When the Village turns on a President

[babylonsister]

Just remember, it's Politico; sounds like Sargent doesn't like them either.


When the Village turns on a President

By Greg Sargent, Published: May 15, 2013 at 4:23 pmE-mail the writer


A lot of liberal bloggers have harshly criticized Politico’s big, much-discussed piece today reporting that “the town is turning on President Obama — and this is very bad news for this White House.” If Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei claim this to be the case, then it’s self evidently true, though it’s unclear that the consequences of this will be quite as bad as VandeAllen suggest they might.

It turns out that “the town,” as a term describing Washington’s political and media elite, actually has a history that goes back to elite Washington’s disdain for Bill Clinton. That history is well explained here by Digby, who ultimately coined the phrase “the Village” as a catch-all description of Washington’s insular ways.

In that context, I’d argue that the Politico piece is actually quite useful, in the sense that it’s very candid about how certain aspects of “the town” actually work. This nugget from the VandeAllen piece is particularly instructive:

Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

We should take this seriously. As Ed Kilgore puts it: “make no mistake: this is a declaration of war by elements of the Beltway Media who are determined to show us all they still have the power to `bring down a president,’ as they arrogantly used to say about Watergate.”

The claim that the press now has “every incentive” to be “ruthless” is fascinating, and worth unpacking. Why, exactly, is it more in reporters’ interests to be more aggressive in its coverage of Obama right now than it was before? Easy. Now that ”the town” has turned on Obama, being as aggressive as possible in going after him will lead to accolades among media colleagues and ingratiate you with sources, including even Congressional Democrats who will presumably now distance themselves from the White House, in the knowledge that ”the town” has decided the President is in political trouble. It’s hard to interpret this any other way. This is not a particularly flattering description of the proper role of the press, and few reporters would cop to it or accept it. But there’s no reason to doubt VandeAllen’s candid suggestion that this is how parts of the Beltway media genuinely function.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/15/when-the-village-turns-on-a-president/

*************************************
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-villagers-will-not-be-ignored.html
The Villagers will not be ignored

[Anansi1171]

1. Kick and M-F-N Rec-peoples! The media can eat my shorts! Prostitutes that they are.

[tridim]

2. It's cute how hard they're all trying to blow a new fauxnews-style bubble.

Idiots.

[grasswire]

3. too bad they didn't use their power to bring down George W.

He deserved it.

[GeorgeGist]

4. They liked Bush?

Because he is an idiot; like most of them.

[FrenchieCat]

5. The media = Bought Press......

They were never on Obama's side anyways......
except for when he was running in 2008 (till the primaries were over).

They needed him to clean up the financial mess,
and now that it's about as clean as they can expect,
they don't need him anymore.

[babylonsister]

6. Yep. Hi, Frenchie! And they're going

after him with fervor.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Because it justifies their actions to the public......

although they have been doing the unjustifiable for years and years.
They are using the 1st amendment as their shield....but the first amendment
is for a free press, not a bought press like AP, who have long beeb spreading their vile far and wide
as they possibly can disguised as a wire service.

[freshwest]

10. Agreed. Anyone who believes there is a shred of neutral reporting after 2012, needs help.

[demgrrrll]

8. I think the President will prevail and these folks will wind up eating their words.

[FrenchieCat]

13. That's what my hubby said....

and unfortunately for me (in other matters), he's usually right!

[annabanana]

9. k&r ! . . They are the WRONGHEAD brigade.. Iraq was as much THEIR fault as the

neo-cons.

[Cha]

11. Good stuff, babsis.. I think you'll like these articles about the village idiots too..

Politico Turns On Obama

Mike Allen (just look how darned sugar-rushy he is today) and Jim Van DeHei live for moments like this. It allows them to do what they do best: talk about their “town” as an entity. They don’t have to grapple with policy or history; they just have to describe the mood among their connected friends. The entire piece is about atmosphere and mood and devoid of any conceivable perspective but the newscycle of the last … what is it now, six hours? When you’re writing about such ephemeral shards of narcissism, you are wont to write sentences like this one:

Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama — and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now.

Yeah, sure, the last five years have been marked by Republican restraint in their attacks on Obama – starting right with the zero votes for his first initiative, the much-needed and now-vindicated stimulus, and their continued total obstructionism to even basic things like executive branch appointments. They waited five years for this … Please.

Notice also the assertion of some facts that are clearly opinions, as in “Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric.” I don’t see him that way, although Allen and Van DeHei are entitled to their opinions. I see him as sane in a city full of news-cycle process-driven junkies like Mike Allen. But the insults don’t stop there. We have Obama’s “instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness” – not as a quote from someone else, but from Van DeHei and Allen (who used to work as Dick Cheney’s unofficial spokesperson).

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/15/politico-turns-on-obama/

THE OBLIVIOUS AWFULNESS OF MAUREEN DOWD

And while we're on the subject of Dowd, let's turn to the Dowd reference in that damn Politico story about how all the Kewl Kidz hate Obama now:

The dam of solid Democratic solidarity has collapsed, starting with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s weekend scolding of the White House over Benghazi....
Maureen Dowd as part of a "dam of solid Democratic solidity" in support of Obama? Seriously?

Do you know when Dowd first sneeringly referred to Obama as "Obambi"? In 2006. Shortly afterward -- nearly a year before the '08 Iowa caucuses -- Dowd was showing her Obama solidarity thus:

http://nomoremister.blogspot.ie/2013/05/the-oblivious-awfulness-of-maureen-dowd.html

Fucking Dowd.. "scolding Obama on Benghazi". How damn dull can she be?

[babylonsister]

12. They're just high paid gossips imo; and rethugs at that! nt