Masquerade!

Not two minutes after ranting about how the American people are themselves complicit in any supposed media bias, I run across this article:

The truth about that "liberal" against gay marriage

Posing as a "liberal Democrat" in the L.A. Times, David Blankenhorn endorsed a California initiative to ban gay marriage. His right-wing funders must be pleased.

The core of it, in case this is one of the Salon articles that require a subscription, is:

"I'm a liberal Democrat." So began a widely circulated opinion piece by David Blankenhorn appearing in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 19 in support of Proposition 8, an initiative on California's November 4 ballot that would eliminate the marriage rights of same-sex couples recently recognized by the California Supreme Court …

… It is odd indeed when a person claims the mantle of a certain political philosophy while espousing an opinion seemingly at odds with that political philosophy. It makes you wonder: Is this person really who he claims to be? The vehicle Blankenhorn uses for espousing his opinions on marriage and family values is a think tank he calls the Institute for American Values, of which he is president …

… During the 15 years preceding 2006, IAV received nearly $4.5 million in funding from a coterie of ultra-conservative Republican foundations, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation, and the Randolph Foundation. These foundations supply funds for a network of right-wing Republican think tanks that promote a variety of causes such as the elimination of gay marriage, abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research; prayer in public schools; creationism and deregulatory free-market economics …

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Blankenhorn taking millions of dollars for IAV and $317,225 annually for himself and his wife from ultra-conservative Republicans. But it certainly tends to undermine the notion that he's a "liberal Democrat" who also happens to oppose marriage by same-sex couples. What sort of liberal Democrat builds his political forum and his personal fortune on the bedrock of ultra-conservative Republican money?

Think about it carefully. Not necessarily the subject matter, but the implications. Idealogues spend millions to set up a foundation masquerading as the “other side” in order to slap the “other side’s” label on positions that actually support the ideologue. It is the epitome of manipulation. And it is the fault of the people who are being manipulated. The cheerleaders of a free-market system are perverting that very system to buy people’s opinions and they get away with it because people have allowed themselves to become so conditioned to not questioning or scrutinizing.

I suddenly prefer the straightforward biases of O'Reilly and Olbermann.

The Media: The Brain-Wave Equivalent of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

McCain/Palin can’t win on their merits, so they’re running against the media. This kerfluffle about Ifill, the “gotcha” journalism jibe at Couric, the rants at the RNC. They knew then they couldn’t beat Obama, so they’re trying to convince the American people that the media is selling them a bill of goods on Obama so the people better vote for McCain because he’s the real deal, even though he can’t show it, because he says so and the media doesn’t love him anymore.

This comment from a National Review (that would be a conservative media outlet) blogger:

John McCain, formerly considered a Today Show co-host, is heading a ticket that is now running against the media.

A media lover who now hates the media. A media darling who can’t share the spotlight with another media darling. He’s jealous. Never before in modern (that’s post-TV) political coverage has there been two media darlings in the same race. And one of them obviously can’t stand not being the main show. Remember, McCain used to call the media his base.

The real problem here isn’t the media. It’s the American people who are so complicit in the lie. FOX is rightwing. MSNBC is leftwing. So? It’s up to you to see through the bullshit and stop giving them the ratings. The people are responsible for any bias in the system because these businesses can’t rely upon not having customers. I don’t watch television news. I listen to NPR, and rely upon Google News and YoTube to get me multiple sources. I don’t regularly read any of the blogs. My only 100% biased media is Vanity Fair. I love The Economist. I don’t give those major outlets my ratings. Isn’t that how the whole free market is supposed to work?

STOP GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT WHICH IS YOU! To manipulate. And infuriate so that you’ll come back for more. FOX’s only schtick is to keep saying they should be the only schtick. Chris Matthews is a screaming asshole who is not a real journalist. He’s a flaming RV on the side of the road (I actually saw that once; impossible not to stare) so he’s irresistible. I love watching Olbermann go into spasms as much as the next leftie. But I don’t pretend I’m getting news. It’s a god damn bear baiting match. You’re rubber-necking, not getting informed. And it’s your fault.

At the end of the day, the year, the decade, the century, these biases only exist because the American people love them. They want to hear only what they already think in their own heads. The current media style is the brain-wave equivalent of high fructose corn syrup. The more you ingest, the more you need, and you don’t even know where it is in your food and its damn near impossible to eradicate from your diet. But it’s poison, and with a little effort you can clear you pantry, mostly, of the stuff and within just a few weeks you discover you don’t want all that crap in your system. Same with your brain on the media. Force yourself to watch boring CSPAN, boring PBS, boring NPR. Go two weeks without the screaming matches that make up today’s television and blogs and you won’t be able to stand to go back. Then a miraculous thing occurs. You actually can hear your own thoughts and formulate your own opinions.

That’s Because It’s the Right (Correct) Thing to Do

Just because FOX does something, doesn’t make it right. Well, it makes it right-wing, but not right in the sense of journalistic objectivity and ethics. And I will always chastise my side for using the other side’s tactics to achieve their own ends.

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

“MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election … Skip to next paragraphThat experiment appears to be over … Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.”

And that’s exactly what MSNBC should have done, so Bravo. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are not, and have not been for a long time, journalists. They are opinionators, editorialists, pundits, talking heads. They may be good (in the case of Olbermann) or sexist assholes (Chris Matthews), but they are not news anchors.

Salon loses journalistic credibility by claiming that MSNBC capitulated to the right-wing because FOX still behaves badly:

“Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment.”

Because Fox News fails at all matter of journalistic standards is not a reason for MSNBC to follow it down the path. You do not defeat or correct bad behaviour with equally or even worse behaviour of your own.

The criticism leveled against NBC for using one of its most partisan (Olbermann) and one of its most vitriolic (Matthews) anaylsts as anchors is sound, no matter who it is coming from.

I did not spend eight years arguing with right wingers about the ethics and tactics of Fox, the right-wing wackos, and the Bush Administration about the so-called liberal media only to have that same defended media start behaving exactly like Fox.

Shame on Salon for promoting the very tactics they despise.

My Powers of Prediction ... They Fail Me

I predicted just a bit ago that the first interview would go to FOX. It's actually ABC.

Palin offers first TV interview to ABC News

You know the drill, cross-posted to Pandora's Politics.

The Bush Strategy Regarding the Media, Just More Obvious

A while ago, on a liberal e-mail alias I belonged to, I outlined what happened to the media under the Bush Administration. Without a lot of boring detail, what essentially happened is that journalists (that includes TV, print, and photo journalists) were slowly and systematically stripped of access depending on the tone of their coverage of the Bush Administration. This put journalists in the position of sticking to their ideals/ethics or losing their ability to make a living. I called it the boiling the frog strategy of controlling the media.

Now the McCain/Palin camp is doing something similar in refusing the media access to Sarah Palin because of the media’s “piranha” style “attacks” on her family. They’re saying if the media doesn’t treat her nice, then they don’t get to talk to her. Then they’ll carefully select one organization (hmm. Wonder which one? FOX maybe?) that gets access to her and the country will be so hungry for information on her they’ll flock to it. So then all the other media outlets will have to agree to play nice to get access to her, and voila, the media is fully controlled by the Republican Party again. I think they made it a little too transparent this time, though.

I sincerely hope the media is tired of being played like this. Yes, they’ve made their own significant mistakes, and yes, they should be sticking to journalistic ethics and have to take some responsibility for their own mistakes. So I would hope that at some point in the next two months the media shows some backbone and a desire not be made a patsy of again.

Already I like the New York Times refusal to back down regarding their coverage of her to date. Of course the NYT is the favored target of the Rove machine, but they are still the “newspaper of record” so they need to be part of leading the charge.

This is the type of journalism I despise

ABC reports on a spread by Glamour, thereby excusing themselves from 1) Any real journalistic standards and 2) propagating the type of underhanded sexism that permeated the Democratic primary run of HRC.

A Look Back at Hillary's Year in Pantsuits

WTF? Would any man ever be subjected to such a scrutiny? Of course not. And at the end of the article, ABC again excuses itself by categorizing the Glamour spread's message as "... but the spread is a tribute to the woman who won 18 million votes in the Democratic presidential primary. The real message is, "You go, girl. You made all of us proud." "

Bullshit. This is a way for ABC to do its own sexist coverage of Hillary but claim it's only covering Glamour, not HRC herself.

This isn't journalism.