Media Matters: The tea party teapot tempest rages on
It's fitting that a week that began with conservatives warning about the president indoctrinating schoolchildren would end with those same conservatives acting like schoolchildren in the face of perceived indoctrination. Leading up to President Obama's September 8 back-to-school address to our nation's students, the conservative media loudly voiced their opposition to the speech, insisting that the president was recruiting children to his political goals and conscripting them into his civilian army. Of course, when none of that happened and Obama delivered the speech he intended to deliver, conservatives still managed to declare victory, claiming -- with an admitted lack of evidence and an implied lack of sense -- that the White House had secretly changed the speech in response to their heroic exposé of Obama's attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth.
But conservatives wouldn't have to wait long for some genuine "indoctrination," as the president took to the dais of the House of Representatives on September 9 to restate the case for health care reform. And they reacted in true playground fashion. "You lie," screamed Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) in the middle of Obama's address, much to the shock and chagrin of the assembled legislature. While Wilson's Republican colleagues upbraided him in public and private and Wilson himself apologized, the conservative media got busy enshrining a new hero. Rush Limbaugh "was ecstatic when he heard" Wilson's shout and wished he hadn't apologized. "Joe Wilson simply articulated what millions of Americans were saying," said Limbaugh. Hot Air blogger Allahpundit responded by calling the president a "jackass." Obama wasn't the only "jackass" of the evening, as Red State's Erick Erickson, in the midst of lauding Wilson "a great American hero," called Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) a "jackass" for "clap[ing] when Barack Obama bashed Sarah Palin over the death panels."
Slightly less maddening than the sophomoric reaction from the right was the phony equivalence put forth by media outlets seeking to downplay Wilson's outburst. Fox & Friends doggedly tried to convince their viewers that Nancy Pelosi's criticisms of the CIA were no different from Wilson's heckling of the president on the House floor. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank balanced Wilson's verbal attack on the president with Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who "insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama." It's a wonder Milbank didn't lump in all those boorish members of Congress who kept banging the palms of their hands together at various times throughout the speech.
And let's not forget that Wilson was wrong. Very wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And yet, that simple fact seemed conspicuously absent from much of the reporting on Wilson's outburst. Viewed through a broader lens, Wilson's two-word interjection during the president's address to Congress is a distillation of the right's approach to the health care debate thus far - short on substance, but long on spectacle. You saw the same scenario play out all last month as town hall after town hall was disrupted by loud protesters shouting about "socialism" and making nonsensical demands that the government keep its hands off Medicare. Their views were fringe, and they were often in direct contradiction to the facts, but the video of angry town hall protesters dominated the cable news channels because they made great TV.
It's a symptom of a broken media culture that a small group of fringe conservatives can scream insults and falsehoods at the president or their representatives in Congress, bring no facts to bear in support of their allegations, and still be treated as major players in a policy debate.
Other major stories this week
What speech did they hear?
While not turning Rep. Wilson into a latter-day Spartacus, the conservative media turned their critical eyes on President Obama's health care speech, leaving many to wonder whether they heard the same speech the rest of the world did. Sean Hannity proclaimed that Obama "said tonight that insurance executives are bad people." In reality, the president said the exact opposite: "Insurance executives don't [treat their customers badly] because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable." Joseph Curl of The Washington Times reported that Obama "cut out" from the speech a line about bringing "both parties together" in health care debate. In fact, the president delivered that line exactly as prepared -- a fact noted by a separate Washington Times article.
Noted paragon of accuracy and credibility Karl Rove appeared on Fox News to attack the president's alleged "series of very glaring misstatements or distortions," all the while advancing health care falsehoods and distortions of his very own. It should be noted that Rove was just one of the many Fox News partisans to inveigh against President Obama's speech and his health reform proposals. And it's no surprise that Fox News would function as the epicenter of media opposition to Democratic health care reform. The self-proclaimed "voice of the opposition" has taken a contrary position to the White House and the Democratic Congress on just about every issue, frequently engaging in political activism by advocating the tea party protests, the town hall disrupters, and Glenn Beck's cult -- er, 9-12 Project.
Fox News on the hunt for "czars"
Watching Fox News these days you'd think we were in the midst of the October Revolution, such is their newfound distaste for "czars" -- special advisers to President Obama whom the network's commentators have pledged to take down. Seizing upon past statements Obama's "czars" have made, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have falsely attacked several of the president's advisers, claiming that they are too controversial or unfit for their jobs, all the while ignoring these advisers' credentials or actual job performance. Hannity proclaimed that his "job" is "to get rid of every other ['czar']," and got things rolling by falsely claiming that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion," and arguing against the evidence that State Department legal adviser Harold Koh "advocates the use Sharia law in America." Meanwhile, Beck led the charge against former "green jobs czar" Van Jones, using Jones' past statements to inexplicably reassert the connection between Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
As noted above, however, the anti-"czar" fervor at Fox News is something of a new development, arising -- coincidentally, no doubt -- with the transition from the Bush to Obama presidencies. In fact, "czars" were such a non-issue at Fox News during the Bush years that Bill O'Reilly called for the appointment of several new "czars" to handle immigration, charities, and disaster relief, and not once was he denounced by his colleagues for advocating a "shadow government" with "unchecked power."
7 months, 22 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes
If that was your pick in the "How long will it take for Rush Limbaugh to demand that President Obama resign?" pool, step forward and claim your prize.
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Jamison Foser discusses how the coverage of Wilson's outburst at Obama's speech shows how the media have not learned from their "death panel" mistakes; and Karl Frisch examines why Fox News hasn't given up on Glenn Beck, even as advertisers continue to flee.
Greg Lewis brings us Limbaugh health care falsehoods here, there, and everywhere in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Simon Maloy, a deputy research director at
Media Matters for
America.















Can we get this bronzed?
Media Matters is not at all objective. I thought perhaps I could learn something here. What I learned is that MM is the same as MSM, all opinion, no substance, first, last and only time posting. Absolutely done reading this junk.
Republicans worry they're becoming known less for their ideals and more for the pettiness of their vitriol.
I didn't really think it was a question anymore...
Not to be too picky, but the last words you added aren't alliterative. The "t" in teapot is completely different from the "th" in "thunders" and "through."
According to this woman, she was a liberal, until 9/11. For some reason, witnessing the most horrific national security funk-up in our nations history under a Republican administration made her realize she needed to become a Republican to protect herself.
She then assured Beck that this crowd of hundreds of old white hicks carrying anti-Obama (-commie,liberal,etc.) signs, and "Fox Nation fan!" signs has absolutely nothing to do with politics or race.
Indiana Republican Mike Pence is on now, mentioning the (R)s unanimous stands against doing anything as the Republicans "finding their way" again.
He's being interviewed by S. Carolina Jim Demint, and they're assuring each other that there are probably as many Dems as Repubs in the crowd.
The Krazee is being ratcheted up a notch today.
In addition, she said she was supporting McCain in 2008 because he said something to the effect of following terrorists to hell.
I am surprised to see so many people (most of them Bush supporters) complaining about an extension of Bush's plans. I do not think the wall street and auto bailouts were planned by Obama.
One thing Obama spent money on is on Cash for Clunkers and it was successful in what its aims were.
Come to think of it, on ObamaCare (tm GOP), $900B over 10 years is 90B per year. If it does all that the Pres. claims it does, I have no problem with it at all. We have spent similar amounts on the War on Terror and I am not sure who it benefited other than Cheney's claims.
And yet, here are these people blaming all their paranoid feelings on Obama.
Go figure.
Which of course is exactly the thing the right-wing accuses liberals of doing all the time!
Now that's projection personified!
Although I do need to retract my kidding about the "non-partisan" nature of the 9/12 celebration. "Democrat" Pat Caddell (Ha hahaha) has just chimed in, noting that our current policies are "literally eviscerating the insides of America".
Best abuse of the word "literally" I've heard in a while.
Hmm, come to think of it, I could make one. Photoshop, here I come!
Honestly, i can't stomach the neocons anymore. All neoconservatism is is the killer and replacement for traditional Conservatism, which was killed by RONALD REAGAN and JOE McCARTHY in the 60's because of anti-communist fear. Ironically, GE, who owns MSNBC, played an unfortunate role in that, and now are trying to atone for this.
Taking sides will lead to circular thinking patterns to reinforce your ideology.
Think outside the box of Liberal vs. Conservative
"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)
In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
Good Luck..
What is important here is the Constitution !
Taking sides will lead to circular thinking patterns to reinforce your ideology.
Think outside the box of Liberal vs. Conservative
"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)
In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
Good Luck..
What is important here is the Constitution !
This a satire, right? If not, I suggest you read Orwell's History and the English Language to see that such thought (if you can even call it that) is little better than propaganda.
The Republicans are part of the government. Once they have "gained control" (God forbid, would anyone sane want these self-serving Defenders of Denial), they will be expected, from this Mob, to destroy what has been their gravy train! Have they really thought it out? Or will it be like the last administration going to war without an exit stratagy!
Loose the hounds, but beware, when the game is gone, the hounds will turn on YOU!
On the surface, these "tea parties" actually have a good theme which I fully support:
1. "protest of irresponsible fiscal policies and intrusive government"
http://taxdayteaparty.com/
2. "highlight some of the worst offenders in Congress who have voted for higher spending, higher taxes, and government intervention in the lives of American families and businesses"
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080724101850.pdf
But, there's a problem.
Why are all those "politicians" sprinkled about the protesters?
Aren't they the same politicians who have been part of the problem for the past 8+ years? And they just happen to be conservative Republicans.
And, why are the tea partiers focusing just on HC reform, and not other issues, like spending upwards of $3 trillion on Iraq (unnecessary war)?
And, why has this become such an issue now? Where were they guys a year or two ago?
It's a tea party without the tea. It's a con game.
The conservatives are using real, authentic anger about waste and fraud in gov't to con these suckers into thinking they are "raging against big gov't" when all the while, some of the biggest offenders are right in the crowds with them.
Once again, the ignorant and stupid unite for.... uh, what was that cause again?
9/11 is not a national holiday.
In fact, we haven't gotten a national holiday, since Saint Ronnie showed us what republicans REALLY think of working people when he fired the air traffic controllers, for refusing to work without a satisfactory contract. This single act destroyed the union's ability to protect workers, put less skilled people in positions where peoples' lives were at stake, and began a trend, towards a dissolution of workers rights, and gave criminals like Kenneth Lay and Bernie Madoff Carte' Blanche to behave in whatever manner they saw fit.
The message from the right was clear. SHUT UP!GET TO WORK!AND COMPLAIN WHEN WE TELL YOU TO!
And now the right is so concerned their Insurance Company masters will be robbed of their ability to gouge American consumers, bankrupt businesses, and deny services to loyal customers to protect their golden parachutes, that they will gladly sacrifice their credibility to kill any plan that would hinder that ability in any way.
Barack Obama was elected to stop this shameless attack on the average American citizen, and this issue will not go away, the way it did sixteen years ago, when the Reaganistas told Hillary to go back into the kitchen, and bake some cookies, and they killed any plan to provide us with a little relief.