Liberal Media Zombies
Sometimes I forget just how insulated from reality much of the right-wing is. Then I come across a line like this. In response to posts by a number of liberal bloggers (including myself) calling upon Democratic presidential candidates to refuse to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News, Michelle Malkin approvingly cites a fellow right-wing blogger who asks the following mind-numbingly stupid question:
I mean really, MSNBC? Has Malkin ever noticed that two of MSNBC's four prime time slots are anchored by movement conservatives? Did Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson suddenly stop being Republicans yesterday? And how about Chris Matthews? The guy certainly is not a fan of the war in Iraq, but he's also had an obvious man-crush on both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for the last seven years--at least. Yes, MSNBC is the home of Keith Olbermann--the one openly left-leaning voice on TV--but if a network's political leanings are determined by one guy, then Glenn Beck makes CNN a conservative network.
And let's face it, anyone who thinks that Jim Lehrer, Wolf Blitzer, and Paula Zahn are the liberal equivalent of Brit Hume, John Gibson, and Sean Hannity has been mainlining GOP Koolaid.
It's astounding to me how willfully blind conservatives are when it comes to the topic of the media's supposed liberal bias. It doesn't matter how many movement conservatives are given prime time shows on the supposedly "liberal" networks. Ann Coulter could take over Katie Couric's job tomorrow and we would still be subjected to these mindless arguments.
At some point, maybe the executives at the major networks will realize that these zombie-like right-wing critics cannot be placated, no matter how many Glenn Becks and Tucker Carlsons you hire. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be pacified. They'll just keep beating the walls down and yelling liberal bias until they break through and eat your brains.
[C]an you even imagine how Markos et al. would react if righties started objecting about GOP debates being on CNN, MSNBC, or PBS and demanded they only be on FOX News?I don't want to speak for Markos, but I suspect he would react by laughing hysterically and mocking these concerned "righties" for being so thoroughly indoctrinated by their own propaganda as to have completely lost touch with reality. Seriously, how far gone do you have to be to think that this is actually a good point?
I mean really, MSNBC? Has Malkin ever noticed that two of MSNBC's four prime time slots are anchored by movement conservatives? Did Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson suddenly stop being Republicans yesterday? And how about Chris Matthews? The guy certainly is not a fan of the war in Iraq, but he's also had an obvious man-crush on both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for the last seven years--at least. Yes, MSNBC is the home of Keith Olbermann--the one openly left-leaning voice on TV--but if a network's political leanings are determined by one guy, then Glenn Beck makes CNN a conservative network.
And let's face it, anyone who thinks that Jim Lehrer, Wolf Blitzer, and Paula Zahn are the liberal equivalent of Brit Hume, John Gibson, and Sean Hannity has been mainlining GOP Koolaid.
It's astounding to me how willfully blind conservatives are when it comes to the topic of the media's supposed liberal bias. It doesn't matter how many movement conservatives are given prime time shows on the supposedly "liberal" networks. Ann Coulter could take over Katie Couric's job tomorrow and we would still be subjected to these mindless arguments.
At some point, maybe the executives at the major networks will realize that these zombie-like right-wing critics cannot be placated, no matter how many Glenn Becks and Tucker Carlsons you hire. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be pacified. They'll just keep beating the walls down and yelling liberal bias until they break through and eat your brains.
posted by A.L. at 12:48 AM
13 Comments:
They're brains are already gone, Al. Look at Glenn's piece last week where they already broke their anonymity guidelines from the war debacle.
They're senseless, dangerous idiots. They're liars. They're playing a game and everyone knows it; they don't believe in what they do and don't care about results.
Just their won fat white asses. Some things never change.
You miss one point...the "righties" think FOX a balanced network. Its all they watch. It is in fact the only news they have the courage to watch. The remark you cite is nonsence to most of us but makes great sense to the "righties".
I don't think I understand what the left is arguing when it asks questions like the one you ask?
I especially enjoy the righteous indignation of Chris Matthews as he blusters through his born-again opposition to the run-up to war.
He, along with the rest of the em-bedded media troops, shamelessly promulgated this war and was slow
to come around. He, like Don Imus
can't help but take the edge off republican vices, by gnashing his teeth over their befuddled bamboozlement. They feel they must remind us the congressional democrats don't have a way to repair the shattered pottery of Iraq. Their outrage for dems eclipses that of the wrong=headed architects.
There is a major difference between the bias of a Tucker Carlson and the bias of a Dan Rather/Katie Couric. The Carlson bias is clear and explicit -- he does not try to claim a position of neutrality between ideas left and right. This makes him a partisan, but a clearly identifiable one. The Rather/Couric bias, however, bothers many "righties" because it is undeclared, and because the Rather/Couric's present their product as something neutral and nonpartisan. If Rather for instance declared his open partisanship and stopped trying to appear to be a neutral voice, then many "righties" wouldn't scream so loudly about liberal media bias.
The Rather/Couric bias, however, bothers many "righties" because it is undeclared, and because the Rather/Couric's present their product as something neutral and nonpartisan. If Rather for instance declared his open partisanship and stopped trying to appear to be a neutral voice, then many "righties" wouldn't scream so loudly about liberal media bias.
This is rubbish. First of all, Dan Rather is no longer an anchor. Show me any evidence that the major new anchors are closet movement liberals. Second, even if they are, they generally don't write the news or have much sway over the coverage. Fox is institutionally committed to propping up the Republican party. The other networks clearly have no comparable goal. They attempt to follow journalistic norms of neutrality (often over-compensating wildly to combat accusatios of liberal bias).
And finally, there are also "undeclared" conservatives on the major news networks and newspapers. Judy Miller comes to mind. She was hugely influential in the lead up to war.
Now matter how paranoid right-wingers get about supposed "undeclared" liberals in the major networks, what matters is the substance of the news coverage itself, and only a fool would seriously claim any of the other networks are the liberal equivalent of Fox News. That's just rubbish.
It's perfectly explainable:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
They've never been taught how to think straight and not about to start now.
I used to see "media bias", or at least what looked like it.
Now I mostly see my former party affiliates scream "bias" whenever they dont like the news.
Glenn Greenwald had a good post on Jonah Goldberg and how he essentially said "This story on Walter Reed is horrible, but we cant trust it from Dana Priest. We need to get Geraldo over there so we can know if there is any truth to this".
LOL.
I think the the republican candidates should refuse to debate on ANY channel, think of all the verbal pollution we would be spared.
Although I disagree with Anon's view that "if Rather... declared his open partisanship... then many "righties" wouldn't scream so loudly," it is a valuable window into how Neocons view the media landscape.
I have heard my conservative friends tell me variations of this view, that they might as well watch Fox because "at least they're upfront about their bias."
Whether the cry against media liberal bias was ever legitimate or not, it's laughable now given the state of Iraq and the media's failure to question either the motives or consequences that resulted from neocons who saw no problem with "fix[ing] the intelligence" around the invasion "policy" as the Downing Street memo showed.
But, like any good theme, the cry of "liberal bias" still resonates with this audience, who hold up Olbermann as proof of 'bias' when Beck, Grace, Hannity and others dominate primetime.
One thing struck me along this line from Cheney's infamous talk on Meet the Press in which he referred to the article he'd successfully planted in the NYT via Judy Miller, citing it as evidence that even the "liberal media" believed this, knowing full well that he was the actual source. I don't remember his exact words, but I noticed, upon hearing it recently, that Cheney even threw in a disparaging remark about the Times as he referred to them. It was as if to say, "even the liberals, who we know can't be trusted to tell the truth, acknowledge this." It was truly diabolical the way he called the media biased while citing it as a legitimate source for a story he manufactured. Given what we now know, it was truly Machiavellian.
But yet, even now, when this manipulation of the media is known, and when the Iraq situation reveals not a liberal bias problem but instead a stenographical one, the other side still cries "liberal bias." Even more stunning is that a lot of them believe it.
The bottom line is that Bill Moyers is correct when he states that the delusional is no longer marginal. What is tragic is that at a time when radicalism and delusionalism threatens us the most, the most radical, delusional elements view themselves as the few remaining patriots, even when their view of patriotism means seeing all dissent as unpatriotic or treasonous.
As an example, when I tried to debate a woman about the Iraq war reasonably, her retort was that "my kids will be speaking Arabic pretty soon." She also said that most journalists are traitors. I know one person's views don't a movement make, but this woman's views are not marginalized or isolated. She hears them every day, cleaned up a little, on Rush or on Fox and exists in that bubble.
What's tragic is that the dominance of so-called conservative talk show hosts legitimize her radical views while the cry of "liberal bias" allows her to keep drifting, oblivious to any dissent or moderating influences.
What's terrifying is that Cheney- who appears to share these views almost exactly- has the ear of a weak-minded President who feels cornered and whose recklessness was enabled since childhood.
Today, as radicalism brings us to the brink, the true radicals see themselves as the victims of radicalism instead of its champions, and that's what's so terrifying.
At some point, maybe the executives at the major networks will realize that these zombie-like right-wing critics cannot be placated, no matter how many Glenn Becks and Tucker Carlsons you hire. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be pacified. They'll just keep beating the walls down and yelling liberal bias until they break through and eat your brains.
They won't figure it out. They'll keep doing what they're doing, and we'll keep heading towards the cliff, until we finally plunge over it.
Michelle Malkin will be piloting a new show on Fox to follow the comedy show on Sunday. She will co-host with Democratic Strategist (Fox loves them some "Democratic Strategists") Kirsten Powers and it will be about the blogosphere.
Any guess how the show will work? Here's how:
Malkin will identify some "liberal" blog as unhinged, Kirsten Powers will agree with her (as she usually does), and then everyone can conclude that the "liberal" blogosphere is unhinged and outside of the mainstream.
Regarding the undeclared bias bit. There's a smidgeon of truth in that ... in that movement conservatives don't consider bias bias if its openly declared. That's why Rush Limbaugh isn't biased, but CNN is (in the bizarro world, of course.) Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg discusses that in his book Talking Right
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/24/hannity-cbs-has-a-bias-we-dont/.
Hannity says CBS has a bias, Fox doesn't
See? If you watch Scarborough Country, you'll see media critic Bob Kohn do this all the time. The guy sounds like he's from another universe. A couple of nights ago, when Scarborough and a guest were demolishing O'Reilly's attacks on NBC, Kohn first said that Fox has higher ratings than NBC, so how can NBC criticize O'Reilly, then asked if NBC isn't left-wing, then why does it have "liberal nutcase" Olberman on at 8. Kohn said it would be like having Ann Coulter on the news at Fox ... yeah, seriously, he thinks Olberman is the liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter.
As the segment was fading out, Kohn starting blathering about the "Katie couric" style bias of NBC and that being why the ratings were lower than ABCs.
It a sad truth that you can't understand what's going on with these guys unless you've got a handle on social psychology
Matthews has admitted to voting for Bush in 2000 & '04. Also, his brother ran for office as a Republican in '06. He's definitely not liberal, in spite of Fox's insistance!
Keep in mind that the conservative world is built almost entirely of false dichotomies, the central one being the us vs. them tribal identity where the other could be terrorists, Democrats, liberals, the media or anyone pretty much interchangeably. Conservatives and their ideas do not have to be supported by their own merit, only by the unthinkable wrongness of an unconservative alternative. You are either with us or you are against us does not leave room for the concept of neutrality or objectivity.
Another critical factor is the concept of truth itself. While liberals and conservatives both have a concept of truth, it is not the same thing at all. To liberals, truth is something based in fact and sought through reason. It's something everyone has a right to seek and possess and exists independent and often in spite of the desires and decrees of those in possession of wealth and in positions of power. Conservative truth is an authoritarian truth and thus the purview of power. To conservatives, fact and reason are just raw materials and tools which those with the requisite (conservative) authority can use to construct the truth, but never a sufficient basis for those lacking such authority to challenge it. The willingness to reveal facts unfavorable to the Republican party constitutes liberal bias in no uncertain terms. Since George Bush is the highest earthly Republican authority, once he has decreed what the truth is only Rush Limbaugh has anywhere near the authority to challenge it.
Maybe the clearest example of both of these points operating together is in religion, where churches give their followers the false choice of submitting to the church's authority to speak for God, or rejecting God. The idea that an individual has just as much right as the church to seek the truth of the divine is simply not considered legitimate.
A question occurred to me while thinking of the conservative/Republican tribal identity. While I think there is such a thing today as a 'liberal' tribal identity, was there always or is it a result of the deliberate Republican strategy to bitterly and permanently divide the country? Did 'libruls' always think of themselves as a tribe or is it a grouping that was essentially forced on them by decades of derision and threats from the right?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home