Barnes: "Republican-hating media ... trashed a perfectly respectable, though highly critical, biography of Hillary"
Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes defended author Ed Klein's poorly sourced, thoroughly discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005), claiming that the media "trashed" Klein's "perfectly respectable, though highly critical" biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). As Media Matters for America documented, The Truth About Hillary, which was based largely on unsubstantiated sexual innuendo and outright fabrications, was criticized heavily by both progressive and conservative media figures, including New York Post columnist John Podhoretz, who wrote that "200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Even Klein himself was forced to back away from some of the book's more scurrilous charges.
From Barnes's September 28 Daily Standard online column:
Finally, there's the media, more aptly called the Republican-hating media. We've already seen what they are willing to do to protect Hillary Clinton. They trashed a perfectly respectable, though highly critical, biography of Hillary by veteran newsman Ed Klein. It got so bad that conservatives, too, began attacking his book. If this is happening in 2005, imagine what lengths the press will be willing to go to in 2008 on Hillary's, or another Democrat's, behalf.
Barnes and his ilk (e.g., Hannity, Limbaugh, Bozell) have to keep up the drum-beat of "the liberal media" or, in this case, "Republican-hating media", and even use trash such as that book to support their contention.
As someone like David Brock, who was on the far right and came to their senses, I can see the hysterics the right uses to perpetuate the myth that the media opposes conservatives.
For give this brief aside, but here's a classic example from today's Media Research web site. Their question is:
Do you think the major media are exploiting the hurricane cleanup to lobby for higher taxes?
Yes - 93% No - 7%
This is how indoctrinated their membership is. If one stops to think, one can ask 'why would the media "exploit" anything to "lobby" for higher taxes'? What is gained by that? Do they 'lobby' for taxes, one way or the other? I used to think people on the right were clear thinkers. I now believe they're brainwashed.
I think you're right. The "liberal mainstream media" is like the Bigfoot of modern American politics; we keep hearing about it, but it's impossible to find.
It's a myth that has served Republicans well. Why should they stop now?
The "liberal mainstream media" is like the Bigfoot of modern American politics; we keep hearing about it, but it's impossible to find.
Ha! That's a good one! I'm gonna use that... ;)
This whole thing is absurd. Even the author couldn't back up most of the assertions in his book when he was scrutinized. The whole thing reeks of the Swift Boat Liars Club.
Imagine how dramatic the Bush Tax Cuts (deficit padding) measures are for big players like:
Clear Channel - worth 29 billion according to Forbes... which gave the initial boost to the SwiftBoat scam.
Imagine the $$ in "tax cuts" for a GE (NBC - Chris Matthews,etc., 50%MSNBC, Lockheed Martin) worth around 386 billion...
Imagine how much the huge defense budget benefits folks like GE/Lockheed makers of the Hellfire missile used on Apache helicopters in Iraq, etc.
One of the most troubling aspects of the 'liberal media' myth is it's use as a debate killer.
Talk to any right wingnut and cite something negative about any Republican that has been reported in the news. They will just dimiss it as 'liberal media bias' and state 'you can't believe anything from the liberal media'. End of discussion.
It seems quite convenient.
The other important part of this machine that you don't mention, and of which Mr. Brock knows only too well, is the money which makes the never ending spin possible. Mr. Barnes may be more than happy to do so but publishing such partisan fantasies are necessary to keep in good standing with his sugar daddy.
I seem to remember the book being soundly trashed by nearly everyone. Klein himself had trouble defending it when questioned about his shoddy research and duboius factoids. I'm sure Barnes sees no 'Hillary-hating media" on the right trashing a highly respectable, though highly critical, voice of opposition.
I was listening to Limbaugh one day (I was on a roadtrip in the middle of nowhere and it was the only station I could get), and even Rush said the book was a bunch of crap.
As publius points out above, "the liberal media" is nothing more than an imaginary troll that Barnes and his ilk trot out to scare the bejesus out of the lightly informed or to obscure their misdeeds or those for whom they toady.
The most irritating thing to me about the "it's the media" tactic is that Barnes, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, try to perpetuate the absurdity that they are somehow not part of "the media."
Fred, if you're not part of "the media", who the Hell are you?
Not only Fred, but Sean, Rush, Brent, etc. Unless they fall back on the fact that they're entertainers (on second thought, they would never admit to that).
I and other liberals complain about a conservative bias in the media when the opinion of Democrats and/or liberals are kept out.
Conservatives complain about a liberal bias when the opinion of Democrats and/or liberals are allowed in. That is the way they look at it. That is the difference because there in NO OUTLET that keeps out conservative opinion.
"Conservatives complain about a liberal bias when the opinion of Democrats and/or liberals are allowed in."
They also complain when their opinion is "left out", or not reported as fact! Here's the number one story on MRC today;
[link to www.mrc.org]
This is truly hilarious;CBS buries Earle's partisanship (!?). CBS did mention it of course, but it was 3/4 into the story (gasp!) Here's my favorite part, talking about ABC's report;"Reporter Linda Douglass cited "District Attorney Ronnie Earle" before, late in her piece, attributing Earle's partisan status to an assertion by DeLay, as if it's a matter of dispute: "DeLay says the prosecutor is a Democrat on a witch-hunt."". As if the "witch-hunt" was undeniable truth, or that Earle hasn't in fact proscecuted more democrats than republicans! Yes, the liberal bias is overwhelming...when a reporter attributes an opinion to the person who said it, instead of repeating it as if it was established fact. How dare she!
I know it's off-topic, but it's a great example of what conservatives call "bias". What a joke!
brabanito:
I went to the mrc link in your post and, interestingly, there's a short blurb about Gallup polls showing public perception of the MSM being slanted left vs. right by a 3:1 margin, with around 40% thinking it's about right. They don't give too much detail in the polls (sample size, etc) so I'm not sure how valid the data is. They just seem so rabid about crying "bias" all the time, methinks they doth protest too much!
I kinda thought that a Republican would try to resurrect Ed Klein's book. It's been only three months or so that it was made clear even to O'Reilly and Limbaugh that Republicans shouldn't touch this thing with a ten foot pole.
I thought Republicans were going to wait until 2006 to try to use this book to smear Hillary. I thought that they were going to wait until people forgot how badly embarrassing this was to Klein even among Republicans.
Check out thise two MMFA articles:
[link to mediamatters.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
how can anyone pay att to a man who sitts on world wide tv with his arms crossed like a lieing little boy these people dont get out of washington if they take Eton Thomas up on his trip to his hood would they have the same point of view
P.S. for all of thoese who race had no part in responce to KATRINA just look who they had in charge of ed all he did was tell there true feelings if not HOW DOSE A CONVERSATION ON SOCIAL SECURTY GO TO ABORTING BLACK BABYS
More shameless hypocrisy from the right. Bush critics are mean-spirited fanatics; Clinton-bashers were doing a public service. The so-called "Republican-hating media" couldn't hold a candle to the right-wing bully machine of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly et al. If he wants to talk about haters he should start with them.
Apparently, the whole "liberal media" thing took off with Nixon, when Walter Kronkite turned against the war in Vietnam, and the Washington Post went after him for Watergate. The Republicans picked up the battle cry and have been hammering at it for 30 years. That's why so many people believe it.
When I ask my dittobot friends for examples of liberal media bias, they inevitably point to Dan Rather. Even if we concede that Dan was biased, how many hours a week was he on? How much time did he devote to bashing Republicans? Now, compare this with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Dr. Laura, and all the local Right Wing Talk shows that are on basically 24-7 all over the country. In addition to that, these guys are a wall-to-wall infomercial for the GOP. Now, which do you think has the most influence, Dan Rather's body language, or the cacophany of blatant advocacy from the Right? Yet, they still bellyache about "liberal media bias". What a JOKE!
this is the same pile of garbage book that had sen. moynihan refusing to speak hillary's name when he endorsed her, and he's on film saying her name. how about "fox, the truth-hating media"?
how about a new book about the pathology of the neocons that is causing this lifelong obsession with the clintons. something like "imagined scandals: the right's hallucinations about bill and hillary".
I'd buy that...the psychology fascinates me.
I thought Barnes was more reasonable than this. The Truth About Hillary was speculation, pure and simple. "Anonymous sources" cannot be proven to be accurate or disproven, so where, pray tell, is the "respectability," much less responsible journalism, inherent in the book? Because I sure as heck can't find it.
I like the bit about how the Republican-hating media have gotten so bad that even conservatives are getting in on it. Conservatives hate Republicans, too? Who's left on their side?
-mid