Every four years one can count on a few statements being uttered throughout America.
“If _______ wins I’m moving to Canada.” This one works for both sides. I’ve heard GOP partisans and the random Democratic celebrity say it.
If it looks like ______ is losing he’ll declare martial law and suspend the election. This is standard fare this year, as it was in 2004.
A few other regulars get trotted out:
All our guns will be confiscated if (insert Democratic candidate here) wins.
The Supreme court will overturn Roe V Wade if (insert Republican candidate here) wins.
The media is protecting ______ as he is their preferred candidate.
It’s hard to take any of these statements seriously. No ever moves to Canada, guns are still everywhere, and Roe V Wade has survived no less than 23 years of GOP Presidents since 1973.
I’m guilty of the last one regarding media bias. Evidence suggests that the media massages us in one direction or another as a matter of routine. It often works. Ask a man on the street today if Saddam was behind 9/11 and chances are good you’ll get an affirmative. The media heard that lie from the George W Bush White House then dutifully refused to debunk it. W got his war based on bullshit with the media’s active mindlessness. Of course, the person we know as Barrack Obama is mostly a construction of the media and some creative conflation on his part.
Media malfeasance is not new. The most famous instance of a media conjured war allegedly came from publisher William Randolph Hearst. His response to a journalist in Havana on the eve of the Spanish-American war is legendary (and probably false). The lie points to the truth so precisely though that it may as well be true. When Hearst heard from his employee that no insurrection was occurring in Cuba he responded as only a man who wanted to sell a lot of copy would: You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. All Hearst needed was a visual hook. He’d whip up war frenzy with a few headlines. And he did. Shortly thereafter The U.S. was at war with Spain. Shortly after that we became a world power with colonies from the Caribbean to the South Pacific.
The point here is that cynicism about the media is justified by experience. The media manipulates the public and very often the public proves that they are easily manipulated. Barking about media bias in 2012 is expected…right? I do it, as do many others. We do it every four years. BUT my gnawing sense is that this time things really are different.
We’ve crossed a line.
There is a flaunting shamelessness about the Obama cheerleading. Hearst was a muckraker. He was one powerful publisher. Now nearly everyone is in on it. Much of our media establishment doesn’t seem to care a bit that they are lying. Not one bit. Joe Scarborough not only lies, he defends his lies ridiculously. For two weeks the bulk of our “free” press simply ignored the implications of the terrorist attack in Libya. Just ignored it. Why? To protect Obama. A terrorist attack happened on his watch – on 9/11! Nothing about those 2 facts help his campaign, therefore the facts were ignored. Chris Matthews gave us lectures about secret racism instead.
The attack was too big to ignore for long though. Information is unwieldy after all and in 2012 it’s speedy too. Now we know much more about the attack in Benghazi. All of it appalling. None of it reflects well on Obama, Rice, Clinton or anyone else in the current administration. The media game here was to delay. Mid September was set aside for trashing Romney before the debates. The reality of a terrorist attack bogarted the narrative so reality was ignored.
Above is one startling example. We’ve see a cascade of others this year, and they’ve often worked. I have male friends who have been screamed at by women incensed at Romney’s fabricated hatred of females – a talking point hatched by George Stephanopoulos 10 months ago and dutifully built upon by most media ever since. The Obama campaign and the media have worked in conjunction throughout 2012, often with only a thin membrane covering the connection.
I’ve no patience for ending this gripe there. The Romney campaign has largely ignored the obvious Obama/Media axis. I’ve said all year and will repeat: I do not think Romney understands what he’s up against. My only caveat now is that it appears that Romney’s team has begun to adjust its lens and may be finally seeing the obvious elephant in the frame . Even so, it’s only because Right Wing bloggers are apoplectic.
Romney’s team has acted as if it’s 1988. Back then the media had its bias, we all knew it, and so what? One made one’s case. People made their choice based on most, not all, available information. But it isn’t 1988. It’s not about simple bias. The media is drugged up on Obama. It’s crazed, disconnected, and rampaging. The only way to stop a rampaging drug addict is with a stun gun. Trash Obama, trash the media for lying about Obama, present a viable alternative. Tell us they are lying, tell us why we know they are lying, then give us a reason to hope for something better. That should have been Romney’s entire campaign strategy by May at the latest. It fits on a napkin. One can carry it around as a reminder. Instead Romney has hit all his pre planned marks and been knee capped by the media every single time.
Patrick Caddell’s recent speech to the Accuracy in Media’s Conference delineates many more instances of wild, over the top media malfeasance this cycle. It’s ugly. It’s sobering. It’s scary. It’s a messy version of Soviet propaganda…but Soviet nonetheless. Read his speech here.
Bitching about it is not enough. The mainstream media is not just a problem here…it’s the enemy. Not Romney’s enemy. I don’t care about that. Going after the media isn’t to help one candidate over another. If the next GOP President wants a war and it suits the media, they will create a war. We must confront and possibly dismantle the lie machine for the simple reason that small r republican government can’t survive it.
The media needs to feel threatened by us. Not physically, of course. They do need to know that we know the game they are playing and then refuse to play along. If the people turn on the media, the media will change. I’d start with a “You’re full of shit and we know it.” campaign directed at say George Stephanopoulos, or NBC overall. Startle the fuckers. Push back. Wake them up. Tell them in no uncertain terms we know who they are and what they are up to. Enough people do that…watch…they will ditch Jarrett and Obama like fast food wrappers on a empty highway. Obama’s team is working on the same assumption by the way. Threats, that is. Obama messaging is reported as news because Jarrett and other assorted stooges threaten in one way or another. No access. An FCC hearing on trumped up nonsense. A law suit about workplace bias…something.
And, stunned sober, the American media might then even begin to tell the truth again. Or, God bless us everyone, actually report the news.
Outstanding John.
Excellent idea. And necessary.
Great points John, I would only add that massive boycotts of the liar’s sponsors could be very effective. Abysmal ratings and unsold newspapers don’t seem to be working too well. Money speaks with the loudest voice. The O campaign knows this, watch where they put their ad money.
Totally agree with you on boycotting sponsors. Send an email to the sponsors, and cc: the CEO of the news outlets whose sponsors you are boycotting
My take:
Romney could take on the media all day and all night and call them out on every lie, and it wouldn’t matter because the media wouldn’t report it. Instead, they would remind us that Romney is so stupid that he thinks airplane windows roll down, so pathetic that he has to ask his own crowds to chant his name, and so rich and dishonest that he wipes his ass with hundred-dollar bills and doctored tax returns. It’s the same kind of “coverage” that Sarah Palin got. And when she pointed out the media bias, she was trashed as a “whiner”. (And for those who are still programmed to begin foaming at the mouth at the very mention of Sarah Palin’s name- I’m not commenting on her qualifications but on the unprecedented negative media treatment that she received.)
It’s time that we realize that the press is not independent but is a major part of the system- the system that is moving us rapidly toward a total corporate/fascist state. Obama serves the system very well and they need him to stick around to keep selling us the snake oil. He can move a lot more units of the stuff than Romney ever could, dontcha know.
While many reporters and analysts may indeed prefer Obama personally, it is quite obvious that they are also doing what they have been told to do. (And those lower down the chain simply parrot what others say. Any employee quickly figures out what pleases the boss.) This is most observable in TV personalities who are not very bright. They toe the line in such a sloppy, ham-fisted way that it’s quite easy to spot. Case in point: Chris Matthews. When Bush pulled his “Mission Accomplished” stunt on the aircraft carrier, Matthews gushed about how manly and in charge he looked. On the May 1, 2003 Hardball, Matthews said of Bush, “Here’s a president who’s really nonverbal. He’s like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West…He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him — I mean, he seems like — he didn’t fight in a war, but he looks like he does…Look at this guy!”. Now Matthews gets thrills up his leg when Obama (who is marketed as the anti-Bush) speaks, and he opines that Romney is arrogant for even daring to run against The One. Matthews was also part of the media pack that steadily trashed Gore that campaign season for wearing earth tones, sighing, lying, and supposedly claiming that he invented the internet.
There are two things that Bush and Obama have in common: (1) They have both moved the country in the direction of increased power for the executive branch, erosion of individual rights, and disregard for the rule of law and (2) They were/are wholeheartedly supported by the mainstream media. Coincidence?
And both Bush and Obama had the support of about half the population. Which, about half the population’s support, is what Romney has. Coincidence? Or???
The “choice” the Dems & Gops offer us is a lot like the product line of the Soylent Corporation.
Chris Matthews is the Billy Mays (RIP) of Corporate Media.
Wait a minute Tamer.
Soylent Green is people. Corporations are people.
Is this a coinkydink?
Brilliant post, Kim (and Tom).
Don’t forget the way Matthews (and just about every ‘liberal’ pundit on-air, and in-print and on-line) trashed Hillary. You’d have thought she was a Republican.
Exactly. Back then I kept pointing out that if it’d been Fox and Weekly Standard and Republicans attacking Hillary exactly the same way or even worse she could’ve been victorious — because she and Bill learned how to do battle with them. But the house divided battle was one they were not prepared to have. And a black man leading the movement presented a much too delicate and complicated attack to counter on the fly. That’s the only way Hillary could have lost the WH in ’08, Republicans never could’ve beaten her, only a movement from the left headed by an African American capable of seduction, and that’s why I realized something much bigger is going on here. And that’s when I delved headlong into figuring out not only the political/media/corporate/Wall Street side of this drama but also the part the American population is playing in it.
Half the population supports bread, circuses, and Obamaphones, which half should choose the next President ? Be careful what you wish for..
“The Romney campaign has largely ignored the obvious Obama/Media axis.”
That’s the smart thing to do. The vast majority of people in the US don’t trust the media anymore and even more get their news from other sources. It would be unwise for Romney to spend all his time wrangling with the media. Entertaining for us perhaps, but unwise for the Romney campaign.
“I do not think Romney understands what he’s up against…”
Romney is a very experienced business man. I think he knows exactly what he’s up against and he’s using the best strategy for the situation. Many people want to see Romney turn this into a street fight. As entertaining and validating as it would be to watch Obama get his butt kicked repeatedly, that is not a winning strategy.
This is the best argument against mine. It’s a good one. However, what I expect to happen is a tightening race “in the polls” followed at the last minute by a Romney media explosion over something that “makes” the election for Obama. The MSM will go overboard on whatever it is – then come the first Thursday or so in November they’ll cop to it a bit…but by then it won’t matter.
It goes beyond personal bias in the media or sloppiness. obama-worship is a cult.
The Libyan fiasco should be a national scandal at this point. The MSM is not just ignoring it, but actively covering it up. Which is why I only trust Breitbart, of all places, for my daily news:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/01/Benghazi-Gate-Westerners-Left-we-did-not
The hologram of Elizabeth Warren is rapidly de-res-ing the closer you look at her, yet even increasingly damning evidence of unethical & felonious activity by her is poo-pooed:
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/elizabeth-warrens-lies-catching-up-with-her/
In comparison, Todd Akin so much as farts and it makes the headlines now. Which is why I only trust bloggers like Legal Insurrection to do the journalistic sleuthing the likes of Woodward & Bernstein used to.
http://legalinsurrection.com/
Inside word is that Romney is going to hammer this in Wednesday’s debate, accusing Obama of lying (about Benghazi as well as other things) and “telling the American people the truth about foreign affairs, the economy, etc” (according to leaks from spokespeople for the campaign)
What I heard from Obama people is that Obama is going to use the words “47%” in his answers to every third question to hammer that meme home.
Listen for the words “Happy talk instead of truthful answers” from Romney in describing Obama’s assessment of our economy and foreign policy. Obama will hammer the 47% thing, and try to convey that Romney is “weird” and “not in touch with average Americans”.
Lets see how accurate my sources are. I have no expectations for Wednesday’s debate, but of course, am hoping Obama comes across as arrogant, amateurish, clueless and unprepared for the office as we all believe he is.
Oops – meant “NOT telling the American people the truth, etc.”
Howard Dean thinks we should “turn off the sound” during the debates, because “what they say isn’t important. Its their mannerisms”. Really, Howard?
Check his crazy ass out on the link below, and then go to the SECOND Dean video (on bottom left)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/howard-dean-obama-debates_n_1927385.html
Dean is what it would have been like, had Timothy Leary entered politics — at first blush iconoclastic & thought-provoking, but ultimately inane.
It is the opposite of mysterious that Mr. Dean dislikes microphones.
Sigh – another person I used to like who’s detonated his principles.
If it is safe to assume that the country is heading for the fiscal cliff regardless of who wins the election,, the real question becomes;
who do we want in place to start the clean up ?
Usn’s.
I not only don’t find it safe to assume that we’re headed over a fiscal cliff, but I think it’s downright unhealthy. It goes up. It goes down. Always has. It’s safer to assume that it always will.
Joe Scarborough’s crock of shit doctored Romney video with rebuttal from attendee who was there and blew the lid off MSNBC’s lies:
Got Fascism?
You’ve pointed out a real problem, John, (and there isn’t just pro-Obama bias in the media, I might add). But good luck fighting the bias in the media and trying to make media shed it. If you think there can ever be such thing as an unbiased media, you are mistaken. First of all, there isn’t a breathing human who does not have a subjective perception of events, news, and often on things that are considered facts, such as that 2+2=4 or that the Earth is round. Second of all, that same person will hold it as a fact that his/her opinion on whatever matter is objective. And if someone else happens to have a concurring opinion, then that’s when that other person, blog, TV station, or newspaper will also be considered “objective”.
So whenever an anchor or a journalist is allowed to add their (or network’s) perspective, either by giving their opinion in the matter, their interpretation, or by editing whatever had happened to take something out of context (for example, “you didn’t build that” or “I like to fire people”). And if they can’t give their perspective and must repeat speeches word for word and replay videos shot for shot, well, then, what do we need these anchors and journalists for?
I can think of only kind of objective media report on Obama, which would be a surveillance camera following him 24/7 – no ad breaks, no edits, no adding commentary while he sleeps.
X, I don’t expect the banishment of all bias. That is, as you point out, impossible. What can and should be expected is that the MSM will do its job.
That’s the thing, they ARE doing their jobs. They are selling their perspective (i.e, bias) to viewers, and it’s not just MSM, it’s Fox, CNN, WSJ, everyone else. If their bias sells, they are in business.
X, this is where we disagree. The PRIMARY job of a journalist is to report the facts with as little bias as possible. No bias is not possible. Never has been. Cronkite certainly had a POV but he set it aside most of the time. What we are seeing now is propaganda organs pushing their team, facts be damned. I’m not talking about nudging hard news in a certain direction – which is what we are use to – but out right, purposeful misinterpretations. Fox has certainly been guilty of this, but what MSNBC is doing is a step further. Scarborough left any credibility behind this past weekend. And then doubled down, all but saying outloud “yea, I lied. So? That’s what we do.” The cover up of the Libya attacks in the first two weeks had no logical reason except to help one candidate. This is not small stuff…an outlier event that doesn’t really matter, or an accepted curtesy like not reporting JFK’s randiness. It was a well understood – rules known by all – protection of the President on a hard news story. That’s propaganda.
An ambassador was dragged through the street then killed. The media and the Admin just made up a story about why it happened. That’s not bias. It’s abdication.
If we simply decide that news doesn’t matter at all then yes, they are doing their jobs…which is to cheerlead. That has not been openly stated. THEY claim to be journalists. We ought to hold them to their claim.
No matter who wins I promise you there will be admissions come december. “we’ll we should have been tougher on….”, “yes, there was a bias we should look at and learn from” But they won’t. The admission after it matters is part of the game.
There is a chasm between the integrity of a journalist and a profit-driven media outlet which is paying the salary of that journalist. I agree with you on what the mission of the journalist SHOULD be, and I don’t think you would disagree with me that once that news organisation employing this journalist identifies its core audience and attempts to protect and increase its ratings and profits, it will put more or less pressure on the journalist to conform with the larger corporate mission. And it is hard to bite that hand that feeds you. Only someone way up in the TV ratings, or someone more or less independent media outlets can afford to have journalistic integrity. But the former had to navigate through the same network pressure before they make it to the top, while the latter usually just doesn’t reach any significant audience. And even then, both still have their own personal biases.
Well said, JWS, you’re absolutely right. Stand your ground. We should all resist this insidious push to accept the ‘new normal’ that is the hallmark of the Age of Obama.
Truth of the matter is a large number of people are just tuning them out. Gallup had a poll recently that said trust in them is at an all-time low with 60% saying they believe what the media says little or not at all. Pew says only 9% of people called actually answer the phone and cooperate with pollsters, down from 36% in 1997. I personally do NOT answer the phone when I see it’s a pollster calling (or someone with a blocked number.) I am one of the 91%.
Look at the stock prices of the NY Times, WaPo, etc. They’re dying. Sure, some of it is a case of not buying the cow when the milk is free on the internet. But a lot more is people have other choices and use them. I’m 60 years old and for most of my life never had an idea what the names of newspapers in the UK were. Now, I can read them, and I know they are saying things that are different from the US Pravda about many things, especially Libya.
Pat Cadell has it right, the media is the enemy. But a lot of us already know it and a lot more are figuring it out. The big question is what will happen first, will they vanish or will they fix it? I’m guessing the former.
Video of Cadell’s speech mentioned in today’s post:
Caddell really nails it. The point is not the omnipresent left-bias in the media, it’s that the media is engaging in a virtual blackout of news that’s potentially damaging to Obama. That’s a whole different (and disgusting) order of things.
Oh my…the “religion of peace” is at it again. http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/01/bangladesh-muslim-leaders-call-for-pakistani-foreign-minister-and-her-alleged-lover-to-be-stoned-to-death-for-adultery/
This one I take personally — the woman in question is a distant acquaintence. I wish every Islamic mullah would drop dead…preferably yesterday.
The only effective way to send the message to the mainstream media, is to stop consuming it. Hit them in their wallets and their hearts and minds will follow. I’ve long stopped subscribing to newspapers, political magazines and cable TV.
NES You are absolutely right, it”s not the bias, it’s the blackout…
What we are up against: the MSM insistence it’s all over already for November and beyond, that it’s a billion dollars chasing the 5% of swing voters who have decided by now. What do you think? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-undecided-voters-20120912,0,1068131.column
I think they’re wrong in that the undecideds are more in the range of 10-12% — eno’ to swing the election to Romney if they break overwhelmingly for Romney (advantage tends to go to the challenger).
I hate the MSM meme that it’s all over for King Barry. They can drown themselves in their polls (heavily weighted to Dems in a year when party affiliations seems weaker than ever) all they want, but it ain’t over until Nov. 6. Until Nov. 6, it’s all American Idol all the time.
I think they’re desperate for it to be over – there’s too much time on the clock and it’s moving at a snail’s pace.
Very worth watching. Illuminating about the problem of our day.
I’m assuming you all know who Ali Hirsi is; if not Google her. Her biography gives her views a lot of credibility. Oh, and of course Islamists (always allergic to the truth about their Mickey Mouse religion) have a fatwa on her head.
Hat tip to UppityWoman for posting this vid at her site.
NES – So, so appreciate your posting this video. I had heard of her, but not yet read her writings or seen her speak. This was a gift to the group, so thank you.
This is a little example, NES, of what I referred to in saying Muslims now feel the sting of persecution.
People used to say things like this, calling Islam a Mickey Mouse religion for instance, in much less public ways, even when in public. You’d have said that to friends at a bar or in a restaurant or at a party, maybe one or two people outside your group might over hear but mostly these comments remained out of earshot of people who’d be offended. But now we write these things on the Internet where anybody can read it loud and clear. All kinds of people are offended in all kinds of ways and over time that has consequences.
I’m not saying you or anybody else shouldn’t write whatever you want, I’m pointing out that when people see and hear their beliefs denigrated and belittled and mocked, and it happens repeatedly and others join in and pile on, it results in feelings that are ripe for hurt and anger and all the responses that can grow from there.
You’re welcome, Run. (It wasn’t hard to find since UW had it up.)
“This is a little example, NES, of what I referred to in saying Muslims now feel the sting of persecution.”
With all due respect, Zal, that’s a silly example. A harsh evaluation of their religion hardly amounts to “persecution.” Mind you, in a Muslim country, I’d be persecuted — imprisoned or executed — for saying that, and THAT would be persecution.
This protection of Muslims from “hurt feelings” arising from criticism of their religion is the kind of soft-headed thinking I’ve been complaining about.
It’s a solid example, NES. Refusing to seriously consider what I’m saying is another part of the example.
We have freedom of speech and the right to hurt anybody’s feelings we want, and I value that as much as you do, but a failure to understand and take into account how cultural, or even merely thought-process, differences filter the way opinions are heard is resulting in deeper divisions and resentments. It’s getting worse, not better. And there are, potentially, major consequences at stake. You can brush that off, say it’s soft headed thinking, but meanwhile the stew boils hotter and hotter, burning the pot and eventually erupting over the edge. You can crank the flame up high as it’ll go but if the end result is just a burnt dinner and mess on the stove, a wise cook will turn the flame down.
Oh My Allah NES, you hurt the Islamists feelings by calling them a Micky Mouse religion!
You are forcing them to burn down embassies again!
For the record, I object to your slander of Mickey Mouse. I love Mickey!
Any group of people who declare that someone exercising their freedom to think and say what they want should be killed are a group of morons, idiots and savages and they should be called such continuously. I don’t care in the name of what god or supreme being they say it in, and if they “feel” persecuted because people rightfully point that out, they can go suck eggs (or suck pork).
My only problem with your comment about Islamists, NES, is why insult Mickey Mouse??!!
Isn’t Ali Hirsi married to Niall Ferguson ?
OMG, so she is, Sophie. He left his wife of 16 yrs for her. You’re definitely caught up on your social gossip.
This is appalling:
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-year