The Democrats' problem with the media

by Gary Boatwright, Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:58:08 PM EST

I wrote a diary a while a back about The Problem with the Media. This time I am covering a different problem that has popped up recently.

Josh Marshall at TPM recently identified a problem that I have never quite been able to put my finger on:

One of the Democrats' greatest problems -- far more insidious than many realize -- is their desire to gain the approval and approbation of establishment Washington and its A-list pundits. The habit or inclination is rooted in a political world that ceased to exist 20 or 30 years ago, and even then was wrong-headed.

Democrats are media suck-ups and it is killing them. Republicans, on the other hand, have a much healthier attitude towards the media:

Republicans, on the other hand, have long seen the relationship as fundamentally antagonistic (if not necessarily unfriendly) and have acted accordingly. On balance, that's led to better press treatment because, though they are loathe to admit it, the mix of editors and pundits and talk show hosts respect the treatment.

How do we get Democrats to wake up and smell the coffee?

Josh also links to a WaPo column by Sebastian Mallaby, that criticizes the Democratic position on Social Security. The general idea of Mallaby's column is that:

"progressive Democrats should also admit the truth about Republican proposals: They're a heck of a lot better than leaving Social Security's deficit to get worse."

And that is from a supposedly "liberal" columnist in a supposedly "liberal" newspaper.

Common Dreams has an article that covers Bob Sheiffer's sock puppet admiration of the Bush administration. This is the portion I found most troubling:

And if you've watched Schieffer's Sunday morning Face The Nation programs, you've probably already seen. Whenever a guest has the temerity to question the motives or credibility of our 43d president, Schieffer tends to puff up like that drawing of the Wind God that appears in the corner of old maps.

Last fall, during the presidential campaign, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAullife, in an appearance on the show, made bold enough to tick off a list of Dubya's on-the-record exaggerations and flat-out falsehoods about Iraq.

Schieffer immediately went into his Wind God mode. "Are you calling the president of the United States a liar?" he blustered. McAullife, taken aback, muttered something noncommittal, when "You're damned right I am," would have been an appropriate and accurate reply.

More recently, Sen. Ted Kennedy became the target of the Wind God's wrath when he referred to some of Bush's Social Security claims as "ridiculous."

"Are you calling the president of the United States ridiculous?" Schieffer demanded. I was hoping he'd say, "I'm shocked, shocked, do you hear?" but he disappointed me.

The Bushies can relax. They're not likely to find this CBS anchor to be a drag.

Are Democrats really more concerned about media approval than the voters they represent and even their own political survival? Is it possible that Democrats are really that clueless about the media?

Today Bob Somerby takes a well deserved shot at Tweety who

led the press corps' attacks against Candidate Gore. No one hit Gore any harder--or more dishonestly--during the two years of Campaign 2000. Liberals luvv to trash Bill O'Reilly, but O'Reilly was abundantly fair to Gore; Matthews name-called, lied and dissembled. Nor did he stop his ugly attacks after Bush attained the White House. Indeed, shortly after September 11, the talker trashed Gore on the Imus program. "He doesn't look like one of us," Matthews said. "He doesn't seem very American, even."Incredibly, yes, the vile man really said it.

Chris Matthews is our enemy. Why is that so difficult for Dems to grasp? I'm not suggesting that anyone should challenge Tweety to a duel, but somebody has to get in his face and give him a richly deserved smackdown on his own show. Chris Matthews is worse than O'Liar, because for some bizarre reason Dems are compelled to treat him with a respect that he does not deserve.

Somerby also dresses down influential pundits Rachel Maddow, Chuck, Ceci Connolly, Dana Milbank and Seth Mnookin.

Understand well--the trashing of Gore was mainly engineered by the mainstream press. In particular, Gore was trashed by the Post and the Times, points of destination for young career writers. And to this day, young career scribes like to pretend that the wilding of Gore pretty much never happened. Indeed, because Gore was trashed by the mainstream press, young career writers had a strong incentive to overlook what was occurring in 1999 and 2000.

This is the kicker. This is the core problem of the Democratic party and the media:

Forget the Democrats--this is also a problem of liberal career writers. When will "liberal spokesmen" get up off their backs and describe the real work of the press corps?

Why, oh why are "liberal spokesmen" so incapable of stating the simple truth? Why, oh why are Democrats incapable of recognizing the truth about the media that has been staring them in the face and bitch slapping them for at least fifteen years?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Liberals Want to be Liked

This is a very good diary. I think, though, that the problem is a simple as "liberals want to be liked", or perhaps, "Liberals are too open-minded for their own good."

Here's what I mean by that: according to a study done of conservative political thinking, conservatives are tolerant of inequality, but intolerant of ambiguity. I suspect that liberals are the opposite.

Now, how this relates to your topic is that liberals are always too willing to see the other person's point of view. Therefore when they are "bitch-slapped" they don't respond by saying, "I am going to get that SOB" but rather by saying, "Gee, maybe I deserve to be bitch-slapped." Conservatives, convinced that they are right, don't engage in that sort of reasoning. Neither do all liberals, for that matter, but enough seem to do so to be a problem for the left.

Also, right now there is no way for a genuine liberal person to get "face time" on television, so they give the hosts what they want so they will be invited back, which helps them with their re-election.

by mrgavel 2005-03-18 12:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Columbia U and Kerry v. Bush

A couple days ago I saw a summary of report on bias in the 2004 Presidential election by the Columbia University school of journalism. The results made no sense to me. It claimes that 37% of the articles and tv news stories about Bush were negative vs. 12% for Kerry.

I suspect that the study did not edit out "news." For example, Bush performed worse on polls than previous sitting Presidents. Negative? Or just the facts. The economy under Bush was worse than under Cliunton or Reagan or even than under Bush I. Truth but "negative." The budget had gone from a large surplus to a large deficit. Over 1,000 Americans and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis have died in Bush's unneccessary war.

The media is SO biased, the facts are seen as biased. The Swift Boat reporting alone changed the election, never mind making W the hero instead of the slipshod steward of 9/11.

by David Kowalski 2005-03-18 07:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Columbia U and Kerry v. Bush

I saw a story on that, too. I remember thinking, "Boy, there's a suspect methodology in there." I didn't have time to check it out, though. I'm pretty sure someone will, though. It is just so obviusly misleading.

But it could well reflect the deeper problems of (1) journalism ethics and (2) how to objectively analyze the press. I think it would be very difficult for their metrics--any similar ones--to capture the deep bias involved in perpetuating the notions that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard, while Kerry's service in Vietnam was somehow suspect. It's Hitler's big lie all over again. It's relatively easy to measure the small stuff. But the big stuff--they're just not prepared to handle it.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 08:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Liberalism Is The Problem, Leftism The Solution

Liberals have always believed in being nice and civil. It's always been up to the radicals to be all in your face and make things happen.

The whole purpose of McCarthyism (which started well before McCarthy) was to get liberals to stop talking with radicals and force them to talk with conservatives.

This same strategy is employed over and over again. Once you get the liberals to shun the radicals, the conservatives can walk all over the liberals till the cows come home.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's nice to be nice. But you don't stop bullies by asking, "pretty please!"

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 08:16AM | 0 recs