First, I don't think anyone who watched Rachel Maddow's show last night could say that there is something equivalent on FOX.
BARTON AND KING IN CHARGE
The opening of her show was a perfect example of how using slant can actually help the exposition of a point. She would be on shaky ground if her portrayal the two congressman who she held up as non-compromisers, Joe Barton and Steve King, had a voting record of saying one thing but voting for compromises. In other words, if she put too much emphasis on rhetoric than on actions.
She might have had an interview with them, to round out the whole story. She might have looked for disconfirming evidence in the background of these congressman, cases in which they may have contradicted themselves or agreed with more moderate or conciliatory views.
She might have considered other angles, for example, what the pressure might be on these congressman if the Senate and the President agree or whether there really is no 'principled' opposition on any of these issues, just a cynical use of them for political gain. But, even deliberate omission of those angles wouldn't be sufficient to make what was reported plainly propaganda.
In other words, if the case to support her viewpoint was really based on a true distortion of the facts, then let's hear about it. Is there some "there" there, in Barton's "Better Use of Lightbulbs Act" or does his "nay" on the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" say it all? Etc.
"OBAMA IS AN IDEOLOGUE"
Otherwise, this is far, far different than say, impugning Obama as a "far left ideologue" with the comments of his father on African socialism, a or a few clipped comments that look similar to those in Maddow's piece, etc., rather than the preponderance of the evidence.
Indeed, continuing to repeat that "Obama is an ideologue" of a higher order than even Bill Clinton, etc., unsupported, without any argumentation or facts, is something different. What is it? Well, it looks like repeating the lie enough until people start to believe it, right? It's tearing down the office of the President. It's tearing down one man as the symbol of the nation. In other words, in propaganda terms, they know exactly what they are doing, right?
One could argue that the Left demonized Bush in the same way, but the war complicated things. A better comparison might be Bush-41, not 43, or Reagan. Whatever you think about the media, no one in the "liberal media" set out to tear down those Presidents quite in that systematic way, that I can think of.
FOX gave Monica Crowley a platform to say words to that effect over and over (also a technique), yesterday, and gave her many others who nodded their heads in agreement or even intimated the same. If fair-and-balanced is giving someone a minute to go on-and-on then quickly whispering, "I disagree with you, and in other news today", that's a form of deliberate distortion, not balance.
In part two, we'll look at John Stewart's observation or question whether it is good for MSNBC to mimic FOX in trying to counter them.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
How is John Stewart Wrong about FOX?
The Perpetual Campaign: The Common Good is a Plaything or "Socialist"
HOW "STANDING ATHWART HISTORY AND SAYING 'NO'" IS ROUNDLY ABUSED AND MISUNDERSTOOD
Legislation is not job one. Never has been. Political power used to facilitate easy private wealth accumulation? That's closer.
It's almost irresponsible (!) to even think that there is a time for governing and a time for campaigning, a dichotomy that sounded tinny on the modern ear, when President Obama alluded to that formulation at yesterday's press conference.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Obama's Choices
Historians confer:
He can become like
Harry Truman : "Give 'em Hell Harry"
Bill Clinton : Hire "Dick Morris" and become "Triangulator-in-Chief"
Jimmy Carter : Don't become a triangulator and pretend that Democrats can be led
Ronald Reagan : Find an enemy and buy the American dream on credit
Or, he can opine that, maybe, with the new Congress, his original strategy for winning over independents might work now.
Tough call.
Michael Moore's analysis is too simple. A loud-talking President is not enough. What's better? A single message, from the White House outward through 'force multipliers'.
Compared to the GOP, the Dems just have a terrible time (1) getting on the same page and (2) getting in line to 'get the message out'.
Part of the problem, in fact, is that, as soon as they do it, "Michael Moore's" feel an overwhelming need to enter in a dissenting point of view. The Right seldom feels such a need...
In any case, a few words of principle on immigration, a 20 word response on health care security, etc., on down the line, would do a LOT.
The American Gerrymandering Festival - BYOB
SWING NO MORE - THE LAST DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, Florida ...
via ballotopedia
Update (link):
"Republicans made huge gains in state legislative races and are at their highest point since 1928.
...
This is the first time in Alabama that Republicans have controlled the legislature since reconstruction. The North Carolina Senate has not been Republican since 1870. And Republicans have reportedly taken over 100 seats in the New Hampshire House. For the first time in history, the Minnesota Senate will be controlled by the GOP."
note to readers
Catch Obama's answer to the last question of his press conference today in full.
It's a bit long, but there is more in it than you will get directly from any pundit roundup, and the media, even bloggers, are well along the way to filtering this White House as much as any other.
No video yet, that I could find, so you're on your own, for now.
The difference between spin and propaganda
Update: "proofiness" - related, check it outFOX PROPAGANDA CHANNEL
What weight should opinion polls have in "news" and/or "news/analysis"?
What is legitimate for newcasters to say about polls? Are after-the-fact polls different than polls before the fact?
I'm not talking about polls that we know can be shaded to get the answer one wants. I'm talking about polls that are deliberately misused to support an opinion or to "make news".
These questions are brought up with FOX coverage today (and almost everyday).
To that end, I'm bumping up the item below, taken from earlier this week. And anyone who thinks Olbermann is the same as FOX is gravely in error."It's a vote against Liberalism". Another propaganda generalization?
Fact check: What "policies of liberals", enacted by Obama, have failed, in the short time he's been in office?
TARP? Anti-terrorism? Car company bailouts? Wall Street bailout? Economic stimulus via huge tax cuts, about 50% of the whole package (was stimulus itself liberal and not mostly math)?
The turgid O'Reilly says, "I've never given out misinformation" (11/1/10). But is that the whole story?
Epistemic bubble at FOX will not answer or present these questions. That IS a form of misinformation. Why won't they? Because doing so would prejudice the answer, the answer they want to leave in their viewer's minds, the tautology that Hannity himself alluded to directly tonight: liberals "always" failed because they are liberal.
Separately, consider Hannity's interview with Angle. Did they get out the facts - just hard facts - about the alleged fraud or was at least half of it dealt with in generalities, broad assertions? Isn't the failure to get to who, what, where, when, and how pretty much misinformation? Even making allowances for how much one person might know, there is no way an objective observer could say that Hannity covered the whole story. Deliberate or not, that's not creating an informed listener, enough that one would conclude that was not the objective of the interview.
The Presidential Voice
He's not there, 100%; but perhaps still developing his own style.
Reluctant to pointedly raise the bar on the competition, to throw down the gauntlet, in the way Reagan was able to consistently do, without appearing "disagreeable". Still, the conciliatory tone is very wise and probably genuine.
Not reaching out over the heads of Congress or the press, yet. (Compare: "If you don't want your taxes raised when the Bush cuts expire, I ask you to call your new GOP Congressman.")
Missing that mysterious combination of 'stump speech' or clear talking-points and leadership "vision".
Separately, someone (Glenn Greenwald) should do a Nexis search to see how many times the word "gas tax" appeared before the election and how many times it is about to come up, just to show that we never really talk about anything that matters during election time, that $4 billion dollars spent on campaigning is probably at least 75% eyewash.
p.s.
- Accelerated depreciation will add to the deficit - it's a huge tax break.
- Sad to see, in general, that it was only the GOP grasping to get their brand back, that led to the mainstreaming of the term "credit card of next generation", when the Dems sat there and let Bush use 'the credit card' for eight long years, focusing their major protest on Iraq.
- Loved the way he made a molehill out of the '1099 issue'.
- How truly humble it is for a President not to even mention that he's running two hot wars and ask people to 'give him a break' about all the things he's left undone? I continue to be stunned by pundits who seem to not remember or have no consideration of just how much energy and life has been sucked out of wartime Presidents - just look at their white hair - by the enormous consequence of having troops in harms way, of national security so directly on the line.
Gay Americans Wake Up Wednesday to Find the Spirit of Jesse Helms Lives On
I'm still counting the number of comments like, "My new Senator/Governor/Representative is a vicious homophobe".
[Update: I'm not going to downplay election wins in which Andrew finds heart, but I'll take a supreme court justice (or three) over even a representative amount of gays in office, any day, given the lack of political power that gays as a minority have. I have no idea what 'even in Kentucky' means - gays can shoot straight, too. *chuckle*]
Thought for the Day
In the Senate, Republicans showed that they can be competitive in every single state/race.
Democrats appear not to be.
What percentage of the Senate is 'incontestable'?
Spitshine Has No Eggface
whistling past the graveyard...
see
That was in December, mind you, before a single vote had been cast.
Accountability 2010?
How the Senate Democrats who voted against the Obama administration on fixing the foreclosure problem fared:
Baucus (D-MT) :: not up for vote in '10
Bennet (D-CO) :: another six years of the Senator from the Mortgage Bankers Association
Byrd (D-WV) :: died
Carper (D-DE) :: not up for vote, pretended aloud just yesterday that GOP was to blame for "obstructionism", at risk of infecting Coons
Dorgan (D-ND) :: not up for vote in '10
Johnson (D-SD) :: not up for vote in '10
Landrieu (D-LA) :: not up for vote in '10
Lincoln (D-AR) :: lost to Republican
Nelson (D-NE) :: not up for vote in '10
Pryor (D-AR) :: not up for vote in '10
Specter (D-PA) :: lost, then Sestak lost, too
Tester (D-MT) :: not up for vote in '10
Separately, can't help but think of all those "freshman representatives" that the Dem leadership protected from having to vote on the Baldwin Amendment, by having it withdrawn. Is there a lesson in there, somewhere?
2012 - Pundits, pleeeease
There are two, maybe three (Iran), big fat "wars" between now and 2012.
We do not live in ordinary times, still.
GOP USHERS IN NEW ERA OF INFLATION RISKS
Looking at the GOP's plans, I think we can all agree that they are potentially highly inflationary, perhaps even stagflationary, assuming they avoid cuts so large they double dip the economy.
To mockingly quote Michelle Malkin, "It's time someone started to tell the truth about how the Young Gun's economic policies will hurt America."
It was only a week ago or so that the bond markets, anticipating a GOP win, sold the first ever negative nominal yield on TIP-securities.
The problem with Bayh
IMMEDIATE CAPITULATION - I THINK NOT
It's not that he's wrong on the facts, but that his prescription, mere "triangulation", is dead wrong.
The hope of any political party is to convince people of your ideas, to create an environment in which they flourish, no? It's to do transformative politics, to use public diplomacy to change the terms of the debate, how things are understood and perceived.
Accordingly, rushing to "Republican lite" is not a long-term viable option for progressives.
The conventional wisdom is that everyone thinks that the way to "run an economy" is to become "business friendly", whatever that means.
But, if you sacrifice "worker friendly", then why shouldn't your workers just move to a nation that is friendly to them?
Indeed, "free trade" and "business friendly" are policies that somewhat chauvinistically assume that mobility of labor is not a decision factor.
And, of course, it may not be in to whatever degree in practice, but it could be on paper, if you catch my drift (remember how much flak Maggie Thatcher took for "let them move house!").
Dems must rally to "protect" the President
EXCHANGING NIHILISM FOR STAGNATION
If you haven't noticed, the GOP-Teapublican message machine will soon be ramping up the subtle message that *everything* that occurs, every showdown, is a referendum on the President.
After hanging two year's worth of their nihilism on Democrats, they will now want to hang two years of the stagnation they will create, by cutting spending during a downturn/recovery and firing Federal Employees, around the President's neck.
Note of the day: "Gridlock"
Every Democrat who complains about "gridlock" should be fired.
It's poor messaging, the wrong words. Think about it - it's too much of a two-edged sword. It's too "abstract", potentially, as well.
One can say the same thing another way.
NATION PUTS TEAPUBLICANS ON NOTICE: FIGHT CORRUPTION OR ELSE
They went to change government, but all they did was fire Federal Employees.
That's not going to fix broken government is it?
Do pundits agree that it's time for Team Obama to revive their good governance themes?