Monday, April 09, 2007

The conservative media machine

The conservative media machine still chugs along, even as Bush-brand neoconservatism has fallen into disfavor.

That's the message of "Why are they trying so hard to distract us?", the latest piece by Larisa Alexandrovna. (Also see here.)
Instead of editorial pages demanding to know why Cheney's friends, handpicked to serve in top positions at the Pentagon, would have lied to their dear chum about something as serious as a war (they likely lied to the President), the major papers were busy making fun of Nancy Pelosi's state - California - as though it were some strange evil appendage without any right to have representation or the ability to produce a savvy diplomat.
Let's not forget (I will never let you forget) that CA residents pay more to the federal government than they receive in goods and services -- as is not the case in most states that went for Bush.

The bottom line:
The national media continues to self destruct under the weight of its politically purchased editorial pages. Not content to simply slink away quietly after leading the nation into a disastrous war of choice through negligent and even highly corrupt reporting practices, the editorial boards of all of the major newspapers - still apparently strapped collectively into a mission accomplished payola flight suit - continue to play political attack dog for their paymasters.
Even with the rise of the blogosphere, newspaper opinion sections carry weight. How can we reclaim the editorial pages? They were relatively fair back in the 1970s. How can we achieve true balance once more?

(Side note: I once toyed with the idea of becoming an editorial cartoonist. But it's very hard to break into that field if you cannot please the right-wing editors who control most newspapers. Truth be told, that's a hard nut to crack under any circumstances.)

Paul Krugman sounds a theme similar to Larisa's:
Now there’s Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as “bad behavior” — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration’s reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy — which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.
Also see (if you have not already seen it) this important bit of videoblogging by Josh Marshall.

The Pelosi trip constitutes but one example of the larger phenomenon. For another example, scroll down a couple of posts and read our discussion of the Reuters story which was rewritten (either by Reuters or by the Washington Post) to conform with the White House worldview.

The Bushies have discredited themselves, yet BushMedia is still there -- like a kicked-out roommate who still insists on parking in your driveway. What to do?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I was reading this post I damn near fell out of my chair. Wolf just did a piece concerning the GOP's use of non official emails to hide their content. Could there still be hope for the MSM? I doubt it but things are changing. Keep up the good work Joe and the rest of the usual suspects.

MEP

Jilly Hall said...

"...Let's not forget (I will never let you forget) that CA residents pay more to the federal government than they receive in goods and services -- as is not the case in most states that went for Bush. ..."

Same goes for New Jersey, and New York!

Anonymous said...

Joseph, you do the work of an entire newsroom. For whatever it is that drives you, we are all grateful.

Anonymous said...

On editorial cartoonists, I remember Steve Bell, one of the two guys doing that job at the (UK) Guardian. When Blair was elected in 1997, the editorial column said it was the greatest opportunity for the radical movement in Europe for a generation. I didn't make that up! It stinks really bad when middle class tossers can say they had illusions when Blair was elected, that everything was going to get better. It's not true - at best, they are lying to themselves.

At worst, well do the details of their screwed-up minds matter that much?

Blair stood on a right-wing platform - openly praising the 'achievements' under Thatcher. Which, let no-one forget, boiled down to the vicious smashing of most of what was bearable or pleasant in the country, such as remaining bastions of goodwill, community, and honesty; and the drowning of everything under a sea of 'enterprise culture', meaning the conman and greedy lying exploiter was king.

Blair, fed his words by Jonathan Powell (think of him as a sort of Karl Rove without the exposure) said he would take these 'achievements' further, and that's precisely what has happened.

Anyway, what was Steve Bell's take at the time of the 1997 election? It was to write an article, complete with a photo of himself (very rare for the guys who do that job), saying all of his dreams had come true, and there wasn't anything for him to satirise any more.

I don't know what he really thinks, nor do I care. He probably doesn't really think what he said. His editor must have asked him to write that stuff, and he said yes, sir.

b

Anonymous said...

A millionaire may pay more tax than a pauper... Beware that line of thinking...

b