NY Times: Gore's return to Capitol Hill "akin to a recovering alcoholic returning to a neighborhood bar"
In a March 21 New York Times article about former Vice President Al Gore's scheduled testimony before several congressional committees on the issue of climate change, reporters Mark Leibovich and Patrick Healy called Gore's return to Capitol Hill "akin to a recovering alcoholic returning to a neighborhood bar" and asserted: "His hair is slicked back in a way that accentuates the new fullness of his face." Healy also wrote: "The prospect of another Gore campaign provides grist for critics to impugn his motives."
From the March 21 New York Times article:
For Mr. Gore, who calls himself a "recovering politician," returning to Capitol Hill is akin to a recovering alcoholic returning to a neighborhood bar. He will, in all likelihood, deliver his favorite refrain about how "political will is a renewable resource" and how combating global warming is the "greatest challenge in the history of mankind." He will confront one of his fervent detractors, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who derides Mr. Gore as an alarmist.
[...]
Almost everywhere he goes these days, Mr. Gore is met with the fuss of a statesman. His hair is slicked back in a way that accentuates the new fullness of his face. At the hotel, Mr. Gore's perma-smile folded his narrow eyes into slits as he milled his way into a ballroom. Afterward, he accepted his customary standing ovation, slipped out a back door and into the back of a Lincoln Town Car, looking almost presidential.
[...]
Not that that will stop anyone from speculating, or hoping. "I don't think he's shut the door on it either," said Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," the Oscar-winning documentary on global warming starring Mr. Gore, "although that might just be wishful thinking on my part."
The prospect of another Gore campaign provides grist for critics to impugn his motives. "He feels that global warming is his ticket to the White House," said Mr. Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
I am glad to see Gore present his findiungs to Congress . I am also happy to be reminded the First Ammendnet allows a person to speak brilliantly as well as allowing these two reporters to print such rubbish as well. we get both sides.
If you think this column was a hit piece on Gore then you didn't read it. It was even handed, even calling him a "prophet" on a major issue. Wow, what slander.
"It was even handed, even calling him a "prophet" on a major issue."
Incorrect. The Times reporters did not "call [Gore] a prophet". They were only quoting a Democrat who said that.
It's evidently you that 'didn't read it'.
You're right, it was a quote. Still, a hit piece would have no use for anything positive like that. Also, the headline refers to Gore as a "Star". I'm just saying it wasn't a hit piece.
"the headline refers to Gore as a 'Star'"
Yeah. Then in the second sentence Gore is referred to as a "heartbreak loser".
Poor Al Gore, he is so victimized these days. I feel more sorry for him than those isolated polar bears on those floating ice caps that are always pictured here.
This is hatespeech toward the rescuer of the planet; yea, verily--the inventor of rescue for the planet, AND....
...it's JUST WRONG!!!
"the prospect of another campaign provides grist to impugn his motives". exactly why would that be so? this issue is something he's been pushing for many years, and these guys write like it's something he took up last week. that shows more about their "motives".
Maybe not a hit piece, but there are clues to what the article was trying to say.
Hair slicked back - used car salesman.
New fullness of his face - - boy, did he get fat.
I do think it was a hit piece on Gore. Gore may not be the young man he once was, his substance oveshadows any physical shortcomings reporters attribute to him.
Rare moment - you must have caught me torporous - I find myself almost agreeing with you. My instinctive aversion to the MSM may have met an article which helps to disguise the lineage (NYT War on Gore).
Thank goodness for my fellow posters - mended my poor reading comprehension, slapped me back to my senses: I was near letting this hit piece go, omitting it from the database of reasons to despise the Corporate Media! But now I am saved, thanks again to all those who posted during the composition of my reply - I have seen (once again) the light.
that must have been quite a sight, you furiously typing away while others were equally furiously submitting the commentary.
I should have learned long ago, never to trust that Corporate Media, even when it appears they might have done something decent: that merely means that I didn't read carefully, or didn't bring full comprehension to bear on what I had read. But, those who did read, and comprehend, soon enlightened my dullard initial take.
"Corporate Media"...
How SHOULD it be owned? Limited Partnership? Government? "Non-profit"? Commune?
"The airwaves belong to the people. Broadcasters use them, under licenses that require localism and a diversity of voices. The actions taken by the FCC to raise the national ownership cap and virtually eliminate the previous ban on broadcast- newspaper combinations ignores that requirement, and advances corporate interests at the expense of the public's interest."
Senator Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) 2003
This comment was made in connection with a 2003 decision by the Senate Communications Commission to override the decison of the FCC to relax media ownership rules and "change the commission's behind-closed-doors, special-interest- driven way of doing business."
In fact Corporations do not really own bandwidth, they are licensed in exchange for adherence to rules effected to require attention to public interest and diversity. Just as driving is a privilege granted in exhange for demonstrated competence and adherence to the rules of the road so it is with a broadcasting license. It is a not an inalienable right and, as such, is granted in exchange for adherence to rules and conventions of public policy (such as those requiring attention to problems such as the concentration of media ownership).
That's the thing about metaphors (and maybe similes... I'm a little confused at the distinction), they're LIES, all of them.
Every metaphor (or simile) is a LIE.
In this case, it's a LIE to say that Congress is a "neighborhood bar"... and I guess it to be a lie to say Mr. Gore is a "recovering alcoholic".
And when the liars who use such metaphors are called on the manner in which they've misrepresented the truth, they resort to:
"Well, it's an analogy... it's meant to illustrate a relationship... to make more clear something, by showing it to be analogous to something else."
Really? Then explain how this particular metaphor (or simile or whatever) is analogous to the facts... how is Congress like a neighborhood bar?
Are the distasterous and Public Health threatening consequences of the extraordinary levels of petroleum and fossil fuel EMISSIONS, somehow like the consumption of alcohol, and drunkeness?
Is Federal Regulation of EMISSIONS then like the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting alcoholic beverages?
Again, metaphors are LIES when used in matters of relating facts... they serve the purpose of deception, by portraying one thing as something else.
What would have been so hard about saying it straight and flat:
"Mr. Gore's testimony this week before Congress, is akin to a former vice president and former President of the Senate returning to Washington for the first time, with regard to serving the interests of National Policy"
'Akin to'?
Excuse me, it's not 'akin to' anything... it is what it is, and does not require any colorful metaphors or similes or analogies...
...just the facts, New York Times... just the facts.
It was in fact a simile. It was a direct comparison. Saying akin to, or like or as, means it is a simile.
Way to trivialize, demean and disrespect a public servant who actually is trying to do some good for the world. The juvenile quip has the Times' Mr. Patrick Healy written all over it, who will at some near date ask quizically why oh why do Americans have such low opinions of DC politicians.
"Almost everywhere he goes these days, Mr. Gore is met with the fuss of a statesman."
Uh, wasn't he the Vice President for a few years and almost (should have been) President?
How do these idiots get hired in the first place?
"He feels that global warming is his ticket to the White House"
Isn't that better than fear and war-mongering and mentioning 9/11 every chance you get?
Everywhere Bush goes he's met with the fuss of a statesman, but no
one's complaining about that.
I can already hear Rush and Hannity:
"According to the New York Times Gore is a recovering alcoholic."
I can also hear their audience lapping up every word of it.
Good lord - the article clearly states "For Mr. Gore, who calls himself a “recovering politician,” " so a joke about a "recovering alcoholic returning to a neighborhood bar" is pretty apt....stop crying you bunch of babies. This is a pretty stupid post by Media Matters.
Randy
So why don't I see remarks like this about George W. Bush who is indeed a recovering alcoholic in the MSM??
I can already hear Rush and Hannity: "According to the New York Times Gore is a recovering alcoholic."
I think Glen Beck should be the judge of that.
Rush can chime in on Oxy abuse.
Jonny,
It is an almost certainty that that will be a tagline used, if not tonight, then tomorrow.
Likely to be heard coming from Bill O, Glen, Weiner-Savage, KFSO Morgan (right Spocko!), Coultergeist, and of course, everyones favorite American.....Rush!
How would you dittoheads have felt if the paragraph read:
"The former Vice President's return before Congress today can be compared to George W. Bush bellying up to the bar and ordering a shot of Jack Daniels again."
A paragraph like that would certainly be more appropriate and more factual.
Because Gore's own words "recovering politician" go directly to the "recovering alcoholic" analogy. He made the link from a politician in recovery, much as an alcoholic is in recovery when they stop drinking........just as he has when he stopped "politics".
Now, he's back.
Tommy don't waste your time with trying to explain it to johnny be good, he doesn't get it because he can't think outside of his partisan box.
I don't think the explanation by Tommy was a waste of time at all. He actually made a very good point, even if it is lost on some partisans.
I can see how sometimes these debates can seem frustrating, but we need to remember that not everyone who reads the posts makes a reply. The hardest part for me is to recognize when my point should be clear and to then stop posting repetative arguments.
Hey open_mind,Tommy did make an excellent point, but unfortunately Johnny Boy appears to be either too partisan or too thick-headed to get it, or admit it.
Or simply lacks a sense of humor.
Gotta find something good in Johnny's post.....
So what's so wrong with a little Jack Daniels?
I view this piece as an example of more leftwing bias from the Times. "The prospect of another Gore campaign provides grist for critics to impugn his motives."
Why does the Times assume that Gore's critics will necessarily "impugn his motives?" Is it because all critics of Gore are incapable of refuting his arguments, so they therefore have to impugn his motives? To me, this is just more of the same from the leftwing press (now, on queue, tell me that I'm a troll, off-topic, hatemongerer, whatever other adjectives you want to throw in my way, I am fully anticipating at).
THANK YOU.
Observer,
You said:
"(now, on queue, tell me that I'm a troll, off-topic, hatemongerer, whatever other adjectives you want to throw in my way, I am fully anticipating at)."
You do realize that this is a tactic by those over at Fox Noise to attempt to keep anyone from really having much to say in response to your post.
It would seem that no matter what I or anyone might say in response to you will likely be seen in your eyes as a smear or namecalling toward you.
While it is correct to presume that some in here will or would resort to that, I have been guilty of that in the past, I'm a recovering namecaller, perhaps I should join Gore, but you basically allowed yourself a chance to go unchallenged by your post!
I hear Fox Noise is hiring, you should apply!
Thanks for the advice. Now why not address my argument about the Times rather than prove my point?
So, which part of the Times quote is untrue?
Ok then,
You are presuming that the basically non-existent left-wing corporate media woud try to attempt reverse phychology by going this route on Gore?
The right-wing attack machine does this with such ease the so-called left-wings attempt would fall flat on itself.....
To be sure, this is the Times, a somewhat 'lefty' paper, but I don't believe that your assumption is correct.
Why would the Times go this route if they were left leaning? It would defeat the purpose.
As for whether you deserve to be called a troll or hatemonger.....no, I don't believe that to be the case, you might be a bit misguided in your belief (i.e. conservative belief) that Gore is a bad guy because he has decided to speak the truth about global warming.
What I can't figure out is why the corporate media, conservatives like yourself and the Bush WH is so dead set against the facts of global warming and basically anything that a liberal believes in?
It isn't bound to hurt their chances for reelection or gain credibility..... hmmm....perhaps thats it, since they have no credibility, they have decided to scratch and claw and lie and distort the image of Gore so that they can somehow be seen as credible.
Not very likely....
Because Gore's own words "recovering politician" go directly to the "recovering alcoholic" analogy.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is:
How would you dittoheads have felt if the paragraph read:
"The former Vice President's return before Congress today can be compared to George W. Bush bellying up to the bar and ordering a shot of Jack Daniels again."
I can guarantee I know exactly what Rush and Hannity would have to say about something like that.
You'll have to ask a "dittohead", since your question was specifically directed at them.
You guys are retarted! AL GORE is the one that said "I AM A RECOVERING POLITICIAN" you bunch of numbnuts...this has nothing to do with Bush. AL GORE MADE A JOKE ABOUT HIMSELF...and the Times simply added to it, somewhat cleverly. There is nothing wrong with what the Times did...I'm sure there will be plenty wrong with what Rush, et. al do with it, but that is irrelevant to the point of this rather lame Media Matters post.....
I agree the NY Times did nothing wrong. It was actually a little clever and I don't see that is was defamatory at all.
That said, it tends to ever so subtly undermine the effectiveness of name-calling when you (ironically?) misspell "retarted".
I agree the NY Times did nothing wrong. It was actually a little clever and I don't see that is was defamatory at all.
Thank you open_mind, I find the lack of a sense of humor here by some on the Left [unless of course the joke or clever quip is directed at the Right] so pitiful.
It is clever, not the least bit defamatory, and I'm not surprised that a fair-minded person like yourself can admit that :-) Now see if you can get the rest of your crew to lighten up ;-)
Jeter,
The fun part is that MMFA does see something wrong. Here is what they want their loyal readers to do:
Contact information:
The New York TimesByron Calame, NY Times public editor public@nytimes.com New">[link to www.nytimes.com] York Times letters@nytimes.com executive-editor@nytimes.com managing-editor@nytimes.com
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
All together now, we are to Email the NYT and tell them exactly what we want them to do differently in the future.
Isn't the "take action" section on every mmfa article?
What is wrong with mmfa providing convenient contact info for readers of articles (like us) to voice our opinions to the object of the article?
What is stopping people, who disagree with mmfa from contacting these organizations to express their support?
I disagree with mmfa on this issue, but I don't see your point as anything substantive.
I should have put "I disagree with mmfa on this article" instead of "issue" to keep things clear.
Nope! While they usually do, sometimes they do not. Here is one example, but there are others:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703190008
This link is correct. If you cannot click through, copy and paste in your browser window.
Open...Open...
The topic is RECOVERY, and Randy's use of the word RETART refers to loose women who fall off the wagon, and retart.
Gore/Obama '08
That's the ticket...
You'll have to ask a "dittohead", since your question was specifically directed at them.
Speechless at last!!!
I'm sure you're not a dittohead you just play one in internet forums.
So Bush has to avoid the Capitol at all costs, is that what Liebovich and Healy are trying to say?
Heck no. Bush was cured of his alcoholism by Magical Jesus, so he could never relapse.
Is a Magic Jesus anything like a Magic Negro?
Beats me. Like conservatives, I don't see color, just people.
If you're colorblind, how do you know your shackles are rusty?
Rusty, 80 to 90% of recovering alcoholics relapse, so I think Bush should be commended that he hasn't done so, no matter the source of his inspiration. Alcoholism really isn't a laughing matter. Since it is the left that has correctly imposed it upon society that it is a disease and not a character flaw, I think you all would respect that.
..it is the left that has correctly imposed it upon society that it is a disease and not a character flaw...
We did that? Hunh. If you say so...
Yes, I believe drug addiction and alcoholism were deemed diseases by the left so as to prescribe treatment rather than punishment for abuse of these substances. You don't agree?
No, I don't agree, until I see some evidence. Can you provide any support for your claim that the doctors (presumably) who advocated classifying addiction as a disease were from "the left"?
My evidence would be that the medical community in general, being into science and knowledge and advancing the human species, is inherently more liberal than conservative. And the conservative "take" on alcoholism in the past had been that it was a personal responsibility issue, and that alcoholics and drug abusers were simply weak minded as opposed to having a disease that could be treated. That's the way I remember the debate 20 years ago. I thought the debate was over.
Anyway, here's a link with some interesting stuff:[link to www.physiciansnews.com]
Trying the link again:
http://www.physiciansnews.com/commentary/298wp.html
Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. It appears that addiction as disease vs. bad behavior is an ongoing controversy.
There's no CONSENSUS?
So you've seen the results of some blood or urine tests? Who knows if old shrubby does'nt sneek a swig now and then. When we cleaned out my teetotaling grandpa's workshop we were surprised to find several cases of peach brandy.
I wasn't offended by this article, which previewed his appearance.
Let's see if the post-appearance articles are good.
Patrick Healy in the Times and his old BFF Pouting Anne E. Kornblut, now at WaPo, write at least one article each a week to slime Hillary Clinton based on nothing but insinuation and spite. Please continue to report on these 2 very poor excuses for "journalists". If you can post a clip of Pouting Anne-E. pouting or Smarmy Pat at his most lizard like I would really enjoy seeing it.
Y'all should lighten up! (rolls eyes) [sarcasm]
Dont'cha know poking fun at Al Gore is a favorite con pastime?!? (not implying that the reporters are con, but thinking that this will provide more cannon fodder for those so inclined to make fun of him (Gore))
(Thankfully Al has a good sense of humor as various appearances on Saturday Night Live will attest to).
I guess when you've been screwed by the crooks and bastards in power right now all you can do is laugh.
disclaimer: I still have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Al (yes, i voted for him) with regards to the bs that Tipper and crew got all whiney about with their PMRC business back in the 80's
And the conservative "take" on alcoholism in the past had been that it was a personal responsibility issue, and that alcoholics and drug abusers were simply weak minded as opposed to having a disease that could be treated.
So George W. Bush is "weak-minded"?
That's not exactly what I'd call him but I'm not going to split hairs.
Weak-minded or diseased, it's all good.
Yes, I think the current liberal position on this is that if a conservative abuses drugs or alcohol they are weak-minded but if a liberal does it then it's a disease.
The conservative position is that if a liberal abuses drugs or alcohol then they are weak-minded but if a conservative does it then it's a disease.
That's the way it works.
I think the overriding mindset nowadays, from any ideological perspetive, is that any blunder or excess can be "cured" with a convenient trip to rehab, of some sort.
Ouch Tommy - You do know what you just let yourself open for with that comment don't you?
(Just thinking about it, I don't know whether to laugh or to turn away as to not look like some sort of gaper at a car accident)