Media Madness

So I have been watching with growing irritation as the chattering class goes blathering on about Hillary Clinton's selection as Secretary of State. They're all busy speculating on how she must have some other agenda and "oh, she'll just be uncontrollable", and "she's only out for herself". She surely must have some other agenda besides being qualified to do the job and wanting to do it. All this with nothing to go on save for their own speculation.

Most annoyingly, they're also constantly harping on about how the appointments Obama has made so far, though widely viewed as being excellent picks who are imminently qualified, represent a repudiation of his rhetoric of change. These mindless repetitions are baseless on at least a couple of levels. First, it's a bit disingenuous to insist on having non-Washington insiders. Who thinks that folks inexperienced in the ways of Washingtonian politics would be a good idea? Before you answer that, remember what happened when Bill Clinton filled his staff with outsiders. He was roundly criticized for not hiring people who knew how to navigate the treacherous political waters of Washington. Second, who thinks that by change, Obama meant outsiders? It's patently ridiculous to assume that people who know the system cannot bring change. Think about it. If you stayed with that assumption you would have to believe they all think the same way. No one would seriously argue that. The change Obama was talking about is the divisive politics that has been part of Washington.

Patriot Games

In the debate Tuesday night when John McCain said with angry words filled with indignation, how proud he was of his supporters and what stalwart citizens they are, adding that there will always be a few fringe people at political rallies, that was the time that Obama should have come back with the video here showing some of McCain's patriots. View the video here

The "Esteemed" 4th Estate

Glenn Greenwald is becoming one of my favorite thinkers these days. He writes a column on Salon.com. In one of his posts today he wrote about something that has long been a big issue for me. That issue is the ease with which some in the media these days are untroubled by people, like Karl Rove, who win by tromping all over the rules. They even cozy up to these very people they are supposed to be "objectively" covering. In their world, Grantland Rice's famous saying that it's not whether one wins or loses that's important, but "how you play the game" is no longer relevant. In their world, winning by whatever means necessary is now viewed as savviness. Anyway here's an exerpt from the post, Boys’ night out: “The Politico guys,” Rove’s top disciple and how our press corps works. Take a look at what he had to say.

"...Yesterday, Digby wrote about the ongoing reverence for Karl Rove from our political and media establishment and, quoting a great new piece by Matt Taibbi on that topic, noted that Rove’s popularity among the media is not in spite of his flagrant contempt for law, ethics and rules, but due precisely to it:

Because this generation of Americans has become so steeped in greed and social Darwinism that it can no longer distinguish between cheating and achieving, between enterprise and crime, and can’t bring itself to criticize winners any more than it knows how to be nice to losers.

That echoes what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen observed last year about the media’s ongoing reverence for Rove himself and his band of disciples — that the modern journalist, above all else, reveres and desperately wants to be close to the ”unprincipled winner”: those who engage in bad acts, ones which everyone knows are bad, and — most importantly of all — gets away with it through flagrant indifference to law and rules:

Savviness! Deep down, that’s what reporters want to believe in and actually do believe in— their own savviness and the savviness of certain others (including operators like Karl Rove.) In politics, they believe, it’s better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere or humane.

Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be. (And to be unsavvy is far worse than being wrong.) Savviness—that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, “with it,” and unsentimental in all things political—is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain.… What is the truest mark of savviness? Winning, of course! Everyone knows that the press admires an unprincipled winner."

To read the full article click here Boys’ night out: “The Politico guys,” Rove’s top disciple and how our press corps works.

I read an article in the September 27 online edition of Time magazine called In Search of Sarah Palin. The writer, Nancy Gibbs, mentioned how she missed the "spirited, sparkling character" of Sarah Palin. Once again I was struck with the willingness of so many presumably smart people, including some in the media, to attribute her performance at the Republican Convention to some ability on her part. Gullible, gullible, gullible.

I mean, okay, so she can deliver lines with sparkle and spirit, but only so long as they are crafted by others with experience and expertise in these matters. Need proof? One need only look at her sorry performance in the few unscripted interviews she’s done to see the real Governor Palin, someone who is flat-footed and embarrassingly inept on her own, when she has no pretty, clever words prepared ahead of time for her to deliver with just the right amount of sassiness.

What is the matter with these so called intelligent people?!!! Don't they get it? She's just Charlie McCarthy in drag! Sure Charlie was bright and witty, but only because Edgar Bergen kept his hand up his back and said the words for him. Otherwise Charlie was just a dummy.

You can read the article here if you're interested.

Breaking News.....Breaking News.....Breaking News.....
This just in, apparently someone screwed up and let Sarah out without her keepers. Sadly, on her way to pick up a couple of cheesesteaks at a local Philadelphia eatery, she happened upon a man reportedly wearing a Temple University t-shirt who gave his name as Michael Rovito. Rovito asked her if she thought America should “cross the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan” to pursue terrorists. Her response? In the presence of the media who happily took it all down, she replied, “If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should”.

Somehow, I don’t think she watched the whole debate Friday night. I think she missed the part where McCain said “You don’t say that out loud”. It’s all detailed at the September 27 online CBS edition of From the Road by Scott Conroy. Read more about this here.

Finally, in one of those unscripted interviews, the good governor was asked how she reacted when she got the offer to be McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. She said she didn’t hesitate, that you can’t blink. When I saw that and everytime I’ve thought of her since, I am reminded of the great philosopher, Dirty Harry, whom I paraphrase here. A woman’s got to know her limitations.

How Low Can You Go...And We're Not Talking About Limbo.

I used to kind of like John McCain. He seemed so likable and he had this self-deprecating way that was disarming. He didn't seem like a scheming politician at all. Some part of me is still angered over the vile campaign tactics used by george bush to defeat McCain in 2000. But this McCain we see campaigning today is actually channeling george bush, even as he refuses to utter the damnable name of Bush. Thanks to his Rove-trained campaign advisers, he has sunk to a low that I would not have imagined. It's just disgusting.

Now, even some in the media are squirming over the sleaze offensive. Joe Klein, no less, is finally crying foul. Check out Joe's column here. It's well worth the read.

Atta-girl Hillary!

What a magnificent job Hillary Clinton did tonight in her speech before the Democratic Convention in Denver. She was magnanimous, gracious and eloquent. She proved she has the grit and mettle to wage the kind of campaign that has already, at this early stage, left Obama a little battered and bruised.

I watched with tears in my heart, listening to her speak and thinking of what might have been. I certainly hope he proves worth losing her.

Humph!

george bush was captured on video today saying "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century". Wow. He should talk. What is this, "Do as I say, not as I do"? Methinks he speaks with forked tongue.

The John Edwards Affair: OMG, I'm So Done!

Raise your hand if you are done with these people (mostly men) who risk it all to keep Mr. Happy happy! I know I am.

Now we have former Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards, yet another guy who just couldn't keep it in his pants, who used his position of power to get it on, and then comes up with all kinds of lies and evasions to keep up the sham.

Poor guys. It's not really their fault, its all these terrible urges that they are powerless to resist, you know like dogs, it's just their nature.

If you're interested in learning more about this sordid mess read this article from the New York Times, click here

From Chris Matthews - I Hate Her!

This is from an article by Bob Somerby, from The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine 6/3/01:

In 1994, [Roger] Ailes hired Matthews for a show on NBC's "America's Talking" network. Ailes later moved him to CNBC, where Hardball was born.

chris matthews"He had a natural sense of moral outrage," said Ailes, now chairman of Fox News.

The outrage is no put-on. Aboard a recent shuttle flight to Washington, Matthews spotted New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Earlier in the day, he'd been complaining privately that, as first lady, she'd rejected a health-care plan that would allow nurses to give care to public school students because it was "too narrow-bore."

"In other words, 'I'm not going to get enough credit for this,' " Matthews told a colleague in the cafeteria of MSNBC headquarters in North Jersey. "Madonna won't get flowers brought to her. I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Tweety Matthews

I'm sure lots of you are aware of the flap surrounding Chris Matthews. There is an excellent chronicling of his offensive comments that lays out how he talks about Hillary Clinton as compared to how he talks about the men she is running against. It turns out the ratio of comparatively favorable and negative things he says about the senator run something like 8 negative for every favorable comment. Anyway if you are interested, check out the details here at Media Matters.

But, that's not what I want to write about. I really want to comment on that half-hearted apology he made, all 5 minutes of it, at the beginning of his show today. I was really turned off by it, because he conveniently skipped right past the dogged way he has hounded her in the past months, totally failing to address the noxious trend that is on record, there for all to see. None of us who support Sen. Clinton want to see her get special treatment, we just don't want her to be dinged at every turn for doing some of the same things that the men have done.

Chris Matthews will never get that. He thinks he is just telling it like it is. Problem is he is only speaking his own truth which can be summed up in the very telling remark he made some time ago about Hillary Clinton - "I hate her, I hate everything about her".

I am so proud for Hillary

So much has been said about Hillary Clinton's victory tonight in New Hampshire, I don't think there is anything I can add that hasn't already been said, and likely much better. It was just in time and has given her supporters a sorely needed shot-in-the arm. I am heartfully pleased for her and also a little more hopeful because I think she has such ability and, yes, even gravitas, I think she would make a great president.

Having said that, for some reason I feel moved to write about something else, because I have been troubled by what has been happening to Hillary, about the hyper-critical atmosphere surrounding her. So many people in the so-called "legitimate media" just excoriate her for the same thing they blow off in the other candidates. When has any presidential candidate ever been dinged for looking old and tired - complete with an unflattering picture - although it is quite true that many other presidential candidates (men) most assuredly have looked both old and tired? And, who has been subject to criticism for their laugh? The smart guys were calling it a "cackle" and discounting the image of a crone that word inevitable conjures up. When Hillary talks, she is characterized as trying to manipulate while other candidates who often are saying the same sort of thing are cast as being resolute.

Certainly some people stand out for the particularly harsh, judgemental negative way in which they have covered her campaign. I am of course thinking of Chris Matthews. He consistently finds a sinister meaning to every move she makes, every word she utters. If you watch his show, "Hardball" you can see for yourself. Watch the words that he uses in reference to her as opposed to others. Its totally clear to me that he holds her in contempt and is using his "lofty" position as a media analyst to lob bombs at her and hopefully ruin her campaign. Watch him, see if he talks about anyone the way he talks about her. See for yourself.