk Bush displays when talking about war, destruction, death and killing?
I spent a good many hours reading and observing Town Hall dot com in the past weeks, and although I try to keep up with the absurdity of Fox "News", O'Reilly, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, I must say that both the articles and the reader responses took me by surprise. There may be some radical or rude comments from posters at the Liberal sites I view, but NOT FROM THE AUTHORS.
TH expresses exactly and precisely why we are not Conservative. You may not want to venture over after you see these headlines from one writer, Medved: • No, America's never been a multicultural society • The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society • Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery • Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans
I DO NOT recommend that you respond to their writings, since it will be an exercise in futility. Rational discourse does not exist there at all.
Coulter wrote "Pretend to be all you can be" and had several outright lies that the Right continue to state. Reader responses included about Cleland "Explain also, how admirable it is to have maimed oneself (as was the case with Max Cleland) while playing with a live hand grenade – Whoopsie!" Nice. Coulter said he wasn't in combat at the time (he was).
Or read Liberals: A Puzzlement, By Burt Prelutsky for a good laugh. This guy wraps himself in the flag (almost literally on YouTube), then defends the chickenhawks. He tells me "The point isn't what you personally believe, but what all the leaders on your side of the aisle claim they believe." Really? I didn;t know I was following people of his choosing. I was following important issues. Does the current administration count for Burt, because if so he is in serious trouble. He also responded to my post to calle me an idiot. Yes, the author called me an idiot in his own post for stating that his writings do not allow for rational discourse because he paints a huge swath of Liberal where he wants.
Scooter, you make several statements without backing them up. Listing some titles by Medved or sayin Coulter's columns includes outright lies do not make for great argumentation.
Is this the quote from Pertlusky that you are referring?
nthemajority: When conservatives write about liberals, we are certain to hear from anonymous people such as yourself. The point isn't what you personally believe, but what all the leaders on your side of the aisle claim they believe. If you really wish to suggest that the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, Pelosi, Soros, Boxer, Murtha, Schumer, Carter, Clinton, Kucinich,Al Franken and Michael Moore, are better and brighter than Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Dennis Prager, Antonin Scalia, Michael Medved, Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, you are an idiot.
Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky
----- Looks like you had a lively discussion! Congratulations on having a dialog with the author.
However I don't believe he called you an idiot, he said if you were suggesting the liberals mentioned above were smarter than the conservatives mentioned above, then you would be an idiot. It looks to me like you placed yourself in that category.
"That's why it's so important to take a moment to understand the press dynamics that allow a story like The Cackle to flourish, and why pointless stories like that -- and John Edwards' Haircut or Al Gore's Sighs during a 2000 presidential debate -- only affect Democrats. "
How many stories have the mainstream media run on George W. Bush's "smirk"? Here are just a few: [link to www.slate.com] [link to www.csbsju.edu] [link to www.cnn.com] [link to www.washingtonmonthly.com] [link to www.slate.com]
those are some great links there. The first and last one basically conclude that his smirk means nothing, the second one is Chris Matthews fawning over his smirk as good genetics, and one is a long article dealing mostly with polling.
...since you either did not read them r you did not read them well.
written in 1999 was very well done. Thanks for the link. She obviously saw through him, as did Molly Ivins, and wrote about his lack of substance.
"The smirk may be a manifestation of an inner lightness that protects Bush from feeling inadequate. He seems undisturbed that he has no opinion on Boris Yeltsin's chosen successor, but "will if I'm President"; that he doesn't know much about controlling nuclear arms but will hire people "who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than I do"; or that he spouts gobbledygook ("It is not only the life of the unborn...it is the life of the living").
Message: I'm winging it. This may satisfy Bush, but other people have grown concerned. After he grinned through his recent foreign-policy speech, callers to C-Span spent more time weighing in on "the alleged smirk," as Brian Lamb put it, than on his hard line on China. Last week a New Hampshire voter asked Bush, gingerly, if he were "intellectually curious." It's always better, Bush replied, to "be underestimated."
Note that callers (voters) were concerned about his smirk.
But not to worry...the story line changed during the 2000 campaign. The few editorialists who saw thru Bush were more than drowned out by the many media talking heads pouncing on Gore's alleged personality flaws.
If there is one thing all of us can agree on...the press has spend entirely too little of it's time researching policy, and the effect of policy on people.
Google "George W. Bush smirk" and see how many mainstream media stories you get.
...when she has dictatorial powers. Well done, Republicans.
This fluff is a waste of time. Who cares who laughs or how they scream or how they do it! Focusing on this stuff by ALL media is a waste of time, we need to look at the issues and beliefs of the individuals running.
I think that more scrutinty ought to be given to how the campaign if being shaped and by whom. Looking at associates and consultants that have been hired or influence the campaigns and candidates is more relevant than disecting someone's laugh or enthusiatic scream.
with your comments. Too bad you just had to make snarky remarks in your header.
Yes, for the good old days, when the bumbling President Gerald Ford would stumble and trip and look like an oaf....
I could care less about cackes and hair.