The Media's Moment of Truth
John McCain is on the verge of doing one of two things: he's either about to implode under the weight of his own lies, or he's on the verge of proving, definitively, that there is no political downside to telling an endless stream of bald-faced lies. Sadly, I'm beginning to suspect the latter.
On The View today, McCain told one of the real whoppers of all time. He claimed that Sarah Palin didn't take any earmarks when she was Governor of Alaska. Not only is that not true, but Alaska actually got more earmark money per capita during her tenure than any other state in the country. As TPM points out:
The other day Matt Yglesias made the following trenchant observation:
This election is a test of the political media in this country. If journalists can't find a way to dissuade the use of flagrant dishonesty as a tactic, they will have failed this country miserably.
On The View today, McCain told one of the real whoppers of all time. He claimed that Sarah Palin didn't take any earmarks when she was Governor of Alaska. Not only is that not true, but Alaska actually got more earmark money per capita during her tenure than any other state in the country. As TPM points out:
For the record Palin requested $197 million this year and $256 million last year. Per capita, that's $288 this year and $376 last year.And it's not like this is some obscure issue that McCain might reasonably be mistaken about. This is his signature issue. It's the issue he has made the centerpiece of his political life for years now. And it's the issue that he and Palin have been using to attack Obama for the last week. He knows he's lying. Blatantly. To our faces. And he doesn't care.
To give you some perspective, Palin herself requested at least ten times the dollar value of earmarks as most states get total every year.
The other day Matt Yglesias made the following trenchant observation:
It seems to me that if the practitioners of campaign journalism can’t figure out a way to make it so that lying is punished, rather than amplified and rewarded, by the press then they ought to pack up their bags and go do something else.Spot on. The most basic function of the political press is to inform the people and to hold politicians accountable. When blatant lying carries no political downside, that means the press is serving as a conduit for disinformation and, by definition, not holding politicians accountable for their statements. And if that's the case, if all that modern news coverage succeeds in doing is amplifying and rewarding dishonestly, then democracy is actually better off without any coverage at all.
This election is a test of the political media in this country. If journalists can't find a way to dissuade the use of flagrant dishonesty as a tactic, they will have failed this country miserably.
posted by A.L. at 1:32 PM
20 Comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq7Nyddt9QU
Ari Melber
Oh hell yes. This is how you stick it to a lie-spewing Republican hack, and to McCain.
I don't know who Ari Melber is, but he's a f'ing hero now. Promote his ass to national spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Watch the video! I am fired the f up.
Found the link mentioned on TPM.
And the journalist did well too. She passed the test. I can't figure out who she is, but she was properly and sarcastically incredulous of the hack's claims.
Guys and gals, spread this clip around to all the blogs. Heck, Obama should take the killer part of it and RUN IT AS AN ADD 24/7. It was the most damaging, convincing rebuttal -- and more than a rebuttal -- a full on counter attack that I have seen -- by miles. It was PURE WIN, nobly and forcefully delivered.
That is an absolutely FABULOUS clip of Ari Melber. Put him in charge of the dang campaign! Finally a lie is called a lie and a Republican liar is put in his place and not allowed to filibuster with distortions.
About the claim McCain made on the View about Palin not seeking any earmarks as governor, that was an out-and-out total deliberate LIE. They are lying their asses off over and over and must be called to account at every opportunity.
McCain is simply driving a narrative of Obama being an out of touch liberal elitist.
It's up to Obama to counter that narrative.
It's not a "lie".
I'm assuming that greg is just kidding. Or his dictionary has a different definition of the word "lie" than mine has. Either way, I'm of the opinion that Obama must see to it that McCain is held accountable for the many lies of the McCain campaign. No excuses. He needs to make it happen. Otherwise, he's like every other Democrat who can't hold Republicans accountable for their actions.
Greg, aside from the obvious pot-kettle-black nature of any McCain supporter calling someone an "elitist", it seems you desperately need some lessons in English comprehension.
I suggest you pick up the dictionary and look up the definition of "lie". To roughly summarize, a "lie" involves making a false assertion in order to give a wrong impression of something or someone.
To give you a practical example, if I start claiming that you want to teach sex eds to young children even though you simply said that kids should be taught how to guard themselves from predators, I would be lying.
But then I suppose a basic grasp of linguistics, as well as the ability to make a reasoned and thought-out argument that actually involves thinking for yourself, would be too much to ask.
FDR lied all the time. So did Clinton.
So it's alright for McCain to lie. Sure, whatever. Next please.
Anyways, AL and others who might be interested, here's a pretty interesting article from M Tomasky about the different strategies deployed by the campaigns, which might also explain the relative silence from Obama vis-a-vis McCain's attack ads
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/uselections2008.usa
In other words, the Obama campaign seems more concerned about a field and grass roots effort than winning the news cycle. It's a risky strategy of course, and it's debatable whether it'll pay off, but I do think it's worth mentioning that a lot of the newly registered voters are probably under the poll radar and that the numbers in reality may well be different.
Btw Greg, I see what you're trying to do here. It's a classic Republican tactic. Change the subject, veer the topic somewhere else. Let's not talk about McCain's flaws, let's talk about FDR's lies! Well, that won't wash. Go and take your inane ramblings somewhere else, nobody here is going to bite from now on.
This election is a test of the political media in this country. If journalists can't find a way to dissuade the use of flagrant dishonesty as a tactic, they will have failed this country miserably.
Now you're sounding like a conservative. Unfortunately, you're a bit late to the game; they have already failed this country.
For evidence, the first two paragraphs of today's Washington Post that deceptively puts a pro-Obama editorial disguised as a "news" story on the front page:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.
And that's just one of thousands.
Well, I watched a couple of MSM news reports. CBS had several examples of blatant falsification by McCain ads, but gave about the same amount of broadcast time to one ad by Obama's campaign that "stretched the truth" as they put it.
Then they brought out an "independent" analyst who said that "truth was a real casualty on the campaign trail this week."
What can you expect from an organization that can't tell Chris Coleman, mayor of Saint Paul (and a Democrat) from Norm Coleman, senator from Minnesota (and a Republican, not that you could tell from his campaign material?)
PBS reported the issue as "Obama accused McCain of lying in his ads, but McCain denied it."
There ya go, folks. No report about how Palin treated her husband as a privileged member of the Alaska state government. No follow-up on the lying, no real details on how egregious it was.
I'm sorry, I can't stand to watch Shields and Brooks, so I don't know what their analysis was, but this raises the old question: If a politician lies outrageously, and it isn't reported as lying, does that mean it becomes true?
As usual, liberals ROCK! Totally cool.
JIff
www.anonymize.us.tc
When they do point out the lying they just can't help make these false equivalencies to make it seem that this is something both sides do. I saw a news report that balanced McCain's ad in which he lies about the law which allows for teaching kindergardeners to protect themselves from sexual abuse with Obama's reference to McCain wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
The phrase you're trying to use is "BALD-faced lie", not "BOLD-faced lie". "Bald-faced" refers to a child that's too young to shave, so a "bald-faced lie" means the kind of trivial lie that's easy to discover, such as a child might tell.
I actually wrote "bald-faced" first, but then I got a few emails saying that I was wrong and that it was "bold-faced." I looked it up and at least one source I found said that "bold-faced" is more correct. But "bald-faced" is a common (mis)usage. But I'm like you. Bald-faced sounds better. I'm changing it back.
I am a little uneasy about the media being the filters -- passing on the truth to readers, blocking the political spam -- even thoughI know thats what happens now -- my preferred sites refer to someone's actions as desirable and brave; your preferred sites refer to those same actions as uncalled for and sneaky. You almost need a rating per writer -- well, John, he's a +8 for the National Review, but a +3 for the Republican Committee, so he must be in the Conservative Democrat quadrant (or would it be octant, or maybe more) -- so lets weight how much we believe him according to that rating.
No unbiased observers any more. Which is another way of saying 'Well, he might say he's unbiased, but he slammed my guy, so obviously he's not'.
I'm tired of watching Dems get spanked. I wrote a
short post with my own suggestions for ads. Too bad that none of this would ever happen (nor would your suggestion about truth-telling on Crooks and Liars ever happen) - the Dems seem to be allergic to effective campaigning. Ugh.
I think everyone should simply point out that the "Straight Talk Express" has become "The Bullshit Express".
"The most basic function of the political press is to inform the people and to hold politicians accountable."
Their job is to sell advertisement space by getting people to watch their programming, not to inform the people and be do-gooders. Those who expect the media to be couriers of truth and what-not are brainwashable. News media outlets are in the business of making money, not improving life. That goes for right-wing radio bafoons as much as left-wing shows. (Most) Bloggers at least aren't in it for the money.
I agree with whatisyourevidence... Obama should be running this AS an ad!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home